Lemmy is an improvement on Reddit, but imo not by much. There really is no innovation on the fundamental concept of subreddits/communities. The issue with Lemmy is that I’ve come across so many promising communities that quickly die off after the initial spurt of activity. I wonder if there is a better organic way to grow the “online discussion” from some form of general cespool, that can segementize only later when those needed segments (communities) emerge naturally.
I’d estimate blocking ozma has reduced the amount of “Trump and the GOP may be attempting to install a fascist dictatorship but Biden’s old” nonsense in my feed by 95%.
Ah yes, “old”, the only criticism of Biden that does or could ever exist.
You could’ve talked about the genocide, but that would’ve made it sound less frivolous now, wouldn’t it?
Edit: For all the people who don’t like people talking about actual genocide that Biden is supporting, minimising the seriousness of a genocide because you think you have a good reason for it is still genocide denial. You have become genocide deniers for the sake of the dubious shift in votes from whatever population of voters you think will see you doing genocide denial and think “actually they have a point I’ll vote for Biden now”.
Edit 2: Your case isn’t helped by the fact that the only person arguing with me did so with genocide denial. Think about that.
Edit 3: The other person arguing is also doing genocide denial, but the oblique kind where you pretend that the only reason to criticise a sitting US president engaging in genocide is because you want him to lose an election. Almost like they’re denying that we should hold people accountable for genocide on its own merits. That is, and I cannot stress this enough, genocide denial.
It just doesn’t seem like full genocide yet. Genocide light? You may be proved right but I just haven’t seen it. I’m not there though and I’m not smart. There’s a difference between lining everyone up and killing them and starving them while doing military stuff. You may say there isnt a difference, but those are different things to me. Please don’t get me wrong I think what is going on, seemingly for political reasons, is very wrong and bad. But genocide is about the worst so it’s hard be that bad.
It just doesn’t seem like full genocide yet. Genocide light?
Oh dear, oh no, genocide is such a strong word for aerial bombing of civilians, denying them aid, targeting hospitals, sniping children, burying them in mass graves and killing more children than in all global conflicts over the last four years combined, all with the explicit goal of wiping out their people group and displacing them from their homeland. It’s just, oh no, I wouldn’t want to say mean words about the people doing all of that, because that might be unfair to the mass child slaughterers. There isn’t worse than this. This is genocide.
Holocaust deniers don’t call themselves “deniers” either, they start organisations like the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust”. That’s a real thing, you can look it up, it’s disgusting.
I’m assuming “you” in this case is the general “you”, because I absolutely do hate him for that as well. Yeah, Joe is a neoliberal capitalist, but nobody doing genocide denial on his behalf is going to be worried about that charge.
You point out that they’re genocide deniers and you get the person who responded to me fretting about whether we should really call it a genocide. You know, doing genocide denial, because people who have painted themselves into that corner aren’t going to stop doing genocide denial, they’ll keep showing you who they really are. That’s damning to anyone who’s really paying attention.
Actually I’m just pointing out that you’re complaining about something that won’t change. You can complain about Biden being a capitalist but every final presidential candidate has been a capitalist for I don’t even know for how many decades. You’re complaining into the void because unless the system itself changes there’s no chance to have a socialist president.
Similarly you’re complaining about Biden supporting genocide but the alternative, Trump, has pretty much said he will go gloves off and give Israel whatever they need. In fact you probably couldn’t find a president in the last 20 years who wouldn’t be supporting Israel. It’s not a specific president or presidential candidate that is supporting genocide, it’s the entire system. The only thing you realistically accomplish by complaining about Biden is sowing division.
As for the “genocide deniers”, well some people are just dumb and we have to accept that.
Actually I’m just pointing out that you’re complaining about something that won’t change.
The only thing you realistically accomplish by complaining about Biden is sowing division.
I don’t know about that, I think political possibility goes beyond who will be convinced to change their vote because you told people to stop complaining about Biden.
Like for instance, you acknowledging that the US is going to do genocide no matter what seems like a pretty damning thing to say, no? Seems like something worth saying. Seems like maybe we should condemn people who do genocide, or are willing to helm a nation that will make them complicit in genocide no matter what, because those are people that are going to do a genocide. Seems like maybe getting people on board with a system change involves pointing out that it is an inexorable genocide machine. And if that’s what it takes to stop the genocides - and you seem to agree with me on this - then maybe we should, I don’t know, talk about it?
Pretending that the entire value in discussing genocide starts and ends with who will be elected president is pretty minimising to the importance of the, you know, genocide. Seems like a kind of genocide denial to me.
As for the “genocide deniers”, well some people are just dumb and we have to accept that.
I’m yet to find a comment section that isn’t full of you fuckers.
I think if you think you need to do this to get someone elected, that’s actually counterproductive. Like maybe people associating Biden with genocide denial is going to make it harder for them to hold their nose and vote strategically like you want. It’s very hard to imagine the voter who would care about the genocide and yet be fooled into voting for Biden because people kept his genocide support on the down-low. Seems like you’re cutting off little pieces of your soul for the sake of a strategy that isn’t going to really work, unless you’ve got an A-to-B for me on how telling people to stop complaining about Biden’s genocide support helps him win election.
I’m yet to find a comment section that isn’t full of you fuckers.
I’m going to start from here because this is how you show how disingenuous you are. I straight up said I don’t agree with the genocide deniers and what do you do? You still lump me in with them. Your entire mindset here is “If they don’t agree with me they must be genocide deniers”. Fuck off with that shit.
I don’t know about that, I think political possibility goes beyond who will be convinced to change their vote because you told people to stop complaining about Biden.
Like for instance, you acknowledging that the US is going to do genocide no matter what seems like a pretty damning thing to say, no? Seems like something worth saying. Seems like maybe we should condemn people who do genocide, or are willing to helm a nation that will make them complicit in genocide no matter what, because those are people that are going to do a genocide.
Political possibilities goes beyond when you stop complaining about a part of the problem and start criticizing the problem as a whole. Biden is only a part of the problem, the real problem is that the majority political landscape of US supports Israel. You can’t even get a real presidential candidate who would oppose Israel because it would go against the party line. And yet you’re convinced it’s Biden you should be complaining about.
Seems like maybe getting people on board with a system change involves pointing out that it is an inexorable genocide machine. And if that’s what it takes to stop the genocides - and you seem to agree with me on this - then maybe we should, I don’t know, talk about it?
Which is why you should talk about all the politicians supporting the genocide and not just focus on one. Why aren’t you complaining about Trump? Why aren’t you complaining about Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer? Why aren’t you complaining about everyone in congress who voted to aid Israel? Why is it that you only complain about Biden?
I think if you think you need to do this to get someone elected, that’s actually counterproductive. Like maybe people associating Biden with genocide denial is going to make it harder for them to hold their nose and vote strategically like you want. It’s very hard to imagine the voter who would care about the genocide and yet be fooled into voting for Biden because people kept his genocide support on the down-low. Seems like you’re cutting off little pieces of your soul for the sake of a strategy that isn’t going to really work, unless you’ve got an A-to-B for me on how telling people to stop complaining about Biden’s genocide support helps him win election.
It’s not about getting Biden elected, it’s about making sure Trump does not get elected. That’s what your elections have always been about, voting against the guy you hate more. If you don’t vote for Biden you’re indirectly voting for Trump because the system boils down to you either get Biden or you get Trump. And it doesn’t matter who gets elected, America will still support genocide. This vote isn’t about genocide, it’s about whether American will get a fascist leader or not. You can sit on your high horse and talk about how people are cutting off pieces of their soul “for strategy”, but don’t be surprised when genocide continues and you get fascism shoved down your throat.
Your entire mindset here is “If they don’t agree with me they must be genocide deniers”.
I explained how you were doing genocide denial. You said that complaining about Biden is only “sowing division”. So that means that we shouldn’t criticise him for his genocide. Denying that a genocide should be criticised on its own merits is a form of genocide denial. Not all genocide denial is “this genocide didn’t happen”. In fact most of it isn’t. Most of it is politically motivated muddying of the waters, like what you did.
And yet you’re convinced it’s Biden you should be complaining about.
Because he is the president and the person in the greatest position of power to do something about it, and yet he refuses.
Why aren’t you complaining about Trump? Why aren’t you complaining about [whatabout whatabout whatabout]
Because none of those people is currently the US president.
Also, the original comment I replied to was about how people are just complaining that Biden is “old”. I was pointing out that this person was clearly deliberately avoiding the main criticism, which is of course the genocide.
It’s not about getting Biden elected, it’s about making sure Trump does not get elected.
That’s just the same thing said two ways. Most people who vote for Trump don’t like him much either, they just think they have to get Biden out. This is how the two-party system captures your political imagination and makes you police other people to tell them not to criticise your candidate. You’ve fallen for its trap.
And the idea that nothing can be changed without system change is actually false. Popular opposition has won basically all the victories worth noting in liberal democracies. They weren’t handed down from the legislature, they were fought for from the bottom up. But if people won’t stand up and full-throated condemn the one person most responsible for the current iteration of this genocide, then he won’t feel any pressure to do anything about it.
And if he doesn’t stop his genocide support - for real, not just a token “hey now jack stop that” - then I won’t be surprised when he loses to Trump, because he chose to support fascism overseas and thus willingly lost to fascism at home.
You can sit on your high horse and talk about how people are cutting off pieces of their soul “for strategy”, but don’t be surprised when genocide continues and you get fascism shoved down your throat.
And if he doesn’t stop his genocide support - for real, not just a token “hey now jack stop that” - then I won’t be surprised when he loses to Trump, because he chose to support fascism overseas and thus willingly lost to fascism at home.
It’s fascinating how you’ll continually blame the people calling out genocide support from the white house for them losing, but you won’t blame their genocide support for them losing.
Almost like you’re not that interested in opposing the genocide.
I’m going to start from here because this is how you show how disingenuous you are. I straight up said I don’t agree with the genocide deniers and what do you do? You still lump me in with them. Your entire mindset here is “If they don’t agree with me they must be genocide deniers”. Fuck off with that shit.
You don’t even try to understand what I’m saying, all you see is that I don’t agree with you and so you mental gymnastic yourself into believing I’m doing genocide denial. Once again, fuck off with that shit.
Go on man, shut me up. Retell my point back to me.
I told you multiple times how it was genocide denial. I explained the how of it. You have failed to even acknowledge that let alone respond to it.
I guess it’s hard to face the fact that you’re doing genocide denial, so the only thing you can do is pretend I’m being disingenuous. Funny thing is, even if I’m being disingenuous that doesn’t make you not a genocide denier.
If you want to explain how that’s wrong you need to respond to the argument, but you’re not doing that.
As if to prove my point… All you had to do was tell me the argument I made and all you did was “This is how it’s genocide denial”. It’s exactly what I said you do.
I honestly have no idea what you’re saying here. Is this what 'retell my point back to me" was about? You want me to explain how you’re doing genocide denial, again? A fourth time? I’ll copy-paste the three different ways I’ve tried to explain it and which you have ignored, and then we’re done here if you keep ignoring it.
I explained how you were doing genocide denial. You said that complaining about Biden is only “sowing division”. So that means that we shouldn’t criticise him for his genocide. Denying that a genocide should be criticised on its own merits is a form of genocide denial. Not all genocide denial is “this genocide didn’t happen”. In fact most of it isn’t. Most of it is politically motivated muddying of the waters, like what you did.
Pretending that the entire value in discussing genocide starts and ends with who will be elected president is pretty minimising to the importance of the, you know, genocide. Seems like a kind of genocide denial to me.
Edit 3: The other person arguing is also doing genocide denial, but the oblique kind where you pretend that the only reason to criticise a sitting US president engaging in genocide is because you want him to lose an election. Almost like they’re denying that we should hold people accountable for genocide on its own merits. That is, and I cannot stress this enough, genocide denial.
You can put your own nickname next to the names of other users, to catalog them/ mark trolls or whatever. That seems to be what Don is doing inbetween Rampages
Tags are much more noticeable than user names. It tends to stick out more from the rest of the post and makes you notice who the poster is. After seeing them enough you tend to get a feel for the type of content they post about.
Yeah, there’s a lot of power posters here. PugJesus is an example from the opposite camp, calling out the anti-Democrat propaganda from the two OP mentioned.
Of course, one of the things about Lemmy is you can’t appeal a mod action (as far as I know)
JordanLund seems fairly level but once deleted one of my comments for “advocating violence” when I said Nixon and Kissinger should have been hanged for treason. They’re both already dead… And that’s the legal punishment for high treason. Which they did.
Tl;Dr you can’t get in a mod fight because you can’t fight back
I’ll start posting more content in a few days. I’ve been traveling and working a lot. But I’ve also been playing project zomboid on single player so we’ll see if I follow through with my promise.
Last I checked hexbear had something like 70% more total comments than lemmy.world despite only having a tiny fraction of the users. Sounds like bots to me
Hexbear has had an established and more active community for a longer time than Lemmy.world. You can visit Hexbear yourself and check, it’s not illegal or anything.
Over time Lemmy.world may overtake Hexbear, but not for a while.
I have imagined that ever since the Reddit emigration hype ended and things settled down a bit here that the vast majority of world and shit users are mostly lurkers and not terribly vocal, as is the case on a lot of other platforms.
Yep, I agree, same goes for Lemm.ee and other “generalist” instances. Those attracted the most people from Reddit as they required the least knowledge before-hand of Lemmy and aimed at replicating Reddit in some ways.
More niche communities tend to be more active per user if they are well established, with Hexbear as a prime example.
That’s very ironic given that they ban anyone further left than “Capitalist Russia is the best country in the world! Let’s support their invasion of Ukraine for no reason! Ughur genocide fake by the way! Is not so bad that Stalin banned being gay.”
Plus whenever somebody talks ill about the CCP over there they get barraged by copypasta responses. Their posts mirror popular posts on other servers, and generally lack any form of real discussion. The place looks like the bottiest of all instances and nothing can change my mind.
A lot of troll accounts are semi-automated. They run a script that detects certain keywords, and posts premade replies to them (nowadays said premade replies are being finetuned with generative AI to look less uniform), also a human is watching over them to ensure both correct operation and to overtake in case of emergency.
Source: My father’s ex-girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend was (is) a paid online troll for Fidesz. They also had Discord (later Matrix if I recall) servers for organizing mass reports, downvotes, angry/haha react campaigns, often they also did some “private doxxing”.
Idk ozma was pushing a super hard the left should protest vote or not vote before getting called out in every thread. They have been slowly evolving the shill to be less and less obvious. Even started posting memes and other content to try and get the political agenda across without posting negative articles. Now the message isnt the very obvous up front don’t vote, but they are just “critical of Biden,” yet have nothing to say about anyone else. Doesn’t seem like an edgy kid to me.
Weird how I didn’t say either of those things. Also pretty hypocritical to not like what I said, put words in my mouth, and then call me Blue MAGA. Really helps your point.
Love how you quickly diverted from the hypocrisy of putting words in my mouth and then do the exact thing you seem to be crying about of labeling me Blue MAGA because I said something you didn’t like. In the US we have a FPTP voting system. We do not have a luxury of choosing the best candidate, but the lesser of 2 evils. So pretending that protesting voting or not voting is standing for a cause is a joke and disingenuous. All it does is help the opposition party. You can be critical all you want but don’t pretend to be liberal when you know a protest vote or not vote helps the other party. The message was very clear they didn’t want people to vote. Now they are trying to be more subtle about it. But sure lets be a 1 issue voter and pretend a Trump presidency would be better for the social issues everyone crying Blue MAGA seems to care so much about.
There are still clowns who think that if they say “Blue MAGA” enough people will believe it’s real? Checks the username, oh, of course, it’s one of the regulars lol.
Hey, I’m here! I said vote for whoever you want or don’t vote, that’s democracy.
I’ve said over and over I’m a gay guy living in the Los Angeles area and far left. I keep sounding the alarm Biden will lose to Trump but nobody wants to listen to me.
And then, the debate tonight everyone is surprised Pikachu face now.
In the US it’s a spectrum combining party policy and Overton Window. As you move left, you go deeper and deeper into increasingly extreme thoughts on policy regarding what we consider classic liberal topics such as social justice, corporate power, various societal and economic reforms, etc till it hits an extreme that’s considered radical to the average, the same goes for the right and classic conservative views.
Hugging the middle/mixed gray zone are the Centrist.
Social Justice isn’t really a “Liberal” topic. It’s a topic many US Liberals generally are progressive on, but that doesn’t make it “Liberal.” Liberalism is also not about reforming the economy but maintaining “healthy” Capitalism.
Liberal views are therefore views in line with Liberalism itself, and Liberal Parties like the DNC represent Liberalism and movements towards Liberalism, not movements towards the left.
Social Democracy, ie what Scandinavian Countries have, would be centrist.
You are a liar and you keep spreading this bullshit. Both sides in the US support economic liberalism. The US exclusively uses the term “liberal” to refer to social issues.
You can argue about whether that’s a good definition or not, but you CANNOT argue about whether that’s actually how it’s used in the US, both in everyday usage and political journalism.
You are spreading this shit because you like to intentionally blur the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Then why are you trying to push this idea that “liberal” = “fiscally liberal”? Not only is it not true, it’s not even useful, as we have words like “capitalist” to describe the similar economic thinking between Democrats and Republicans (and I’m using similar very loosely here, it’s only similar when compared to something like socialism).
Okay, so you’re saying that liberal politicians use the term differently, but they’re wrong, because “the US” doesn’t use the term differently? You’re claiming that everyday Americans say “liberal” and are referring to the economic sense of the word?
No, I’m saying liberal politicians use the word correctly but view themselves as progressive, same with liberal citizenry. Nobody calls themselves a Liberal but is actually a Socialist or anything.
World and Hexbear are both liberal cesspits. One is full of centrists who think they’re leftists, and one is full of conservatives who think they’re communists.
This just pretends democratic socialism doesn’t exist. Like there’s nothing between liberal and ML communist.
So, you are saying that if someone wants the same end goal as you, but has a differing opinion on how we accomplish that, you insult them. I’m sure you change a lot of minds and make a lot of friends with your method.
There is nothing between liberal and ML “communist”. They’re the same. Democratic socialism is to the left of both of those, and anarchist ideologies such as anarcho-communism, syndicalism, and mutualism are to the left of that. See, demsocs may not be the biggest fans of Marx, but they adhere far more closely to his ideas than Stalinists do.
I see now. Intriguing take you have. It’s different than the way everybody else classifies things, but I guess I can see where you are coming from. In my opinion, ML theory is pretty left leaning when it comes to economics and the end goal of it, but the authoritarian plan for transitioning to it does not align with most other leftist virtues and ideas.
Stalinists are just so afraid to actually pursue their supposed end goal. They always say “I want a stateless, classless moneyless society”, but if you say “Okay, let’s have a communist revolution and get rid of all that garbage right now”, they call you an idiot. “No, no, no”, they say. “You have to have a socialist revolution, and then wait two hundred years for the state to dissolve itself.” Well I’m sick of waiting. Russia never dissolved its socialist state, and China isn’t going to either. But you know who didn’t have a state, and still managed to fight bloody hard against the capitalists? Catalonia. They had the right idea, they just got rid of the state straight away. They were actually communists. I figure if the Stalinists keep saying no to communism, then they can’t be communists at all.
True leftism is when you reject reality, and anyone that doesn’t subscribe to your extremely niche, extremely online ideology is either a conservative or a centrist. Everyone who disagrees with you, whether on the basis of theory or history or material conditions or lived experience, is just too morally impure to achieve the same level of leftism as you, you are the One True Leftist, and you’re not going to let little things like what things exist or are possible get in the way of that.
Wow, a fellow soulist. You’re being a bit too evangelical, though. We actually have a discord server with over 70 members! discord.gg/nfbVVyXK. And if you don’t like that one, there are two newer servers run by different mod teams. discord.com/invite/w7tvaR6s. discord.gg/5THVKZrk. Also, many soulists come from diverse walks of life and have more lived experience of realist oppression than nearly anyone. For example, I have schizotypal personality disorder, so my experience of reality is neurodivergent to begin with. There are many otherkin and plural systems within the community. Even material conditions, which are fake and socially constructed, can radicalise someone towards soulism. Over half of soulists are transgender. Obviously, soulism is more attractive to any trans person than realism, because it offers faster and more complete transition than any realist ideology.
I am not a soulist. In fact, I consider it to be an extremely dangerous ideology. If you’re successful in undermining consensus reality, we’re going to have dragons and vampires running around terrorizing people. The moment reality becomes mutable enough for someone to turn themselves into something with mind control powers, like a mind flayer, we’re all fucked.
I am trans and neurodivergent, and I take offense at this statement:
Obviously, soulism is more attractive to any trans person than realism, because it offers faster and more complete transition than any realist ideology.
Trans identities are not a rejection of reality. I don’t find your ideology appealing in the slightest. I believe in objective science, and the science is 100% on the side of trans people.
Of course the science is in support of trans people. Realism is anti-science. The scientific method points us inexorably towards antirealism. Soulists oppose the manufactured, false consensus reality which denies trans lives experiences. Because we’re awesome. Mainstream movements say pre-transition trans women are female on the inside, but soulists say the outside body is a mental construct, and cannot be taken as fact in any sense.
I watched the whole 20 minute video, just for you. I’m not interested in reading more from him as I was not impressed.
Welcome to philosophy. These ideas are not remotely new, they’ve been discussed for literally thousands of years. Obviously there’s a difference between sensation and perception, and obviously it’s possible for senses to be fooled, and obviously optical illusions exist. No one denies these things.
One thing that he is wrong about near the end is the rather arrogant idea that reason and logic are somehow magically immune to evolutionary pressures. The whole host of cognitive biases we experience as humans are grounded in the fact that we evolved in contexts where group cohesion was important to survival. He doesn’t seem like a particularly knowledgeable cognitive scientist if he either isn’t aware of the bandwagon effect (for instance), or if he can’t see the obvious connection between that and the need to fit in with a tribal community.
But more to the point of his thesis, the reason it’s trash is because it fails it’s own test. It’s indeed possible that, contrary to all evidence and observations, we’re living in a simulation, or whatever gobbledyremoved he said about conscious beings creating reality - the problem is, so what? By definition, this theory is unfalsifiable, and it is not capable of helping us do anything at all.
There is a saying in science, “All models are wrong - but some are useful.” Physicists are well aware that when we draw a diagram of an atom on a piece of paper, it differs from an actual atom in several crucial ways. It’s very large, for instance, meaning that the drawing can absorb and emit photons without really changing. Our mental models of atoms are necessarily imperfect, the only perfect representation of an atom is the atom itself. However, we still use these imperfect drawings and mental models because they help us navigate reality and predict events. This person’s theory does none of that.
It appears that he has conjured up an imaginary, unobservable world, that does not interact with us in any way, and he has, for some bizarre reason, chosen to dub that with the moniker of “reality,” instead of the actual, you know, reality that we can sense and perceive, that is testable and verifiable, that is necessary to navigate in order to survive. Why he’s chosen to call his fantasy reality and reality an illusion, I don’t know.
Now look, this whole thing you’ve come up with seems like a fun little form of escapism, and I don’t have a problem with that in itself. The problem I have is when you start trying to interject it into actual politics, when you actively try to divert energy away from engaging with reality, the thing that actually exists and can measurably improve or harm people’s mental and physical states, and instead towards your fantasy. That’s when it starts sounding more like a cult.
Your kind of thinking is responsible for countless New Age spiritualists telling people they don’t need medicine, that they can just cure diseases, like AIDS, through the power of belief. You can indulge whatever fantasy you feel like, but when push comes to shove, medicine fucking works, the train will kill you if you step in front of it, etc. The speaker in your video at least acknowledged that, even if by doing so, he undermined everything else he said - at the end of the day, he has to submit to that which he labeled “illusory” and deny that which he labeled “real.” And so should you. And that means that you have to engage with materialist and empirically backed theories of psychology, sociology, politics, economics, etc. Which means, get your nonsense ideology out of here.
The benefit Hoffman’s theory does us is that is reveals the universe is governed not by physical laws, but by cognitive laws, of which apparent physical laws are a contextually dependent subset. And we can use that, because it means reality can be manipulated not just by physical technology, but also by psychological technology. Imagine a civilisation only using half of science! It would look to the average person like a society practicing biology and medicine without ever discovering chemistry or physics. That’s precisely the situation our civilisation now finds itself in. We are only using half the science that is available to us, and half of the technologies we could have already invented by now. Antirealists demand that the government pour more research money into developing psychological technologies that alter our perception of reality. And that the public embrace such psychological technologies as have already been invented. For example, the technology to see a trans person as their preferred gender presentation regardless of their physical form. That technology is essential to preventing suicides and many people refuse to adopt it. We are fighting an anti-science platform pushed by transphobes who want trans people dead.
The benefit Hoffman’s theory does us is that is reveals the universe is governed not by physical laws, but by cognitive laws, of which apparent physical laws are a contextually dependent subset.
This is not what he says at all, and if he has any credibility as a scientist and doesn’t want to change careers to cult leader, he would completely disavow what you just said.
And we can use that, because it means reality can be manipulated not just by physical technology, but also by psychological technology.
This is complete nonsense.
That’s precisely the situation our civilisation now finds itself in.
No it absolutely is not.
Antirealists demand that the government pour more research money into developing psychological technologies that alter our perception of reality.
Yes, I figured this was about getting high and seeing pretty colors.
Why do you need the government for this? If you need more funds, why don’t you just alter reality to manifest them into existence?
For example, the technology to see a trans person as their preferred gender presentation regardless of their physical form.
Again, respecting a trans person’s identity does not require a denial of reality or of our physical forms. If the physical form of a trans person wasn’t objectively different from that of a cis person of the same gender, then we would not need any of the medications or treatments that we do - we wouldn’t even have the terms “trans” and “cis.” Please stop talking as if trans identities are somehow a denial of reality.
We are fighting an anti-science platform
If you respond to nothing else I say, then at least answer me this: why have you chosen to term something that is anti-science as “reality?” It makes absolutely no sense. Just say that science is real, that trans identities are real, and that transphobes are pushing a false and unreal narrative.
Try to pay attention to the language we’ve all agreed on.
If you respond to nothing else I say, then at least answer me this: why have you chosen to term something that is anti-science as “reality?” It makes absolutely no sense. Just say that science is real, that trans identities are real, and that transphobes are pushing a false and unreal narrative.
I didn’t choose to term anti-science beliefs as reality. Society did, and then I went along with it so as not to be incomprehensible to you. If by “reality”, we mean “An objectively extant world”, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by reality we mean “The world society thinks is objectively extant”, then that thing is anti-science.
It’s much the same language as an atheist might use to talk about the gods. The atheist would say "If by ‘the gods’, you mean ‘almighty beings’, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by ‘the gods’, you mean ‘the almighty beings society believes in’, then they are anti-science.
Please don’t begrudge me for accepting your premise that consensus reality is reality. It’s just a matter of convenience. I cannot at the same time believe that reality is true, and that reality is what the realists believe in. I have to pick one or the other.
Why do you need the government for this? If you need more funds, why don’t you just alter reality to manifest them into existence?
Cause the brain doesn’t work like that, you dipshit. Didn’t I say our perceptual reality is governed by cognitive laws? Cognitive laws don’t allow me to just do that. Weren’t you paying attention, or do you just have a kindergartener’s understanding of psychology?
I didn’t choose to term anti-science beliefs as reality. Society did, and then I went along with it so as not to be incomprehensible to you. If by “reality”, we mean “An objectively extant world”, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by reality we mean “The world society thinks is objectively extant”, then that thing is anti-science.
That which has the potential to smack you if you pretend it doesn’t exist is objectively real. It is nonsense to say that that is not real or that anything else is more real than that. There is no “world society thinks is objectively extant.” Society contains a lot of people who disagree on a lot of things. Scientists and supporters of trans rights are part of society.
Please don’t begrudge me for accepting your premise that consensus reality is reality.
Never said that. That’s your position, isn’t it? My position is that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of what people believe.
Cause the brain doesn’t work like that, you dipshit. Didn’t I say our perceptual reality is governed by cognitive laws? Cognitive laws don’t allow me to just do that. Weren’t you paying attention, or do you just have a kindergartener’s understanding of psychology?
Sorry, I suppose I’ve only been schooled in laws that, uh, actually exist and are observable and testable. I suppose I do have a kindergartener’s understanding of these magical psychic laws you’ve made up, I know nothing about how they supposedly work, please excuse my ignorance.
I’m familiar with psychology. Nothing about psychology suggests that it’s possible to collectively reshape the physical world through thought if enough people believe hard enough. I’d love to see some academic work that supports that claim.
They don’t want to have a communist revolution. They want to have a socialist revolution and then wait for the state to implement communism on its own. A true communist would act to bring about communism.
Have you by any chance read The Communist Manifesto or Critique of the Gotha Programme? Both are very short reads, and give some level of idea of what Marx is directly advocating for, as opposed to his general critique of Capitalism or his philosophical work on Dialectical Materialism. Marx was no Anarchist, he advocated for building Communism over time. This didn’t mean “waiting for the state to one day turn on the Communism switch,” that ignores his entire philosophy of Historical Materialism, whereby societal contradictions are worked out over time, as nothing is inherently static and everything is in motion.
None of this requires any of Lenin’s work to be read at all.
If you’re saying that a “True Communist” would somehow magically create Communism directly via revolution and not over time, then Marx was not a “True Communist.” At this point, you’re deeply silly, and simply redefining Anarchism as “True Communism” to win a game of semantics and label all non-Anarchists as conservatives.
Edit: oh, in another post you directly out yourself as a Soulist, and thus you disagree with Marx not only on his advocacy for Communism, but also his philosophy of Dialectical Materialism. At this point, you’re content to deny science and Materialism for the sake of pushing forward the idea that ideas create reality, which is deeply unserious.
Dialectical materialism is a misnomer. I’ll give you an example. Suppose Alice’s boss pays her one dollar an hour, while Bob’s boss pays him a thousand dollars an hour. A dollar is not a material object. It’s a social construct. These quantities are, material, simply numbers in a bank account. Less than that, because numbers are social constructs too. Materially, these are magnetised bits on a hard drive. There is no material sense in which Bob earns more than Alice. The fact that Bob earns a thousand times as much is purely social, not material. Yet, as a result of the exchange of social constructs, Alice lives in a slum and cannot afford medical care for the tumor that will kill her in a year’s time, and she is driven by necessity towards revolution. While Bob lives a life of privilege in a mcmansion with three healthy kids from three different ex-wives, and Bob is incentivised to maintain the status quo and oppose revolution.
If the dialectical philosophy of marxists were aptly named, it would be called dialectical determinism. Alice and Bob’s lives are governed by cause and effect, not by materials. They are governed by the cause and effect of social constructs. We can say that materially, Bob is more wealthy because he has a mansion, but why does he have a mansion when Alice does not? Because of a social construct. Not a material. It is wrong to say Alice’s desire for revolution is driven by materials. It is in fact driven by cause and effect, which is much more universal than mere matter.
Being a soulist does not make me the enemy of dialectical determinists, which is to say Marxists. But it does make me the enemy of realists, who misunderstand the lessons to be learned from Marx’s writing and fixate upon the physical to the exclusion of truth.
Oh, it appears I was wrong. You reject all of Marxism, including his critique of Capitalism via rejection of the Labor Theory of Value. Money is a representation of Exchange-Value, it doesn’t simply exist in our minds. Recognizing income differences is not an anti-Materialist take, pretending these happen for no reason is a rejection of attempting to understand Capitalism itself, and reality.
This is Idealism at its peak, and is a complete misunderstanding of what Materialists mean when referencing Social Relations. If you genuinely want to understand Dialectical Materialism, please read Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Politzer. Materialists understand social relations.
Alice’s drive towards revolution is due to her material conditions, which are caused by the material reality of Capitalism.
You are an enemy of Marxism and Marxists because you reject all 3 pillars of Marxism: Critique of Capitalism via the Labor Theory of Value, advocacy for Socialism as a way to build towards Communism, and Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Pretending to be the “One True Communist” while completely disavowing history’s most important Communist in every major manner is just anticommunism.
Yes, your beliefs about Marxist beliefs are wrong, and your beliefs about your own reality are wrong. Avoiding actually engaging with the points I made by replacing them with a “no u” and attacking me personally is again deeply unserious behavior.
The part where you completely misunderstood both Marx and my own arguments. But no, no, go ahead. I’m sure everyone at the clown college is very impressed with you.
Seems to me like you just have no way to address the arguments I raised and just resort to endless ad-hominem as a frustrated way to deflect, but whatever. Have a good day.
This is the worst thing that I have ever read, so bad that it made me make an account just to tell you how wrong you are.
First of all, if you even, for a second, thought about what you were saying this immediately crumbles. You dedicate a significant portion to talking about the material differences in the lives of those individuals, the property they own, the health care they can access, but then proceed to deny that it is the material conditions, that you have just laid out, that drive people towards certain ideas! You utterly contradict yourself.
Secondly, you just completely ignore how reality works and draw an arbitrary start line where everything just begins in a highly developed manner. The workers are not preordained to be workers, the bourgeoisie are not preordained to be such either. The people in your thought experiment would be in such a position due to a very very very very long history of subjective action arising from objective material conditions and social relationships (those relationships also arising from material conditions). So, dialectical materialism is very aptly named!
Thirdly, you have no idea what dialectical means and it is agonisingly obvious. A dialectic is the relationship between the opposite aspects inherent within a thing. So, with any morsel of philosophical thought it is readily apparent that “dialectical determinism” is an oxymoron. And I know you lack that said morsel of philosophical thought, so I’m going to explain it to you. The dialectic in question is the subject-object relationship, otherwise known as historical materialism: so if you remove subjectivity (which is a necessary consequence of a deterministic world view) you are debasing the subject to a mere object; and if there is no subject, there’s no subject-object relationship and thus no dialectic.
To wrap things up, stop trying to talk about things you’re beyond clueless about!
And large parts of .ml, which is the bridge for hexbear to all the instances which defederated with them.
It really does feel like hexbear users are probably high fiving each other over their cubicle walls in Vladivostok. The admin openly states their goal is information warfare.
She’s more of a Devils advocate. Just stating the wrong opinion for others to explain what’s right. There’s never any clever comeback, so I kind of think that’s the reason for her to shitpost so heavily.
I’ve blocked plenty of trolls here, but not her, yet.
Ok, so I’m not the only one who noticed that their spam has a weird taste to it. It’s got that vibe of some agreeable left-wing content but then feels likes it only there to mask authoritarian narrative building.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. That account is truly bizarre (from the point of view of how they write and express themselves). I’ve engaged with them a few times and it’s like a weird loop. I know it’s a real person, but it feels like talking to a script or dialog tree because it always goes down the same 1-2 dialog paths