Whoa what a reaction. I wasn’t going for validating what they did by criticizing the replacement of information about their political ideas and actions with the word “extremism”. But that seems exactly how people understand the term. As if there was a righteous or acceptable “middle” the degree of deviance signified how good or what smth is… The political compass needs to know what things are about, not how “x-treme” they are.

Or we need to use that term on any bombing of people, like for example “the extremism of [any us president]”. Step 2 would be picturing what benefit that would add to the conversation

“EXtrEmisM” he seemes to have been in a relatively semi dogmatic anarcho kinda group

A factor might be that no one likes to be remembered theyre soon to die…

It is deeply inspiring what this oevre tells us about the dialectics of meaning developing between a post and it’s audience. Even with no inherent meaning the picture unfurls the deepest human desire to connect and to form communities, especially in disconnecting times and virtual places of refuge from it.

No I’m not going back to reddit. I will stand with you, withstanding the most selfreferential, the most empty, in hope of a we to fill that void.

Clearly visible he was exquisitely good of a boy. May his goodness subsist in his pack.

You might wanna watch this. It is one interpretative framework you can see it through.

https://youtu.be/5xEi8qg266g?si=kzI_g4tbNm8Xkiac

Not sure if this is meant to normalize or to reflect violent handling of the billionaire-problem. Sure you are good at posting nevertheless.

Good meme. But what is this “rule” thing about?