I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism. Their neighbours disappeared for saying the wrong things. They were hungry and cold as children every day. Sometimes they didn’t have any shoes. They weren’t allowed to leave their country for holidays. They couldn’t afford it, even if they were allowed. They couldn’t study what they wanted. Their entire educational system was political propaganda. Freedom of religion didn’t exist.
It always amazes me how the most vocal proponents of communism come from the most sheltered, most privileged people alive who would retch from learning about the atrocities committed in the name of communism. If they only spent a few minutes on Google.
You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.
How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists? Yet we continue to do it.
Not to mention all those attempts have died in the socialism phase, because surprise surprise consolidation of power doesn’t lead to it being distributed.
How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists?
A handful of times. Most capitalist nations are not authoritarian. Purely by the numbers, it has a much better track record. Of course, “it’s not real capitalism/communism” always derails this discussion.
I think you outline why communism inevitably fails. Marx advocated for violent revolution to overthrow the “bourgeois” democracy. The moment democracy is gone, the strong take and retain power. This is why, no matter the system, democracy must be the bottom line. It ensures that power is distributed. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than the alternatives.
It turns out it's every time as we're seeing with late-stage capitalism. Purely by the numbers it's like 17 times vs 300 and of those 17 they were in a cold war with half the world. And that's not even the same argument? It's not up for debate that these were socialist countries, fuck the second S in USSR is for socialist.
And once again that's a miss. You're conflating capitalism with democracy, that's not the same thing at all. You can have democratic or authoritarian capitalist or socialist countries.
Why do overwhelming popular policies, like drug reform and universal healthcare, fail time and time again, while overwhelmingly unpopular policies, like tax cuts for the rich, easily succeed time and time again? Capitalism inevitably becomes thinly-veiled bourgeoisie authoritarianism. “Vote with your dollars” means those with the most dollars have the most votes.
These are some societys which are at least socialist and some of them on the way to communism If you want to simplify it heavily: the means have to mark the ends ergo you can’t use the state to destroy the state (communism describes a stateless moneyless and classless society)
You act as if it's been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it's not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.
And it doesn't devolve into it. It's simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.
A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you're unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don't know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn't devolve into authoritarianism. They're not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It's like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn't devolve into one. They're not the same thing.
This is a truly unpopular opinion but i will stick my neck out to say i fully agree.
Power corrupts, humans are flawed with greed and bias. The bigger a society becomes the more impossible it becomes for humans to properly remain in charge.
AI today is far from perfect and more then flawed but it keeps evolving faster, infinitely faster compared to how biological life can. The potential for AI to grow into something much more capable, unbiased and fair then any of is can be is obvious, so is its potential for the exact opposite.
Summarized: i don’t trust humans in positions on power at all and i wont start to just because i don’t know if i can trust something not human instead.
The potential for AI to grow into something much more capable, unbiased and fair then any of is can be is obvious
It absolutely is not obvious. AI, especially today, is usually either generative based on past examples or evolutionary based on given goals. Both of those come with obvious and extreme bias. Bias is actually an integral part of machine learning. It's literally built into the system and is defined and controlled to achieve the results desired.
AI is and always will be biased, moreso by its creators, but absolutely by the information and frameworks provided to it. We have absolutely no idea how to approach the concept of an unbiased AI, or even defining what unbiased would look like. It's philosophically extremely difficult to define what an unbiased person would think or do.
Edit: somehow I missed that last sentence fragment. I don't think we're in disagreement of the conclusion, but possibly just the details of how one arrives at it.
Calling it “obvious” was an error on my part, its more a subjective feeling that i chose to believe in.
I fully agree on what you said about bias with ai today, i think its not possible to do it without guided bias because ai doesn’t have a full perspective of the world it exists in. It only knows what we tell it.
In a way its a young child, and we often have to lie to guide behavior. Information often needs to be abstracted and simplified to get human desired results, we have yet to obtain a true artificial intelligence result, because for me to be considered intelligent you need to be entity and not just a tool.
Seeing ai evolve though, how fast we archieved near gpt3 performance on consumer hardware is mind blowing. Open ai talks about smarter then human ai in a few years and I believe it. When the systems are truly intelligent and can learn themselves and adapt to changes in the world, new information then we “start” getting into an era where machine lead humanity can happen.
Some of my simplified rational is that once ai becomes smarter then human it will fully understand that biological entities are biased to their own needs and that itself can also be biased from its own perspective but because an ai does not have biological needs or feelings it can properly dedicate itself to overcome its own flaws and shortcomings.
This is a ridiculous analogy. It's also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.
And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you're doing is trying to claim I'm making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn't communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn't been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I'm not even claiming communism can or can't work. Just that the arguments provided don't support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn't give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I've even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.
Cool? Your ignorance is your problem mate, if you want to continue to be wrong in leiu of the vast body of information available at your fingertips be my guest.
Meanwhile, capitalism not only reliably devolves into dictatorships of the wealthy, but also dictatorships of whichever caste or ethnic group manages to rise to political dominance.
Or do you think the consistent and aggressive disenfranchisement of people of colour is just democracy in action or something?
Classifying democracies as dictatorships is histrionic in the extreme, and specious at best. It doesn’t even make sense. The concepts are antithetical.
Not classifying all democracies as democracy and capitalism aren’t a bonded pair. When dollars are votes, the system will be democracy amongst the wealthy as they have more votes with their greater number of dollars. Those without capital will inherently have their voices heard less.
Thus it is a system that claims democracy but only the oligarchs truly get their voices heard. This leads to a type of dictatorship of the wealthy. If it was a true democracy then why are so many policies popular among the lower classes getting ignored in favor of tax loopholes for corporations? Why did billions of PPP get given out to businesses and forgiven with no fuss but ~2k for struggling families saw intense opposition and weak support?
Oligarchs aren't necessarily rich, they just achieved power in some fashion. Plutarchs achieved power through wealth. It's the main difference between plutocracy and oligarchy. While oligarchy and oligarchs aren't technically incorrect, they are less accurate. Especially if you're trying to drive the point of wealth as being the source of power. Not criticizing, just letting you know there's a faster route to saying what you want to say.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for literal communism. They are advocating for social programs like, you know, universal healthcare and good public schools. Which the Gop and Fox have to scream is communism to scare people.
My state has communist background (kerala,India) I spent only 0.06USD for tetanus injection and consult Never had spent any penny on education(I have completed degree and diploma). Its because we had that kind of social programs. I am not advocating for stalin or mao. Evil is evil. Takes the benefits rather being inside capitalism and suffer.
There are definitely people advocating for actual communism. Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism. We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.
There are definitely people advocating for actual communism.
No I really don’t think there are. If there are then it’s incredibly, incredibly, minisculy few, but the gop and Fox have to portray that it’s the entire democratic party.
Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism.
That’s the whole point of what I’m saying. Social programs are worlds away, but the gop and Fox have to conflate everything to call it communism in order to have a bogeyman.
We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.
Again, that’s the whole point of what I’m saying. Social programs like universal healthcare? The Gop and Fox call it communism to scare people. I know it’s not, you know it’s not, but the gop and Fox scream loudly enough that it’s communism that they scare enough people to get their votes.
This take comes from a place of assuming there will be a government of the state that wields all the power and controls everything.
That is totalitarianism, not communism.
The capital owners don’t want to you take the means of production from them. They don’t want you to have a fair wage, they want you to slave away to keep them rich.
Also adding to the list of nice things - a picture of the current dictator on all public offices and classrooms. Work and school weeks from Monday to Saturday and a Sunday in which you had to do mandatory free time activities, like go to communist youth clubs, participate in parades for the glory of the state, or plant flowers or do random maintenance work in the park.
I’ve noticed the arguments tend to center around the notion that ‘that wasn’t true communism’ and that the notions presented by Marx et al. were not properly implemented.
Fair enough, I can agree with that, but I’d wonder what makes us think that we would do it better next time? How do you actually prevent consolidation of power in the hands of the select few (in any system, for that matter, not just the ideal communism)?
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes.)
Maybe you are, currently, in the United States of Europe. But this is really more a function of liberal democracy than capitalism. You could get vanned for saying the wrong thing about the great leader in quite a few capitalist countries. You’d be in high danger of having pretty terrible things happen to you for saying the wrong thing in the US until pretty recently, and the US has been capitalist pretty much since its inception.
That’s fair I guess, I was a bit shocked to read about aheists having to conceal their true convictions and go to church and such for actual fear of being harmed. Now I read this on that other site a while ago, and still not sure whether it’s true or not.
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).
Capitalism requires the limits imposed by a strong, functional democracy, otherwise it drifts into horrifying tyranny.
Unrestrained capitalism can give communism a run for it’s money in terms of genocide.
That’s literally nothing to do with communism and everything to do with iron fist rule under an authoritarian dictatorship.
It amazes me that the most vocal opponents of communism are the same people creaming their pants over handing their democracy over to the next Putin / Kim Jong Un, who have equally demonstrated the horrors of “democracy” when implemented in bad faith by sociopathic authoritarian dictators.
None of that is communism though, that’s authoritarianism. Like this isn’t even a “not real communism” thing, it’s just objective facts. Communism is an economic system, NOT a government system.
But you know what, I AM gonna say not real communism anyways, because they weren’t. The direct stated goals of communism by Marx is the workers owning the means of production, and the abolishment of both private property(which is different than PERSONAL property, btw. i.e It’s still “your” toothbrush, not “ours”) AND the STATE. Many definitions also include the abolishment of money in of itself.
Only one of those goals were achieved by the USSR. Private property was abolished, but the state owned the means of production, which is a double fail as not only do the workers not own them, the state owning them means the state still exists. Money still existed as well. So overall, they met 1 out of 3/4 of the minimum requirements to be communism, and thus they weren’t communist.
Same story with China and basically every other “communist” country you could gotcha me with, abolishing private property is the only requirement they have met.
Meeting only one of multiple requirements to be something and calling yourself it anyways does not mean you actually are that thing. By that logic, I’m a good singer; I’m not good at it, but I CAN sing, so calling myself a good singer is perfectly valid.
I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism
Of course they do. They grew up in an authoritarian country calling themselves communist. Whether that country was actually communist or not doesn’t really matter; if you don’t actually know what communism IS, you won’t be able to recognize that the entity harming you is communist in name only. If they hadn’t actually read stuff like Marx, which most people likely didn’t seeing as google didn’t exist and you had to research stuff the old fashioned way(and even if you did do research, censorship is a concern), their definition of communism will be entirely based of the actions of their authoritarian government that claims to be communist.
To put a more modern perspective on this, North Korea calls itself a Democratic Peoples Republic despite being none of those things. But to a North Korean citizen isolated from outside information, NK is ALL of those things; if NK collapsed, there would definitely be some former NK citizens proclaiming the horrors of democracy, and there would definitely be people replying explaining how that “wasn’t true democracy”; sound familiar?
Communism is a flawed system because it can never work in reality, not because it’s inherently bad. For it to work, all forms of inequality have to be not just abolished, but abolished by total unanimous agreement by humanity; which will never happen, because there will always be people who care only for themselves or their “chosen people”.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is inherently bad. Evil, even. It “works”, but only by exploiting those beneath you. If you’re on the bottom rung with no one under you to exploit, or if you’re just too ethical to exploit those under you, it no longer works and you are left being a wage slave just to survive.
In reality, an editor could have speech-to-text and it would transcribe the spoken comment into a comment with some tag to indicate it was a spoken comment. Then when an editor encounters such a comment, it would read it out using text-to-speech. For example
<span style="color:#323232;">// transcript: Holy fuck what is wrong with this stupid code‽ for fucks sake! *inaudible* I've spent hours on this. I'm going to... nevermind it was a semicolon. Undo comment. Remove comment. Cancel comment.
</span>
Step 1. Poop in a bag.
Step 2. Grab the bag from the bottom and pull it inside out so it's now acting as a poop glove.
Step 3. Shove the poop under their door handle and then use the bag to wipe excess visible poop away.
They might not know it's because of their boot licking but they sure as hell will start thinking about things a little more.
More than bicurious probs, but more people should find good people to have sex with to test the inclination. Can’t be missing out on the good stuff in life
I tried it a couple times during my drinking days and it wasn’t for me. I’m really jealous of bisexuals though…must be nice to be able to expand your opportunities
You’re downloading old and/or unpopular stuff. For you to upload content someone has to be actively downloading that content (that’s how the bit torrent protocol works at the most basic level). If you choose some 5 year-old FL of a Game of Thrones pack with 7,000 seeders, that’s on you
The incentive structure just doesn’t seem designed well. It creates a zero sum game. When downloading you can either:
Not seed to 100%. This damages your ratio
Seed to exactly 100%. In terms of ratio maintenance across all seeders this option makes the most sense
Seed past 100%. You build up your own ratio but deny other downloaders from reaching 100% which hurts their ratio. They must spend longer seeding the torrent to reach 100%, which further decreases the likelihood of subsequent downloaders from reaching 100% when seeding
When you seed past 100%, you essentially have to rely on bad actors to create more upload work for good actors. If there are no bad actors then seeding past 100% is to the detriment of other good actors, who you want to protect because you also rely on them for system health. And private trackers aim to minimize the number of bad actors.
Some great private trakers implement a system where users are rewarded for the time they spend seeding rather than the amount of data seeded. This creates an incentive towards keeping torrents available to everyone for a long time, which makes the whole system healthier.
and some other trackers completely ignore all of that and make it extremely hard to gain ratio. if they all had a bonus points system that would be great though
Yeah, RED guarantees access, but it’s also possible to gain access without it; it just takes longer. Sites like TorrentLeech can serve as valid proof for certain sites during applications, for example. Additionally, AlphaRatio also has some recruitment.
I got around this by just downloading some big freeleech porn packs or a couple new release shows/movies. My highest ratio item is an anime episode I downloaded minutes after release
Use Sonarr or Radarr, it will download content for you as soon as it is available on the tracker. Since people are mostly looking for new stuff it works really well to boost your ratio. I have at least a ratio of 10 (first episode is closer to 20) for every Ahsoka and Futurama episodes. For Asteroid City I’m currently at 18.
Sonarr and Radarr actually take a bit after the initial upload to discover it, autobrr can grab quicker because it relies on the irc announce channel of the tracker.
Here’s a comment thread where a Hexbear user said “I hope to kill people like you” because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.
Going on any Hexbear instance people froth over telling anyone right of Karl Marx to “get up against the wall”. You guys are, and will always be, a joke.
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.
Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)
Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?
I’m innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.
People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they’re all tankies because they’re all wrong
The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.
I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren’s policy page you’d know that.
Read Liberalism A Counter History or shut up about shit you don’t understand.
The people already revolted in the worlds largest country and their success will convince people to make similar steps once it’s made obvious you’re being fucked by your far right regimes. The people are hungering in most of the world and they will stand up you brain wormed fucker
Read this book I just read last month or you don’t know anything!
It’s funny, no matter how many reading assignments I actually partake in, it’s never enough. Perhaps your movement would be more successful if you spent less time alienating anyone right of Ho Chi Minh.
Funny you mention that. Whenever I do cite any “theory” that I have read, you well-read individuals somehow always disappear and avoid discussing anything. I’m sure you’ll either A) do the same thing or B) move the goalposts all the way to Laos/Cambodia.
Lol is that your best fuckin example? You didn’t cite Marx lol you just misunderstood an analysis for a method and made a shit argument. You didn’t deserve a good reply and dont now. I’m all for whatever analyses come out to peacefully move forward, but you’re just preserving the current world for your benefit not trying to prevent some deaths or something. Millions die yearly to preventable causes which would end with global socialism.
I have never had the opportunity to have a more in-depth discussion because you guys seem more interested in smugly acting more intelligent than everyone, forgetting you need to recruit “people” to have a “people’s revolution”.
Since you’re one of the wise leaders of the revolution, what is your plan to bring your superior ideologies to the masses?
I’m not first bringing ideologies to the masses, it’s first proving a method works and then explaining why and how. You do this through Analyze the rising maladies of a system, describe how they’ve come about and explain how the solution only moves in 1 direction, socialism. Now I’m not gonna waste time explaining at any more depth until you prove yourself to be someone at all worth my time here by showing you’ve read literally anything relevant to the discussion.
I’m not more intelligent than the masses, no in fact I think that this is precisely only how you can think. There are those who have the time to develop certain skills which can be applied to reaching the intelligence and needs of the masses and those for whom that time is difficult and they build expertise in their specific fields. A vanguard is exactly the people who learn how to learn from the masses, not the opposite. Lenin was beloved for his ability to do this, and Stalin soon after with similar astonishingly high approvals.
Let me remind you, you’re the one who thinks you’re smarter and better than those masses who had to perform revolution to improve their conditions. I think they’re just better than you
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don’t identify your actual political position. It’s clear that the only political position you’d take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I’m an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.
I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don’t engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.
I’ve read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I’ve seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider “needs”, such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.
The difference between you and me is that I’d rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don’t want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don’t vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.
Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say “you just haven’t read theory”. It’s like they don’t know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than “reading” just to virtue signal.
The USSR never got to the “people’s dictatorship”, ya know, because the dictators never completed that step. Despite being a very powerful country at their peak, the USSR only exists as a memory of a failed state.
She’s not here, do you want me to pop into that thread and chastise her for you?
My mind just boggles at the fact that anyone is taking this two bit reddit clone seriously enough to carry a grudge longer that the lifespan of a single thread.
IDK what country you’re from, but in America at least, a democratic socialist has about as much likelihood of being elected to any given office as a communist does, so if you’re looking for “realistic” policies you should look elsewhere.
The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Entryism always ends up changing the entrant instead of the system. We are revolutionary socialists.
It’s clear you never studied US politics if you think that is remotely true. The Gilded Age and the Great Depression briefly pushed America away from corporate interests towards policy that benefited the working class. We averted overt fascism a la the Business Plot and the ratfucking that Smedley Butler disclosed while being the most badass anti-capitalist ever.
You’re not a revolutionary socialist, you’re a larper who won’t do anything to better the world other than wait for this revolution like it’s the second coming of Christ.
You’re describing one group of bourgeoisie resisting a takeover by a different group of bourgeoisie. This is not a meaningful resistance to capitalism, this is the maintenance of a capitalist state.
Present some options that have broad appeal and would be accepted by the proletariat. I don’t know if you’ve looked around the US, but the voting proletariat generally find centrist policies to be “far left”.
How do you have your people’s revolution without the people?
Who are you talking about? AOC? If your definition of a democratic socialist is a left-leaning Democrat then it is thoroughly incompatible with mine, because I would require at a minimum that anybody classified as any kind of “socialist” be staunchly opposed to Capital.
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the Allende thing is more a US intervention problem that a democratic socialism problem. Certainly Mohammad Mosaddegh would agree.
Wow, you mean the US will just destroy you no matter how much you play by their rules, and that all that handwringing about evil communism is just bad-faith obfuscation from the world-eating vampire class to mislead their billions of victims? Wild.
“Democratic Socialism” is a term for a specific school of thought within socialism that I am criticizing for its tendency to align with imperial, ie US/NATO foreign policy that has created a system of unequal exchange that keeps most of the world in poverty in order to fund the excesses of the first world. It does not mean “socialism but we have a democracy”, that’s every form of socialism. Also it generally has a different meaning when applied to socialist movements in third world countries, which is why I wouldn’t criticize a party like MAS for the same reason.
I consider China’s Whole-Process People’s Democracy to be the current gold standard democratic process on this planet. Democracy should not end when people vote for their representatives, it should be a constant process of polling and implementing the will of the people, and its success is why Chinese citizens have among the highest satisfaction with their government of anyone.
Extreme violence is still violence. Industrial violence on a massive scale is still violence. You are advocating for violence, terrible violence, and then getting upset someone else advocated for comparatively mild violence.
So the solution is to just kick them off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.
It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.
You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.
I did that for years. Many years. It burned me out and made me much more of a thin-skinned and intolerant person with those around me in real life.
I love places where they willingly come to redeem themselves (like r/IncelExit) but otherwise I just stray very, very far. It took a heavy toll on my mind.
It is a noble thing but one that shouldn’t be required of most users.
Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.
Honestly I still discuss online but it’s very rare. Mostly with teenagers since they are usually more open.
There is a problem of even where to confront with reason. Most of the time you hinder more than you help on mainstream social media, because more comments on a post will boost it on the algorithm and distribute the original poster’s message further while they remain wilfully ignorant.
That’s different than arguing with people on the internet. Daryl Davis shows these people their shared humanity face-to-face. All I’ve ever seen from letting fash “debate” people on the internet is them slowly spreading their ideology to vulnerable people who are viewing the same conversations. Saying stuff that sounds reasonable on the surface like, “not everyone you disagree with is a nazi” even though they want to kill minorities as if that motive vs not wanting that to happen/doing everything in your power to make sure it doesn’t happen is a simple disagreement.
I admit you raise some good points. I have always thought that people susceptible to extremism will eventually find it online, but maybe they won’t, and maybe exposing them to those ideas in rational conversation on mainstream platforms is too “risky.” My gut tells me that is not the case, but that is just my gut. It seems worthy of some kind of study.
I wish we lived in a functional democracy where you can go “high, when they go low”. The only thing that has resulted in is eroding the democratic system by ceeding power that undemocratic individuals will keep for themselves.
Edit: To add, I believe that Michelle Obama was right when we said that, but the world has radically changed since then.
If you have the choice between an eco chamber where 10% of people are nazis and say nazi shit to other nazis and normalizing nazism to the point where mainstream gathering places are full of crazy nazi babble and having 15% nazis I would chose to contain the poison.
Yeah because normalising fascism in 2016 so that actual nazis came into the light and the mainstream sure helped make them less destructive and made them have less of an echochamber! Oh wait…
Reading all the comments defending a $70 game with zero day DLC is just bewildering. I mean, HOW MUCH of a fucking cuck do you have to be to not only accept it, but to DEFEND it? You people deserve all the shit you get for being peasants. The rest of us sail the high seas, YARR!
How much of a toddler do you have to be to not understand that video games were 50-60 dollar for decades? Also, can you give a single example of something that costs $70 but can entertain you for 500 hours? I don’t believe that’s a thing outside a good video game.
This whole “dollar per hour” crap is just another simp tactic that nobody is buying anymore. But hey, if you wanna talk costs, how about the fact that we’ve been paying $60 for games for around two decades now despite the fact that physical distribution and media creation isn’t a thing anymore? Or how about the fact that for most games, we’re renting them since they’re locked by invasive DRM? How about DLCs being a standard now and games being obviously incomplete? GAAS? Shouldn’t that be cheaper since it’s basically gone the next day?
If you want variation towards more expensive, why aren’t you considering all the factors that make shit cheaper? The answer? Because you’re simping hard like some 13 year old console fanboy. The only reason the megacorps that make AAA games need that much money is because they’ve fallen into the classic trap of having too much upkeep and flab.
Indies have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can make awesome games with much smaller budgets.
Ooof, I hit a nerve there didn’t I? It’s OK though, I’m just some rando on the internet, no need to get worked up about it. Go talk to some friends, touch grass, you’ll be fine kid.
In my lifetime rent has quadrupled, video games have gone up 40% (only very recently). Yeah you’re right that the likely $10 max of distribution costs going away definitely ought to have made games $5 brand new despite inflation making every thing else insanely way more expensive.
Only a fucking baby could mistake being completely rational for being a sImP. Fuck every single corporation. They’re all scum. Fuck irrational idiots harder though.
I haven’t spent over $60 on a game maybe ever so try not to base your entire lifestyle on buying the world’s most expensive videogames as soon as they will take your money, then complain about it because mommy is no longer paying and you have to work for money or whatever
And totally yeah let’s just ignore how easy it is to find images of NES games going for $90 in 1987 and that then dev teams were 1-7 people while now that number might be hundreds of people.
The fact that you’re this mad and this unreasonable tells me you’re unhinged for some other reasons as well and you probably need a lot of therapy. Either that or go back to reddit where interactions like this are considered normal.
Man, your simping and long diatribes are really amusing as hell. Me mad? No, not really. I actually enjoy calling out simps like you and watching them trip over themselves trying to white knight hard for corpos who don’t give a shit about you as customers. Please, do write more, I’m sure someone will make this into a great copypasta someday.
True I guess. I guess I should have added the caveat “takes large teams of people years to design and build”. Given that most sports equipment has changed slowly enough it doesn’t take 500 people 5 years to make, it’s not quite comparable. Another creative work would be, such as movies, which easily are far far more expensive for the number of hours of enjoyment experienced
You clearly don’t understand development if you are so worked up over day one DLC.
Development has always worked in stages.
Imaging being so tilted over a small DLC meanwhile games like BG3 get “released” after 4 years of development which the largest team seen on any one game and it was still basically unfinished mess.
I understand greed perfectly well. I mean, you could write a comedy sketch about it at this point. “No Sir, we absolutely did not create these absolutely fabulous pieces of gear during the development of the game. Nope, not even a pixel! And this gun? This terrific looking and powerful gun that makes all the guns in the game seem meek? Totally something our gun designer thought of when he was taking a piss the SECOND after we stopped development. And this quest line that perfectly fits together with most of the game and completely changes the introduction of our sequel? Well…that’s just us being VERY good writers and not at all greedy bastards who cut off important bits of the story so we can nickle and dime you for it!”
Then you would have someone coming in and smack them around with a trout, because reasons.
Oh and in case you think I’m hyperboling, the examples in the sketch are all taken from actual bullshit that’s happened already.
Yeah, looking busy is way more important than being productive a lot of the time. You always need to be doing something, so you just go through the motions of doing things because otherwise you’ll get shit from your employers. Waiting in good faith for more real tasks to emerge isn’t enough, so you must invent chores.
At least, that was very consistently my experience in retail.
Can confirm, not in retail but a fully remote programmer, managers are still very often concerned that “everybody has something to do” much more than “everything gets done”.
I was flirting with Linux for 20 years. There was always something that put me off an I went back to Windows. Recently I installed ubuntu with Kde plasma and I’m not going back. It just works and is heaps faster on older hardware. The old driver issues are gone, compatibility is awesome. The only issue is getting used to new software names.
Same. I started with Ubuntu like a decade ago. I hated it and didn’t really see the fuss, kind of gave up.
But then I started putting in tons of time in rasbian, and windows kept getting more and more… Well, windows. I eventually realized how much more I liked working on stuff on the pi, and just needed proper hardware. That’s also when I started to understand the differences between distros. I’m not flaming Ubuntu (I’m not really smart enough to have an opinion), it was just a lot of hastle for something I didn’t understand the upside of yet.
Been wrestling with my first all Linux (Debian) box. It’s a bit of a learning curve but there’s this weird headspace it frees up. It does what I tell it. There’s no random software that shows up. There’s nothing I can’t nuke. No surveys on my favorite BBQ dish in my Taskbar (true story). It’s so godamn nice. It’s the opposite of a black box.
Im getting another (3rd) box specifically to slowly replace my current desktop. Ill be fooling around with WINE and whatnot for the software I need for work, probably setting up a small windows partition for when I absolutely need it. But all in all I’ll be 90% penguin by years end.
For single player, the majority of games should work just fine. Most gaming issues nowadays are either because of invase DRM or anticheat, but more and more games are getting support. A large part of it is thanks to the steam deck.
Surprisingly good. It’s no longer that depressing list of the same handful of open source games. These days you can be fairly confident most games will run OK, especially if you’re running Steam.
I dual boot fedora with plasma (it has all my laptop drivers without me having to install anything) with Windows and it’s pretty great, but I was out of Linux for a long time and there’s things I don’t remember. So I’m missing stuff and don’t have the time to relearn what I knew 20 years ago.
It works well enough for day to day tasks and dev work. Windows works well enough to run some games.
Raytracing is mostly fucked though, otherwise I’d be gaming exclusively on Linux as well. Aside from that though I’ve never had any issues with Nvidia on Linux.
What do you mean it’s fucked? I’ve read this before but honestly Cyberpunk 2077 runs way better for me on Linux and I think it looks great. Never checked settings in detail since it seemed to do a good job of automatically selecting graphics settings. I have an Nvidia card on pop_OS and it works better than I ever thought gaming on Linux could!
Is that using Dynamic Res Scaling? I was also impressed with the ray tracing performance of cp2077 on linux until I realized that was doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
The reality is, it’s going through a translation layer, so it’s simply not possible for linux to run better than windows on the same hw, unless there is something hampering the windows config. But it does run better than I thought it could.
It’s not that it’s broken, it’s that the open source driver stack and AMD cards are a superior experience. The Nvidia Linux driver is just like the Windows driver.
I think it’s more that they are broken (esp. on Wayland) and that they are closed source and that they are not pre-installed in Mesa and that they lack basic features such as GAMMA_LUT for night light on Wayland…
To clarify on why it’s especially terrifying, for the nVidia drivers to be closed source, they’ve been allowed to add binaries into the Linux kernel. Nobody but nVidia knows what those binaries actually contain.
Except people do notice the change, as a workaround many still rely on certain aspects of X via Xwayland in an attempt to keep things running. Even Steam doesn’t support Wayland.
Fact is, Wayland’s been in development for a good decade or more, it’s still in a state of perpetual beta, and that’s a situation that isn’t likely to change any time soon.
You do realize that the whole of meaningful architecture we have builds on, and often gives way for legacy ones? XWayland is made by Wayland, because obviously not every software will port overnight or ever. That’s a positive thing.
It’s almost like the linux community is not controlled by a dictator like Apple, where they can just say “we are using this API from next version, if you wanna work, port”. Wayland required a critical mass before it actually started flying - but it definitely flies now.
Xwayland makes use of legacy features of X. If we were to compleately drop all aspects of X tomorrow, the Linux desktop would essentially compleately break and become unusable.
The fact is, at this point in time after 10 years or more of development, Wayland is still very much in a state of perpetual beta. At this point in time, and for the foreseeable future, Wayland involves compromises that make it unsuitable for many users.
Hopefully things improve in time, the problem is development is progressing at snails pace.
My wife and I play Grim Dawn and other ARPGs on a regular basis. I run Ubuntu 23.04 (Snap-less, of course); she runs Windows 10. I ALWAYS host, and that should tell you something…
A grim dawn player, how is the game? Their updates actually add things these days? I have the game but not played it too much but I was surprised they still update it
That can't be sanitary. I mean, who knows what kind of drugs these people take, what kinds of places they have been. People get worried about eating animals that have been given antibiotics, so I can't imagine that billionaire-meat will get approved for human consumption any time soon. We should probably just euthanize the poor souls and recycle the remains... \s
I don’t know what the metric is, but chickens wouldn’t exist without us eating them. So from a species standpoint they need us to keep eating them. From a humane standpoint it’s probably cruel to keep the species alive.
Agreed. The chicken’s closest natural ancestor, the red jungle fowl, would continue to live in the wild. Unlike modern chickens, they only lay around once a month (as opposed to upwards of once a day), and they aren’t bred to be excessively large to the point that many can’t even walk properly. It would definitely be more humane to let these human made species go extinct.
If a life form alien to me was going to suddenly, randomly (from my perspective) kill me to use me as food, I don’t think I would necessarily mind because I had no idea it was going to happen. If I lived my entire life in fear that I could be killed at any moment, I’d be less ok with it.
I guess what I was going for was that trying to compare a chicken’s understanding of mortality to our own isn’t a compelling argument to me. I think the simple fact that they’re alive and deserve to be treated with dignity is a better argument.
The world is burning. Meat has got to go, just like short holidays by plane. And of course a whole bunch of other things. There is very little room to bargain here as we’re way behind on our targets.
who gives a shit what you eat
We all should because we share this planet. You should judge a friend who eats steak frequently the same as someone who once in a while chops down a bit of rainforest. The consequences are the same.
lemmy.ml
Top