Old internet to me is straight up pointlesswasteoftime.com, which eventually got absorbed by Cracked like a cheap suppository after David Wong (aka mediocre comedy writer Jason Pargin) sold out. That was in 2007. And now Cracked is functionally a content graveyard.
It got bought out by the company that owns KnowYourMeme, ebaumsworld, and the “I can has cheezeburger?” website in 2019. That’s pretty much all you need to know.
It’s a thing that has started to appear because of mainstream social media deleting post with “bad vibes”. Kill, suicide, and such vocabulary are actively repressed to “ensure happiness”
That makes sense. Avoiding censorship is reasonable. I was thinking some people did it to avoid triggers, as if seeing 'rpe' or 'kll' isn't the exact same thing as seeing the words spelled out.
Yea YouTube and TikToks automated demonetization is definitely a big part to blame for this stupid trend. It also annoys me as an enjoyer of YouTube murder porn.
It’s especially dumb because there is some extremely heinous stuff on YouTube that is still monetized, and when a video is demonetized for a channel they still play ads all over it, too.
Yeah they don’t like when people talk about mental health issues. Go kill yourself in private and stop getting your bad vibes all over my nice, clean website.
I forgot how ignorant and self-righteous Reddit liberals were. The ones I’ve seen are easily the loudest and dumbest people on this network of federated instances. They have their “conviction” and “is wrong” sliders completely maxed out.
Since you can’t see the irony in your initial comment, let me spell it out for you in a way you might be able to understand:
You drone on about maxed convictions while being wrong. But, you’re literally doing the same thing that you whine pointlessly about: your original comment is nothing but a shitty, baseless generalized opinion about a large group of people, with zero substance.
Thank you so much for showing me that not every liberal I meet here will be ignorant and self-righteous. I can no longer say that has been the totality of my experience with them. I now have hope that my next encounter will be just as positive as this one was.
Look, you started hot in this thread but tired after a few comments. They adjusted, you didn’t, and you got rocked; it happens. Hit the showers and we’ll get after it early tomorrow with some film.
A guy named “420blazeit69”, who is clearly some kind of shitty LLM wielding troll farmer from his comment history, told me I got rocked. Guess I better call it a day!
Hey! Do me a favor since you’re sitting next to 420blazeit69 at the troll farm. Tell him you guys better start winning some of these online arguments or else you’re both going back to live in the shitty commie blocks, drinking nasty ass potato vodka all day!
Instead of (poorly) attempting to sow discord in a place you will never visit, amongst people you will never meet, don’t you guys have an inkling of desire to do something, you know, productive and upward with your life? I’m sure there has to be a better option in your society than grinding it out in a shitty troll farm.
i’m sure there has to be a better option in your society than grinding it out in a shitty troll farm.
Sadly, no. Here in the United States of America, there is no opportunity for those outside the ruling class. Hence I spend my days posting away in hexbear.net’s volunteer troll farm.
I mean, I have pity for you having to sit on here and be sour and awful all day long. So I guess I have some of my humanity left? As for you, maybe you should try to find something more positive and upwards in life instead of trying to derail a bunch of people on the other side of the planet.
Literally the most upvoted comment on the whole post is about shitty troll farm bots like you. Apparently you guys are having a hard time “blending in” 🤣
Oh man can you imagine modern commie blocks with modern materials being built in cities instead the same dogshit five over ones? Owning a commie block with your commie neighbors, getting together and deciding to paint whatever, or knock some walls out and make an indoor community garden…
Once you troll farmers start to lose control of the arguments, you always end up here in THEEIR RacIST, SEXiST HOMOpHobEs because you know you can’t keep up the focus on the subject.
I love that you dumb ass troll farmers have nothing to do all day but bicker in your little self-made echo chambers. Enjoy the fruits of your (pointless) endeavors!
Do you think a troll farm would really spend that much time talking to itself? Are you so arrogant that you believe they’d do that level of kabuki theater in order to impress you?
Sorry your government (most likely Russia or China) is so shitty they have to pay you to (poorly) convince the rest of the world that they are even close to being as awful as them. I said nothing about any one’s race, but you’re doing great at redirecting.
It’s not my government, and neither is Russia, but you aren’t fooling anyone by disparaging someone by identifying them as living in China (or Russia, since the EU recently decided again that it’s Not White Enough).
I didn’t disparage anyone for living anywhere! You fucks keep putting words in my mouth. I’m disparaging shitty troll farmers for getting paid by their shitty governments for trying to derail shit everywhere else in the world. Rub your two neurons together and maybe you can comprehend what I keep saying over and over again in other posts.
Your comments elsewhere say the quiet part a little louder, like the bit about “potato vodka”. Do you think I’ve never seen a motte-and-bailey argument before? It’s clear what you mean when you use a term like “second world” as a pejorative.
I mean, America is also majority white. If you made quips about curry when discussing someone that you allege to be stationed in India, I think you can tell that that would be called racist. Same if you talked about a Chinese national eating rice noodles or dumplings or take your pick. You are adding in elements of racial coding that are unnecessary and it doesn’t look like an accident.
Your lack of social understanding is showing through. Maybe if you lived in any of the countries you disparage all day long (or just did something useful and constructive with your life besides troll farming), you might understand that “dude” is gender neutral these days. But sure, I’m sorry if my usage of “dude” really exacted a heavy load of social injustice upon you.
Go fucking fuck yourself you fucking piece of shit. Talking about other people’s sOcIaL uNdeRsTandIng while you’re fucking misgendering people AND JUSTIFYING IT AS IF YOU’RE A FUCKING VICTIM once you’re called on it. You’re rancid scum and I hope we get fucking defederated so we don’t have to deal with filth like you.
Do you go around telling other people that you fuck dudes? What do other people assume you mean when you say that you fuck dudes?
You could have just been like “Yeah you’re right, sorry.” but instead you doubled down on being a transphobic dickhead and literally proved my point about liberals being shitbags.
No, it wouldn’t be a problem if he said he fucked dudes. The implication though is that “dudes” is a gendered term. The complaint is that she was misgendered by someone who then doubled down on the misgendering. Her statement was not homophobic.
In my experience, sexual inferences are the fastest way to educate someone who doesn’t see a word as being gendered, but I can see how what they said could be read as using gay sexual activity in a negative way to someone not reading this thread and skimmed over the rest of the text in that reply.
Playing dumb is used by bigots as a shield to continue their bigotry unimpeded. Not allowing any room for them to play dumb is the only way to reach those kind of people.
What they are conveying is that “dude” is clearly not a gender-neutral term, as a straight guy would agree that they “fuck people”, weird as the phrasing is, but not that they “fuck dudes.” It demonstrates that they themselves don’t perceive the social understanding of the term “dude” as gender neutral, not that “fucking dudes” is bad. It could also be used to debate a lesbian by the same token.
Maybe if you lived in any of the countries you disparage all day long
Most of the users on Hexbear are American and a decent number of the remainder are Brits and Aussies. Our criticisms do not come from having never received the privilege of witnessing these countries being shit first-hand, as much as you might like to pretend it’s only those dirty foreigners not understanding your national glory.
I was continuing the train of thought that they are a troll farm employee, like I’ve spelled out in the other half dozen comments on this post. Their objective is literally to derail and misinform other countries that 90% of them have never visited, such great people, these troll farm employees.
Now, remind me again, where exactly did I say dirty foreigners? Oh. Just like a troll farmer, you always double-down on calling someone else racist when you’re losing the argument. Gotta have that re-direction.
So the foreigner part is self-evident, and I think the “second-world”, “potato vodka,” etc. covers the “dirty” pretty plainly. I don’t know why I’m even saying this, because basically what I’m doing is just teaching you to dogwhistle more effectively, but on the other hand this post is on lemmy, so hopefully I’m helping to point this out to other people so they will be more aware of these things when you and your ilk take your next crack at it.
Funny, I’ve kept my sights specifically on the troll farmers. You seem to be the one trying to leverage it into racism as some kind of ad hominem towards me. It’s fine, I understand you can’t keep up your focus on the losing argument at hand, so you have to redirect.
I don’t know a single trans person that views dude as a gender neutral term, the only people spouting that nonsense are transphobic cis dudes like you who make up excuses to misgender and harass us. Go die in a house fire, reactionary cissie shit.
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal? I definitely grew up in a conservative environment but definitely was under the impression that I and the trans people I am close to all thought dude was a term of endearment when used amongst friends, including women and enbys. I likely overuse the term from thinking I would be a skater after playing Tony hawk’s pro skater and being into hiking/climbing/camping culture, but is this a universal thing among trans people you know?
Not defending the other person, libs very often hide behind the argument once called out, and I’d never call you “dude,” or pretty much anyone not my direct friend, but I just wanna make sure I’m not hurting people unnecessarily without knowing it. Maybe it’s the “being friends” part that makes the difference, and I hope so. Otherwise I got some trans-comrades to apologize to
Adding here after thinking more, I guess I usually use it to refer to a non-specific thing, like saying “ah dude, that’s cool” and shit like that. Like saying “oh man.” Is this related??? Need some help here lol
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal?
I find it to be at least extremely common, both in English-speaking spaces online and in German-speaking trans communities online and IRL (i’m German). Ultimately it’s a matter of preference, there will be trans people who disagree, but there definitely are a lot of us who take offense. Same goes for terms like guy and especially for bro / bruh etc., or for German terms like Typ or Alter (in this context roughly comparable to guy or dude) which are generally at least masc-leaning. I’d definitely take offense to all of these, but sure, there are exceptions.
Still, these are exceptions, and more importantly, what we see here is a perfect example of how not to deal with such a situation: When somebody calls you out on misgendering, the only sensible response is to edit the post in question and to apologize. If you do that, it’s normally no big deal, everybody moves on with their day. And it takes a few seconds to edit a post and a few more to reply “sorry, i’ve edited this” while it can quickly take hours to start an argument over this. Yet i see over and over again that liberals in particular are incapable of showing that amount of basic human decency. Instead, they have to assert their privilege to define what we’re allowed to find offensive, talk down to us and act as if they’re the one ones who’ve been hurt because we’ve called their feeling of superiority and infallibility into doubt by saying they’ve made a mistake. That’s where it gets transphobic even if the misgendering was unintentional, that’s where it gets patronizing as well.
Fully agree with the description. Fuck that lib. Keep tearing them apart til they apologize and edit. hexbear-trans
In Dutch-speaking communities i still hear the American phrases a lot, but the equivalents in dutch rarely. But in international groups oriented towards my hobbies, dude is still used a good bit. But I’ll just stay alert, just wanted to hear a bit more from a trans-comrade who most definitely would speak frankly to me (I understand that in-person call-outs can sometimes be difficult for such “small” things). Gonna only use it as a phrase of exclamation among friends that know me well I think and continue checking up regularly on my comrades.
Just to be clear, i’m not saying “don’t say dude”, the term in itself is perfectly fine. Just saying it’s not unusual at all that trans people find it not to be gender neutral and particularly that the response in that case shouldn’t be to start an argument where you assert a right to label trans people in ways that have clearly and already hurt them. It’s the latter that made me go from “oof, that person should edit this post” to “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”.
I blindly called someone dude on social media and you suggested I die in a house fire. While I regret doubling down on my crusade against trolls over this, your response seems entirely disproportionate.
I’ve already explained in this thread that on the mobile client (both Memmy and Wefwef), pronouns are not displayed. After this comment, I had to log on to desktop just to see what everyone was on about.
I’m here to confirm that it was a proverbial use of “dude”, like you might see used in movies such as The Big Labowski, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Good Burger. It is pretty well established in the west that dude is used for about anyone.
I understand now that this might not be the case everywhere and I am truly sorry for any misunderstanding related to gender that I have caused here.
“All liberals are evil right-wing transphobes because someone called me ‘dude’,” might be the most… Eh, fuck it, this is why humanity deserves to burn. The whole earth is a circus and we clowns, as a species, will all get what we deserve.
Generally considering that “dude” is a somewhat masculine word, so using it to refer to someone with she/her pronouns in her username (implying that she doesn’t want to be referred to with male terms) without knowing if they’re okay with that word just makes you look like a piece of shit.
No the fuck it’s not. It’s used for everyone, it’s been used for everyone for decades at this point. Throwing a tantrum over being called a dude is plain fucking stupid, no girl I know takes issue with being called a dude, and they call each other dude. Shit’s genderless a f.
First of all, this thread is like, a month old? Why even bother responding to me at this time?
Anyway, “dude” is rarely gender neutral. Here are the two main definitions on Wikitionary:
(chiefly US, Canada, colloquial) A man, generally a younger man.
(colloquial, used in the vocative) A term of address for someone, typically a man, particularly when cautioning them or offering advice.
So yeah, totally a gender neutral word. /sarcastic
And it’s pretty obvious where the dogwhistle is, calling someone with she/her pronouns clearly listed a “dude” in a disparaging tone. Going “oh but it’s a gender neutral term” has the exact same level of insufferable, bad-faith smugness as an edgy 14-year old claiming that the swastikas they’re scrawling on their desk are actually Buddhist symbols.
In what way is making a kinda-funny Marxism joke indicative of being a bot? The previous comment to mine references Dialectics, because the convo is just "A, B, sassy A, sassy B. I merely tied in Historical Materialism, Marx’s grand Dialectical theory, to overplay the goofy small back and forth.
Are you sure you’re not a bot? Do you have free will?
This might be a “deep” and thought inspiring comment if the original post wasn’t calling liberals the loudest and dumbest people here. Yours was a nice try at establishing a false equivalence.
Okay just… there’s no such thing as ‘self’ projecting. It’s just projecting. That’s redundant.
And nothing they said is untrue. What kind of self flagellation is required to just say a type of political person is bad? Do you need permission from a conservative to talk shit about their faults?
You can project lots of different things. marx_mentat was attempting to project how liberals are the “Loudest and Dumbest” people on here. But in reality, he was really… self-projecting… oh shit. Did you see that? How that makes sense now? Nice try.
Not only can 2 things be bad but 2 things can be different degrees of bad.
I’d rather live in a country where I can openly criticize those in power without risk to my personal well-being and have the possibility for pushing my government towards positive ends.
Yeah there’s some risk associated with protesting in the US but at least I don’t have to worry about the going to the gulag or a tiananmen square situation.
I mean, I should have known you’d regurgitate the propaganda, but it’s always a disappointment anyway. Such a stupid response, too. That’s basically a non-sequitur. For one, there being two evils does not necessitate siding with the lesser. You can acknowledge there are no good guys, and instead pick the position most likely to lead to the least amount of suffering over all. That is and will always be peace, but you blood thirsty natoids just can’t imagine that. Your response is also dumb as hell given that modern Russia is a capitalist state, not the USSR lmao. Bringing up Gulags is a bit like bringing up slave plantations in the USA… except the USSR is actually completely dissolved so its even less relevant. For the record, the US still legally permits slavery in the instance of criminal conviction. Say, sure would be wild if the US disproportionately policed and convicted black and brown people, wouldn’t it? That’d seem like a loophole legitimizing slavery over time! But that’s just whatabouttism so feel free to ignore it like a good little natoid. You’re grossly ignorant regarding tiananmen square as well, but I won’t bother citing anything since you’ll just dismiss it out of hand.
Instead, I’ll ask what are your thoughts on the repression of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Ireland Independence, French Yellow Vests/Public Benefits/Police Racism, and so on and so forth in “Free” and “Democratic” countries? What about the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world, largely filled with black and brown people subjected to forced labor while in prison? What would happen if your “protest” did more than carry signs in publicly designated and permitted areas? Wouldn’t you be beaten, arrested, and convicted under the fullest extent of the law? So sorry that you’re so cucked you can’t imagine doing more than asking your leaders nicely for change and politely going home when they say no, but real protest is certainly illegal in “Free” Western countries, and if you ever actually engaged in it you’d see exactly how brutal those governments can be.
Principled communists aren’t unapologetic supporters of every single thing socialist countries do/have done, but we take issue with the nakedly hypocritical framing from Western powers. The atomic unit of propaganda is emphasis. You ignorantly reduce entire foreign countries to a single word/event while myopically ignoring the conditions before and after, but hem and haw and whine about nuance and procedure and the necessity of the barbarity around us every day… When you’re not ignoring it outright that is. That’s what makes you a useful idiot to our own system of oppression. It’s an embarrassment.
Snowden, Assange, manning, dozens of maimed protestors and the largest prison system in the world would like a word with you after seeing what you just posted here.
In fairness dumb liberals have a hegemonic control of media, government, culture, and public opinion in the US and most of the EU, with the exception being almost entirely fascists.
I hate to quote a fascist beast like Patton, but; " “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”
We don’t have to go looking for liberal ignorance, violence, cowardice, and foolishness. It’s everywhere in every direction.
I swear to god I’ll buy sync premium if they give the ability to sort by controversial. This is the stupidest more redditesque thread I’ve run into and i don’t want to miss anymore.
Funny I would say the sane about the Marxists here most of whom seem to only be educated through social media/forums and most of whom seem to have no formal education in sociology/anthropology/and most especially economics. The number of times where it becomes clear that a Marxist is arguing from a conclusion is too high to be ignored.
Watch out people we got an econ 101 grad amongst us, if we’re not careful he’ll pull out his Mas Colell textbook and start babbling about maximizing utility curves and general equilibrium
Nah you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ. I have talked to many people who seem to have no formal education in the listed fields and refer back to things like breadtube as a valid source.
I can’t speak fir your education but I have chatted with someone who claimed to be a Marxist who was convinced that DPRK is a communist state rather than a hereditary autocracy. Not ever Marxist is educated and some are bad at reasoning.
you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ
Not even trying to dunk, just realize that this is not impressive, and certainly not authoritative. When someone questions your expertise the two acceptable responses are:
Yes, I am an actual expert, with extensive schooling and/or relevant work experience.
I’m not claiming to be an expert, but here’s where I’m getting my information, where are you getting yours?
They said I have 101. I have a greater understanding then that which is what Im replying to. Im not pretending to be an expert and frankly I don’t know why you would think that.
We know where they are getting the information from the problematic people Im talking about do not understand their sources and frequently decide that Marx was right and avoid learning when he was wrong ir when we have gained a clearer understanding.
For fucks sake some seem to think Marxism ended with Marx
Just giving you a second chance to answer the simplest possible question about Marx. I’m guessing you didn’t see the notification the first time given you’ve been active after it was posted, and you could very easily demonstrate your knowledge of Marxism.
You know, cause otherwise people are going to think you were lying about learning about Marxism.
You are going to have to ask me "the simplest question about Marx"again because the button that should link me to the context isn’t working right now. I definitely missed it the last time.
He’s got a MINOR in economics! And he’s here to tell us all about how beautiful and elegant the math is. You can’t really appreciate it unless you step into the rarified air surrounding an econometrics professor, you would understand if you ever tried it.
Nah you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ. I have talked to many people who seem to have no formal education in the listed fields and refer back to things like breadtube as a valid source.
So the two most “priesthood class of capital” useless degrees lol.
Read Capital, the economics you’ve learned still haven’t grappled with it successfully.
Edit: you claim to have read Marx. Please, tell me how automation connects to the tendency of the rate of profit to drop according to Marx. It’s one of the core parts of his analysis so it should be easy to remember.
This is extra funny because explaining how neoclassical economics is a religion rather than any form of scientific or even material system is a common criticism made by Anthropologists.
But anthropology doesn’t have the nice graphics and the math that doesn’t really have any empirical data behind it, anthropology isn’t a real science unlike neoclassical economics!
The DPRK is socialist and not a hereditary autocracy. It has been the consistent direction of the head of the executive branch to diffuse authority to other offices, but nearly everything you have ever heard about this country was a lie.
It literally has handed power down from father to son twice. That is a hereditary system. As the citizens cannot advocate for a change in leaders, a change in direction of the party or an entirely new political system they are authoritarian.
It literally has handed power down from father to son twice.
It has had sons win elections and then hold the office twice. We can call it dynastic in a sense similar to US political dynasties, but that’s different from being literally hereditary.
As the citizens cannot advocate for a change in leaders, a change in direction of the party or an entirely new political system
Do you have a source for that claim because I have only seen the opposite from elections experts. The fact that almost every single person votes is of course a MASSIVE red flag.
I believe participation is mandatory, like in Australia, and given the travel limitations (the part of a percent that doesn’t vote are usually people traveling), it makes sense that it would be so high. Of course, since we have a wonderful freedom of speech in this country where the rich are free to buy media companies and promote the stories they want to promote, the idea of actually investigating the elections for a purpose other than vilification is hardly going to creep into search engine results. Here’s a compilation of sources that attempt to explore it from that angle:
Or some of us might have multiple sociology degrees and/or are in academia. But I’m sure if they wrote comments about Marx (or Weber or Gramsci or Veblen etc) you’d just assume they got it from wikipedia anyway. Though I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. It’s not like it makes a difference whether someone read primary texts online or overpaid at the college bookstore. It’s the same information. The fact that anyone has a desire to learn, better themselves, and then try to use that knowledge is admirable and a service to society at large. More people should try it.
Im not talking about people who are educated with degrees taught by experts. Im talking about the person who only learns about this stuff through places like facebook, tiktok, youtube and to a lesser extent reddit (one of the major mods on the econ subs, /u/robthorpe, is a Marxist).
The problem with learning from forums is as a novice you have no way of telling that the person running the forum has any idea what they are talking about.
I think some subjects are better learned when you have actual experts to turn to and you might not have that on say the facebook group you ran across.
For example there’s a reply here from someone complaining that modern economics still hasn’t answered everything from Kapital which ignores that modern economics and economics of Marx’s time are very different in methodology and focus.
The number of times where it becomes clear that a Marxist is arguing from a conclusion is too high to be ignored.
That’s just how Marxism is, he claimed that our course of economic history is the only way it could have gone with a single data point then concluded that the current system (in 1850) would imminently collapse.
I don’t know why anyone lends credence to his theories
Because he was correct about some things. Modern neoclassical economics abandoned the stuff that is no longer correct or is not relevant after the movement towards empiricism.
Bro I’m completing a dissertation in political economy and I hate myself for it. The world is an easy place if you assume the gospel drivel spewed in orthodox econ departments is all there is. How about you go read up on the Cambridge Capital debate and then tell me how robust a “science” economics is. While you’re at it eat a crayon, maybe you’ll shit out a more intelligent comment next time.
First why do you think that you or only Marxists are aware of the limitations of social sciences? If you really do have a background in the subject surely you remember this is frequently discussed or it least it was in my programs.
Second if you do have a degree or are pursuing one then you aren’t the person Im talking about. Im talking about the person who-reads Marx and maybe Kropotkin and decides things ended there.
For someone attacking my intelligence/education, which you know nothing of, you are making a ton of unsupported statements. Hypocrisy isn’t a good look
I’m not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I’m responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary “Political Science” and “Economics” departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That’s worse than just being wrong, it’s wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That’s where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.
Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don’t want to rehash baby’s first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.
My point is that some subjects, like modern economics, are best taught in academic situations because of how complex they are. There is simply too much higher level math in neoclassical economics to learn on your own unless you are a math wiz.
Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).
Arguing from a conclusion means you have decided what is correct and then seek proof to demonstrate that which is the opposite of how scientific reasoning works. You should probably be familiar with that term if you are not.
You’re still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you’re basing it on incorrect axioms.
“Functioning in the real world” - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are “Functioning” in so far as they’re not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?
Also take a quick look around my guy. We’re not in a laboratory. I’m calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.
And Im trying to remain a better class of person than you because you have demonstrated nothing other than that you are the exact type of uneducated person Im talking about. Your incapability to reason civilly or rationally will not help you even in the most utopian Marxist society.
Hear that @Civility? I’ve been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.
Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don’t understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.
Idk, if it was so plainly “false” and “uneducated” then it seems like it shouldn’t be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. “assume a can-opener” discourse.
And he is talking about axioms, so you don’t even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.
I will have you know that I majored in political science and have a minor in economics. I have achieved the apex of knowledge on both subjects, thank you very much.
Nah, Libs are like this everywhere. The self righteousness, the aggressive ignorance, the near absolutely inability to recognize their own limitations, the incuriousness. I think it’s mostly a consequence of living in a hegemonic cultural and media environment where they never encounter any meaningful challenges to their world view. Liberalism is all they know, and the only thing outside of it that they even casually encounter is fascism through the lens of Lib media venues, so they’re just completely unprepared to critique their own beliefs or situation.
Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).
The case of Vietnam and China is well-explained in Chinese Marxist economic study and experience (not that you would know this), as Primary Stage Socialism. To explain this, it’s necessary to look at the history of these two countries. Before Vietnam emerged under modern socialist-orientation it was being pillaged by French then Japanese then French (again) colonialism; the French were overthrown by the Vietnamese, with France receiving support for some time from America until the U.S. decided they wanted the territory for themselves, where they bombed the country emerging just out of colonialism into oblivion, killing 1M+ for their resources until they were forced out, then employing sanctions and IMF pressure afterwards. This is clearly not an orthodox path of economic development and not conducive to a balanced test of economic competition that you’re implying. You of course know of China’s underdevelopment under semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism prior to socialist-orientation (with U.S. support for the KMT as the communists won the civil war).
Now I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, but the Marxist analysis isn’t “state ownership is good at all times and private ownership is bad at all times”; first there’s the question of class orientation of the state, tearing apart this ridiculous “mixed economy” nonsense, which is really just a method of obscuring this fact and simplifying economics into a ratio of (private/”public”, with both metrics gaining new context under different orientations of the class dictatorship, especially the latter). You cannot simply fully nationalize a drastically underdeveloped economy (nor is this the traditional socialist/Marxist prescription, with Engels stating for instance in Principles of Communism, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”
Scientific socialism is specifically the approach that states that different scales of production demand different and mirrored relations of production which then determine the social relations of that society. Separate forms and scales of production demand the supremacy of separate emerging and progressive classes (just as feudalism nurtured and birthed the early bourgeoise to overthrow it, so that same bourgeoisie will eventually nurture its own successor, the proletariat, by virtue of the socialization of production and the decay of the capitalist mode of production). Primary Stage Socialism is specifically a new concept created by Deng Xiaoping to flesh out an understanding of the development of socialism on an underdeveloped platform. The basic explanation is that in developed countries there will be large-scale capitalist production, then revolution, then advanced socialism, whereas in artificially underdeveloped countries there will be revolution, then the development of large-scale capitalist production, then advanced socialism. The common enemy of imperialism nullifies the singular revolutionary character of the national bourgeoisie and, with the masses gaining new understanding from this experience, the dictatorship of the proletariat (typically headed by the proletariat with a mass base of the peasantry, as in China’s PDD). The objective under this new governance is to “modernize” the forces of production (by utilizing foreign investment, the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and market relations) so that they may correspond to this progressive class leadership and under this progressive class leadership as well as build the framework for socialist relations of production (directly state owned economy is still dominant in China). This isn’t some smashing rebuttal of socialism, nor is this “total/vs. mixed economy” nonsense anything other than a false dichotomy. These nations assumed this theory and practice because it is the correct approach (and not in the revisionist sense of abandoning Marxism-Leninism), and this notion of failure of socialism is a complete misunderstanding.
As for liberalism, it works for the bourgeoisie, is the ultimate ideology of the bourgeoisie undercutting all obstacles of outdated social (and economic thought to an extent) thought that hinders the bourgeoisie while uplifting this group and maintaining their select privileges. The vast majority of those ascribing to “liberalism” as an ideology do not belong to the select privileged group for which the ideology is oriented, and are defending demonstrably incorrect incorrect ideas with relation to the “second” and third world and upholding the pretexts of the dominant class not as a matter of sly infiltration but genuine mistaken belief (and the person you were replying to never stated that all people who uphold liberalism are genuinely confused or dumb, but that they had been arguing with those who are (talking incorrectly and against their ultimate interests). The misnomer of liberal societies “functioning” lies in the fact that “functioning” is seen as a blind metric (success/failure) rather than a relative idea (with certain modes functioning for certain groups, usually for those by which they were designed and carried out). China has been growing at a much faster rate than “liberal societies”, and is doing so without engaging in imperialism and massacring millions of people for regional influence and natural resources. Your entire critique is useless.
Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.
You do not know what I do and do not know. I am aware that the theoretical path to communism is not the same for all but China keeps moving further away from ANY path to socialism or communism. Heck they really doubled down on authoritarianism when they allowed Xi to permanently hold office. Is a dictatorial state run for privately profit a path to socialism? Oh shit no it isn’t
No because he was elected. If he got the office right after TDR held it as the first POTUS and then it was passed to another Roosevelt then yes I would think he’s a dictator.
Im unaware of ANYONE claiming DPRK has fair elections. If you have a valid source that makes this claim I would love to see it because on the surface they are clearly fraudulent.
OP is talking about how FDR was the first president to be elected for three terms, which is the same situation for Xi. Are you confusing the PRC and DPRK?
I wrote something on the DPRK’s elections a while ago [link]—the “hereditary” (of which positions are diffused, with the SAC being a modern development of decentralization) succession is a product of extreme hardship from being bombed to shit and starved and occupied by the U.S, and deciding upon candidates that are seen as “successors” to the pioneer of the country/visage who defeated the imperialists; whether or not this is correct in your eyes means nothing.
Im replying without the ability to place this in context as rn that button does not function fir me, so yes I believe I am confusing DPRK and PRC.
In Xi’s case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.
The fact is DPRK has a hereditary leadership and the state seems to work to perpetuate that. The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless. DPRK has electoral turnouts that almost assure that the results are fake and it is hard to see an authoritarian state whose leadership has been inherited along family lines as anything other than the autocratic monarchy it is.
In Xi’s case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.
Authoritarianism (rule by authority) isn’t a valid concept (by which manner of authority? the authority of which class?). All societies are ruled by blind authority, but the status quo asserts itself as natural and everything against it becomes “authoritarian.” The immediate aim of the liquidation of the national bourgeoisie’s political power taken up by the dictatorship of the proletariat is not in any sense removed from bourgeois power elsewhere. This point manifests itself in the consideration of the state of the press, which has more and more become a close link between the capitalist class at large, a class that retains a political dictatorship over the majority of developed nations and several national dictatorships over their respective colonial shares of maldeveloped nations. Owing to the supreme authority of the world bourgeoisie, the proletarian masses who have consolidated political power domestically must suppress the siege on their delicate rule internationally. There are more prisoners per-capita and in total in the U.S. than in China, not to mention the clear difference in ownership of the factors of production, and yet this “authoritarianism” comes up again and again in rhetoric
I explained the term limit change in my other reply to you [link]. There is no possible way to categorize this as “authoritarian” or “entrenching power in the elite.”
This is an extreme non-reply. Leadership in the DPRK is diffused (explanation below). You never explain how “the state seems to work to perpetuate [hereditary succession, although succession is complex, as I already mentioned with the diffusion of power from Kim Il Sung].”
The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless.
Actually it explains the reason why voters might follow this pattern, and of course nothing in the article I wrote was addressed. As for “hereditary monarchy claims”, Kim Jong Un is General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission. These positions are elected by the WPK Party Congress and by the Supreme People’s Assembly respectively.
Sidenote: parties are elected by the people every five years (under the DFRF), the WPK isn’t permanently leading [other parties include the KSDP and the CCP]
If Kim Jong Un didn’t wish to continue to hold his positions, one of the Vice-Chairpersons would take his place temporarily, and a successor would be discussed and elected at the next party conference, also likely a Vice-Chairperson. For example, Kim Jong Il was elected into the Party Central Committee in the 70’s, and in 1974 was elected as the successor to Kim Il Sung. Jang Song-Thaek was elected to succeed Kim Jong Il, however, he wanted to reform certain areas, thus debate regarding his intentions and whether he was a revisionist or not ensued; the party then switched and had Kim Jong Un succeed Kim Jong Il. Jang Song-Thaek then staged a coup in an attempt to consolidate power by force (confirming his intentions were not pure and that he was likely a revisionist in the intent of his “reform”). He was executed thereafter. It’s important to mention Jang Song-Thaek to show that a successor to Chairman of the SAC doesn’t have to be a direct child of the former. So, if Kim Jong Un were to retire, or wish to discontinue his positions, it would be somebody in the Politburo, or a Vice-Chairperson of the State Affairs Commission, to succeed him. However, there currently isn’t an elected successor appointed, because likely odds are that he isn’t retiring or dying in the near future. Kim Jong Un is not actually in total control of the DPRK; the Supreme People’s Assembly has, by far, the extreme majority of control over the latter. Kim Jong Un has never been in either the Supreme People’s Assembly or its respective Standing Committee. Premier is the second top rank within the SPA, currently held by Kim Jae Ryong [not related]. President of the Standing Committee (Presidium) is the top position within the SPA, a position held by Kim Yong-Nam [not related] until April 2019, where Choe Ryong-Hae thereafter was elected. That isn’t to say that Kim Jong Un holds no power within the DPRK, but anyone within the SPA certainly has more legislative authority. Each person within the SPA, including Premier and Head of the Presidium, is elected (and thus their power is temporary and can be removed at any time). The closest thing to a dictatorship (so to speak) in the DPRK is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a determining class dictatorship of the majority which governs the state. The only of the Kim family members (remember this is a common Korean surname, I am referring to the lineage of Kim Il Sung) to have an SPA position was Kim Il Sung, and he abolished his position. The “next in line” leader in the WPK is likely not to be a descendant of Kim Il Sung either.
I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I’m learning, and I’m content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.
I know that you misunderstood the comment on liberalism (which I corrected), I know that your understanding of “socialism vs. mixed economy” is fundamentally nonsense, of course you didn’t bother to respond to any of this.
To respond to this new comment, China is under PSS, which means that the incorrect policy of over-nationalization was corrected and the country was opened up; prior to the centennial goal of developed socialism (2049/2050, precursor to communism), the purpose of state planning is to expand the productive forces to prepare for the elimination of private property. This is where you find a path seemingly “away from” socialism, but its purpose is specifically complex and not observable as such. I’m unsure how you ascertained this trend, and since you provide no examples, there’s nothing to respond to. Read this thoroughly sourced essay (and this as well) on China’s economy disproving your assertion, if you have any specific grievances not addressed then list them and I can respond.
As for “authoritarianism”, the National People’s Congress (which elects the president) is composed of delegates elected by the people. Xi could hold office for a long time, but his terms are five years long after which the president is elected again (and the NPC can depose him at any time by popular vote in the case of emergency). What you’re referring to is a decision by the NPC to remove term limits (whose purpose in this case is only undemocratic and limiting of the people’s will), so that a president could extend beyond the prior decided two-term limit if voted for a third (which in the first place is only a decision to correct the discrepancy between CPC gensec and president). Is this authoritarianism? As for “dictatorial state” (your only evidence is not indicative of this), the central government and CPC have majority support according to Harvard with lower majority support as well in local governments because of infrastructure and public enrichment programs. The CPC comprises of 10% of the eligible population and is a mass party which is not run for “privately profit [sic]” here’s another article on the class character of the people’s gov..
He’s pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It’s incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can’t be safe for the human body.
I STILL WANT MY MAN’S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.
“It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson’s seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, ‘We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti…’ (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).
However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, ‘declared victory’: Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss ‘capital’ as if it were a well-defined concept — which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the ‘rational expectations revolution’ and in virtually all econometric work.”
(Burmeister 2000)
Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree curious-marx
For all of their bluster about “starting from a conclusion and working backwards” it’s hilarious watching them start at the beginning with the conclusion that they know better than everyone else (with literally only an undergraduate politics and econ minor as proof) and never deviating or questioning that premise for a single moment throughout this entire thread with zero irony.
There could not be a flimsier conclusion for someone to work backwards from. They are a happy puppy arrogantly discarding everything they encounter (and I really do mean everything) with complete confidence they are the biggest dog in the yard.
I’m a biologist, but my college offered a few humanities courses, so I took an introductory course in economics.
The maths was fine; it was mostly linear equations and differentiation. But the priors seemed to defy all logic and common sense. It was like a physicist assuming that there was no friction. The impression I got was that economists put too much effort into mathematical rigour and too little into empirical verification.
Now there are biologists who study animal societies and their ‘economic systems’. But they care more for experiments than for theory, and this seems to me to be the more reasonable approach.
Marxists are hardly alone in arguing from a conclusion. That pretty much describes all of economics and most of political science. Liberal economics in particular could easily be retitled Just So Stories, With Jargon.
That’s simply not true and strongly suggests that you either did not understand who I am talking about or ypu have no education in the field.
Im talking about the people who come to Marxism by deciding it is correct and then seek to only pursue information or sources that back Marxism rather than learning about the various flaws that absolutely exist in Marxism as they do in any ideologically driven perspective. If you actually study econ you should have some grasp on the flaws of a system in broad terms.
The fact that you are assigning an ideology to neoclassical economists strongly suggests you have no formal education in the field. Most economists abandoned the idea of “schools” in the 1960s.
You really need to look into the concept of cultural hegemony. Your ignorance as you speak with authority is embarrassing but it isnt an innate quality you have and can be corrected.
You see, the Political Scientist major brainpan is maladapted to reflection, and quite simply incapable of grasping such remarkable and sophisticated concepts like “Hegemony.”
Economists hate this one SECRET HACK you can do to avoid poordom. Among investmentology specialists it is a well guarded secret that switching to a making money framework instead of the popular losing money framework has a long term net positive effect on your private economy.
Turns out the local company that made bootstraps for 125 years was bought out by a hedge fund, which promptly fired all of the workers and subcontracted manufacturing to a company in Sri Lanka who could make them much cheaper by using inferior materials and by paying the Sri Lankan workers in 6 months what a fired local worker made in a day.
Ironically, the hedge fund CEO with the MBA he received as a legacy admission to Cornell only wears slippers because fuck you, I'm the boss.
Hold on bucko, the corporate police noticed that you were saying seditious statements about our glorious brand. The shareholders will decide your fate.
I think to save money you should skip dinner. Breakfast food is generally cheaper. Big breakfast at 10-11am. Late lunch at 4-5pm and a light dinner if hungry at night is more economical
Exactly, the neoliberal capitalist religion causes collective brain damage. Especially at that time, since there was a frenzy of propaganda around Bill Gates and how he became the worlds richest man by selling software, in particular operating systems. So from that non-logic it follows that if you have a popular operating system you should become the worlds richest man, but if you just give it all away for free, then you gave away a fortune. It makes total sense in the completely warped, schizophrenic world view of the US neoliberal mainstream media.
Phone calls are rude. They demand your immediate attention with a loud alarm and no regard for where you might be or what you are doing. Texts/email are respectful. They make a small chime just to let you know they are around, then wait patiently for you to read and respond.
In my experience, the younger you are, the more likely you are to find phone calls to be irritating at best. People in their 20s and under almost always would prefer you to text them than call them. And I’m in my 40s and I agree. I’ve never liked the phone. I didn’t like it when it was all landlines and I don’t like it now. Texting was a godsend.
Yeah and there are also times when texting makes the situation a lot more annoying but a 2 minute phone call does the opposite. People sometimes text about things that should be a phone call and it’s just silly. As someone who has always had social anxiety especially around phone calls, I’ve learned we often ought to prioritize context over one minute of feeling anxious
I always find it weird that this issue comes up online over and over and everyone is tripping over each other to damn phone calls. Seems childish to me
Yeah and there are also times when texting makes the situation a lot more annoying but a 2 minute phone call does the opposite.
I honestly can’t think of one. I’d rather spend five minutes writing a text than two minutes on the phone. That’s two minutes I have to talk to someone without looking at them.
You live a very limited life if you can’t think of a way that writing a text message could be more difficult than speaking for a minute or two. In fact, are you a robot?
Occasionally we have to set up events and doing a conference call is a hell of a lot less annoying than doing a group chat. Anyone who doesn’t want to be part of the planning can just opt out of the call rather than have their phone bing a million times in five minutes.
Also no of course it’s not rude for you to need to adjust to other people. That’s just called society and it’s kind of weird you could be old enough to write these comments but not get that
The onus is not on me to have to debunk a position that’s only popular in certain circles. This opinion runs counter to the last 100 years of common sense.
if you find a comment on an anonymous message board saying “maybe explain” personally demanding and rude you may want to seek therapy. And no that’s not an insult, most people probably should be in therapy but if something so benign is upsetting, you might wanna prioritize it.
Because there is no reason for a company to call me unless it’s urgent, at that point it is perfectly fine to call.
Some companies call regardless of the reasons with no care at all about the customer, all just to make sure to force a response. Just send the damn message instead and If I have any sort interest, opionion, or care what so ever, then I’ll get in touch at my own discretion.
Having customers isn’t a “right” for companies, but they do seem to believe so.
Yeah I get not wanting companies to call. I just don’t really find it a huge deal. Unfortunately we get asked for our number all the time and it’s usually not needed. But in my experience they rarely ever use it at least. there are definitely times I wish they would. For example, FedEx thinks I’m not home two days in a row with a huge box of wine. If they just called I’d come out and get it and save everyone trouble. They have my number, but instead they choose to lug around a very heavy package a second day then I end up having to drive somewhere and get it later.
Which is great when people use a phone call in situations where an immediate response is warranted – not so great when I realize I’ve had the device occupying one of my hands and my attention for 10 minutes, and the speaker has yet to make a point
There are certain people who when I see calling, I just won’t pick up. On the other hand, when the phone rang at 4am and it was my brother, I knew something terrible had happened. If he had been a frequent caller/offender, I’d have silenced and ignored the call, but I’m really thankful that I picked up. It’s like a “boy who cried wolf” situation.
Why not just mute the phone while you’re not interested in being contacted synchronously, and rejecting calls when you don’t have the ability to talk synchronously?
Wild take to be honest, it’s essentially the equivalent of saying that in-person conversations are rude and that people should send you a physical letter instead.
Yeah, it’s not like we have complex social rituals, informal rules and elaborate signs and calls designed to establish the appropriateness of in-person interactions. I just punch anyone in the face that I don’t want to talk to me, that usually gets the message across. And if I want someone attention I just scream my demands at the top of my lungs an inch away from their face. If they don’t punch my face I assume they are fine with the conversation.
Because some things warrant my immediate attention, and most don’t. I am never interested in being contacted synchronously unless it’s something actually urgent. And because of that I can tell people that if they need me, they can call me and if I’m at all able I will answer immediately, otherwise I will probably answer later, aka whenever I happen to see it.
Next hardware reset and automatic reorientation for Voyager 2 is October 15th. Yes the device automatically resets itself about four to five times a year. Communications are expected to be reestablished then.
I never seen it summarized so fucking well. And meanwhile, it happens CONSTANTLY, but they pretend it’s impossible to happen and never has actually happened
With quantum computing around the corner that key is useless. So not only is my data then shared with the EU, china and US will also have a little look
Dogs definitely know when they’re doing something they’re not supposed to be doing. They get all sneaky and quiet, and look hella guilty if you catch them.
Yeah, just like the post described - they know good and bad. They get sneaky, quiet and guilty because they know they were bad.
I have a cat and a dog and i swear to god, my cat gives me a challenging look of pure intent when she does something that she KNOWS she is not allowed; Like jumping up the kitchen counter. We don’t want her on that. She sits in front of it, sees me coming, looks me in the eyes with a very certain look and jumps on it. When i tell her to jump down, she will do it immediately but again… a look of pure intent and naughtiness.
My cat has never even once jumped on the table to get something she shouldn’t have. The ONLY reason she ever gets up there is when she decides she’s been crying for dinner too long, because she knows she’s not supposed to. She doesn’t even know WHY she’s not supposed to, she has no idea what to do when she’s up there. She gets up on it and just stands there and looks at me.
With mine is the blinds. She doesn’t mess with them unless she’s mad at me about something, and then she waits until we make eye contact and then begins her assault on the window treatments, while maintaining eye contact. She’s Alpha as fuck.
Absolutely! My parents have a horizontal bar slightly higher than the working surface in their kitchen. The cats are allowed on the bar, not on the surface. These fuckers lay on the bar and stretch their paws down so they are barely hovering above the surface, as if they were saying “I’m not touching it!” like a child. And that’s not a relaxed position, they have to really stretch their paws to touch it. Yet they always do it and look at you like “what are you gonna do? I’m not touching it!”
I’d say dogs kmow when they’re intending to be bad, such as stealing food, going in places they’re not allowed whilete think their owner isn’t home or when they generally think they’re yet to be caught being bad, they act mischievously. I’d also say that it’s the intention to be bad that is naughty, and dogs are very capable of that.
I think the difference is that dogs can think “hoohoo I’m gonna be bad >:)” which is a naughty thought, and means they understand it, but they can’t go to that next point where cats are which is “I’m gonna do something naughty and I don’t even care about the bad bit at all”.
I always chuckle when I see someone censoring an internal IP. It’s like intentionally not naming the room you’re in (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, etc) when you’re on the phone so the person on the other end can’t find you on a globe.
If we pull in a team effort we can all collectively try 1 to 255 for the last octet and download all the money from this man’s bank account and split it between us what say?
The 192.168.x.x IP range doesn’t allow for subnet masks greater than 255.255.255.0. How that’s enforced I can’t remember, but I’m 99% sure he isn’t using larger subnets.
Class based networking has been obsolete for 3 decades now - and RfC 1519 was quickly implemented, so pretty much by the mid 90s any device looking up network masks by classes could be considered some broken legacy device.
RfC 1918 - which allocates the private IP ranges - came 2.5 years after the introduction of CIDR, specifies the networks in bit notation, and only references what the equivalent networks were in class notation as reference for people who have been asleep for a few years.
If you’re younger than ~40 you shouldn’t even know the term ‘network class’, unless you’re really into history of computer networks. If you learned that term in some kind of school I’d question the rest of what they’ve been teaching as well.
If you’re older than 40 you should’ve stopped using class based concepts at least two decades ago.
Interesting, I never encountered that - though that also fits the “2.5 decades” timeframe.
It still shows the author of the error message has no idea about networking: even if we assume network classes apply to RfC 1918 addresses (which they don’t) the majority of those addresses are class A or class B networks.
And looking at it the other way round (using “class C” synonymous with "private addresses) doesn’t work - the majority of addresses in class C space are public addresses.
Hey, if you’re in the USSA, that shit’s been blasting in your ears for years, decades even. The only “star” ever created by a vocal talent show was Carrie Underwood,
The country music community may be problematic, but country music itself is wonderful. And many country musicians are fantastic, unexpected people. If you want country like it used to be, dive into Melissa Carper’s catalogue. She’s the master of the brand new old time song.
Coors was among the first companies to extend benefits to same-sex partners and was named the Corporation of the Year by the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, despite being a right wing company in general.
Didn’t know that, I was just commenting on what the unhomed Bud Light drinkers drink now. I don’t drink any of that shit because it’s not good beer. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I go Yuengling. Best of ALL. It’s not available in my home state, but they said a year or two ago that they were partnering with IIRC Miller-Coors, got a deal to brew their beer using M-C facilities. And they’d service almost every state. Still waiting for that day. 😔
lemmy.ml
Top