2027 headline: “Craft carrying six billionaires lost at sea during voyage to see the wreckage of the submarine that went last year to see the wreckage of the submarine that went to see the wreckage of the submarine that went to see the wreckage of the submarine that went to see the wreckage of the Titanic in 2023.”
Did you know that property transfers below 12000ft are non-taxable? Few people know that tax laws have a little glitch where they do not apply below 12000ft.
I hate how lemmy is starting to get flooded with generative AI pick. It’s the “lol, so random!”-meme of the current age, but with even less artistic/comedic value.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s just another tool. Using it to get a good result takes more skill, practice, and patience than using it to get an okay result.
That’s not to say it is equivalent in terms of skill required to oil paint, for example. But it really does stink of being obstinately against change for no reason other than it being change.
I imagine similar complaints were made when photoshop first started to rise in popularity and use.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
So, you don’t like the art you’ve seen made with AI. That’s fine. Art is subjective; just because you don’t like a medium doesn’t mean it’s not creative. There are plenty of mediums and styles I don’t personally like either.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
That’s not contentious, in the sense of you won’t come up with any interesting art. My toddler’s scribble on a page isn’t interesting art either, but it’s still art.
As for the ‘AI bro’ thing - I haven’t run in to this, but yes it does sound like the ones that don’t want to share their prompts are insecure. It’s very normal for most artists to share their media and techniques with their piece; most AI art I’ve seen, particularly the better more interesting stuff, the person has shared their prompts and the models they’ve used.p
@Risk@Prunebutt, the risk is when we lose our own capabilities and intelligence, becoming dependent on AI. This has already happened with previous technologies. Who still has the handwriting of our grandparents with the introduction of the keyboard and word processors? Who can still do simple sums mentally for purchases at the supermarket, without using a calculator? With the introduction of smartphones, our lives have become completely dependent on these gossips in practically every aspect, social as well as professional.
Seeing this evolution, I always think of the humans in the movie Wall-e as the end result of this path. It is not that AI is going to fight and subjugate humanity, it does not need to do so, since we subordinate ourselves to it voluntarily, even today we would be unable to survive a week without our technology.
It happens when we start using tools, not for what they are, but as crutches for our own inability and intelligence, instead of using them for our own development.
Yeah, good quality handwriting is less prevalent now than it has been in the past - but that’s not because of a loss of artistry, but because that mode of written communication is less important. But there are still plenty of calligraphy artists out there, and are perhaps more highly prized now than they were before.
Human creativity doesn’t stop, we just progress to new tools when the previous ones can be automated. And yet, even then, we still have people that go back to use the old tools for the simple joy of using them.
@Risk, i don't confuse it,but an excess of delegacion IS at the end subordination. The calligraphy is only one example of a general tendency.
Of course there are people who continue to practice it and are sought after, precisely because there are few of them. But the vast majority do not have a writing that can be defined as such and many can no longer do so without using a spell checker, moving to a poor general vocabulary.
Human beings are very comfortable having others do their work and this with new technologies is becoming more pronounced, even with AI that turns on the lights or TV on command, because the 3 steps to the switch is too much effort.
But by delegating stuff we free up our time for other things.
If you’re making an argument that humans are tending towards being less creative, then I’d need to see some evidence to support that assertion. Because from my perspective we get more creative the more free time we have.
I wasn’t pointing to a conspiracy, merely the fact that the criticism voiced so far doesn’t have any substance to it other than ‘I don’t like it’ and therefore is likely because it’s new and different.
Edit:
I just realised you may be conflating my argument here about what constitutes as ‘art’ with artists making a case they’ve been ripped off because LLMs have been trained on their work.
doesn’t have any substance to it other than ‘I don’t like it’ and therefore is likely because it’s new and different.
So, just being against progress. Like I said.
you may be conflating my argument here about what constitutes as ‘art’ with artists making a case they’ve been ripped off because LLMs have been trained on their work.
Who? Artists, generally or those upset that AI/LLMs have been taught from their work? Not what I’m implying at all, as already highlighted extensively.
People criticising AI/LLM art as ‘not art/not creative’? Yes.
If you’re not conflating my argument, then you are either being really fucking stupid or deliberately trolling. In either case, I’m done wasting my time on you.
My gf actually showed me it and was raving on how we have to get it that I almost didn’t have the heart to tell her not a word on the package beyond ‘Lego’ was real
Ikr. The phone was supposed to be the screen in the middle (docked), but I couldn’t figure out how to tell that to the AI so it kept adding the extra phone plugged in via (very odd) cables.
My cat doesn’t care for people food, but she does paw at my arm until she gets to smell my breath when I’m eating. Our routine is for me to take a bite, open my mouth and breathe at her, and then she sniffs and walks away.
I’m mostly pro Palestine, but using this picture with the subtitle ‘history repeats itself’ and therefore portraying what happened at the festival, and the other slaughter missions as a tiny goofy missile, feels kinda disproportionate. Don’t you think?
It's almost like motivation, methods, intentions, and circumstances matter and not just body count. For example, intentionally targeting civilians to maximize civilian deaths is not the same as accidentally killing civilians with collateral damage while trying to minimize civilian deaths.
So one officer 7 years ago, who had the book thrown at him for his crimes by Israel. His actions are clearly opposed by his government and he was punished for his behavior. This isn't the smoking gun @matcha_addict was implying it is.
Do you think Hamas will punish its own rapists, murderers, and kidnappers?
Hamas is not a state or government. It is a militia to fight occupation. It is nowhere near as organized as Israel with its governing body. You cannot equate the two.
Israel does not oppose this. There are mountains of evidence of Israelis torturing and raping children, pregnant women and elderly Palestinians. There is mountains of evidence of Palestinians being burned alive, or forced to destroy their own homes with their bare hands. The magnitude of cruelty is unmatched.
Do you want more evidence? I am happy to provide. But it seems you reject it even when presented evidence.
There are mountains of evidence of Israelis torturing and raping children, pregnant women and elderly Palestinians. There is mountains of evidence of Palestinians being burned alive, or forced to destroy their own homes with their bare hands. The magnitude of cruelty is unmatched.
Source?
Do you want more evidence? I am happy to provide.
Yes, please do.
But it seems you reject it even when presented evidence.
What evidence was I presented with that I rejected? The one article I was given does not prove the claims you have been making.
The military prison abuse issue is one I wasn't aware of, that sounds pretty terrible. Clearly the military prisons need more oversight and the courts need reform. This one does seem like an example of systemic Israeli injustice.
I wonder what the best approach is to rehabilitate kids who attack soldiers with stones? It seems like they're being treated like future enemy soldiers, which may or may not be true. In any event it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy, given the additional animosity systemic abuse like this must engender.
Wouldn't negotiating peace immediately remove Palestinians from the Israeli military court's authority? Seems like constant attacks just ensure that they remain under its jurisdiction.
The murder of Mohammed Abu Khedir was a terrible crime, and the people responsible were brought to justice by Israel.
[Mohammed's murderers] Ben David was sentenced to life in prison and an additional 20 years. ... On 4 February, the two minors were sentenced. One was given life imprisonment, the other was sentenced to serve 21 years.
It is hard to imagine a more hypocritical display than the crocodile tears of the same leaders who perpetrated the massacre of 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza last year, more than 500 of them children, now feigning outrage at the murder of one more.
On 3 January 2016, 21 year old Israeli settler Amiram Ben-Uliel was indicted for the murder, along with an Israeli minor, for participation in planning the murder. In addition, along with two others, they were both charged with one count of membership in a terrorist organization.[3][4]
In 2020, Ben-Uliel was convicted of three counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, three counts of arson and of conspiring to commit a racially motivated crime,[5] as part of a "terrorist act".[6] However, he was acquitted of the charge of being a member of a terror organization.[7][8] He was sentenced to life imprisonment.[9]
Again, criminals who were severely punished for their crimes by Israel.
Being strip searched sucks but if someone is suspected of being armed it doesn't seem unreasonable if there's probable cause. If there isn't probable cause the soldiers should be reprimanded. If the IDF account is credible the search seems like it was done professionally by female solders. I'm not sure why this ranks among the other grievances, but this is an op-ed after all.
Of all these only the military prison for kids reeks of systemic injustice. Most of your examples are criminals who were punished by Israel for their crimes, motivated by the cycle of animosity. If the IDF were issuing orders to rape and murder non-combatant civilians you might have a case for equivalency but I see no evidence here of anything that can justify intentionally targeting civilians like Hamas has.
That’s just one of countless examples from a two seconds of googling. It’s the height of intellectual dishonesty to try and frame it as an isolated incident.
Yes the article I linked above discusses the revised charter. I see why you chose to share it rather than the original.
Hamas' original charter of course was explicitly genocidal:
Released on August 18, 1988, the original covenant spells out clearly Hamas’s genocidal intentions. Accordingly, what happened in Israel on Saturday is completely in keeping with Hamas’s explicit aims and stated objectives. It was in fact the inchoate realization of Hamas’s true ambitions.
The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:
The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories. ...
After some general explanatory language about Hamas’s religious foundation and noble intentions, the covenant comes to the Islamic Resistance Movement’s raison d’être: the slaughter of Jews. “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Regarding the new one, the one you linked:
A Kinder, Gentler Charter?
On May 1, 2017, Hamas issued a revised charter. Gone were the “vague religious rhetoric and outlandish utopian pronouncements” of the earlier document, according to analysis prepared for the Institute of Palestine Studies. Instead, the new charter was redolent of “straightforward and mostly pragmatic political language” that had “shifted the movement’s positions and policies further toward the spheres of pragmatism and nationalism as opposed to dogma and Islamism.” Nonetheless, the analyst was struck by “the movement’s adherence to its founding principles” alongside newly crafted, “carefully worded” language suggesting moderation and flexibility.
Israel immediately dismissed the group’s effort to promote a kinder, gentler image of its once avowedly bloodthirsty agenda. “Hamas is attempting to fool the world, but it will not succeed,” a spokesperson from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office predicted.
In fact, the new document differs little from its predecessor. Much like the original, the new document asserts Hamas’s long-standing goal of establishing a sovereign, Islamist Palestinian state that extends, according to Article 2, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Lebanese border to the Israeli city of Eilat—in other words, through the entirety of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And it is similarly unequivocal about “the right of return” of all Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars (Article 12)—which is portrayed as “a natural right, both individual and collective,” divinely ordained and “inalienable.” That right, therefore “cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international,” thus again rendering negotiations or efforts to achieve any kind of political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians irrelevant, void, or both. Article 27 forcefully reinforces this point: “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”
The most striking departure from the 1988 charter is that the 2017 statement of principles and objectives now claims that Hamas is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist and, accordingly, sees “Zionists” and not “Jews” as the preeminent enemy and target of its opprobrium. The revised document therefore modulates the blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric of its predecessor but once again decries Zionism as central to a dark, conspiratorial plot of global dimensions.
For centuries, Jews have been blamed for causing the anti-Semitism directed against them. The new Hamas charter perpetuates this libel, arguing, “It is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity” and who are therefore responsible for the conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
It seems like Hamas revised some of the more objectionable language in the original, but they are still Hamas, and their intentions are quite clear both by word and deed.
The comment I linked to you in response to a comment making the same claims you’re making. All of your points should be addressed in the comment I linked. Is there any part of the comment I linked you that you think is incorrect? Or is there something you think I left unaddressed? Please let me know.
It seems like Hamas revised some of the more objectionable language in the original
It’s a quite big change, not mere paraphrasing or slight changes if that’s what you’re implying. Hamas changed radically in that time, as I explained in the comment I linked, and the document reflects that.
but they are still Hamas, and their intentions are quite clear both by word and deed.
Intentions of what? Do you mean your original claim above? Again, I already talked about why that’s false. It would be easier if you address my argument instead of make the same claims again. The only genocidal entity by word and deed at the moment is Israel.
The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. But sure, I’ll still respond. From Hamas’ official website:
Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing
an imam of Hamas, 2008
Suffering by fire is the Jews’ destiny in this world and the next. Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews.
another imam and Hamas legislator
In order to annihilate those Jews. … O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.
Speaker of the Hamas parliament, 2012
The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them. … Throughout history—from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times. … They slayed the prophets, and so on. … Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth—the Jews must be behind it.
a member of the Hamas parliament, 2012
We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos… It happened everywhere.
Hamas spokesman, 2014
This conference bears a clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis. (…) The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations. (…) By these methods, the Jews in the world flout scientific methods of research whenever that research contradicts their racist interests.
Hamas press release, 2000
The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
The former 1988 Hamas charter, but also a hadith in which islamists believe
Hamas isn’t resisting they snuck uo on civilians to murder women, children, the old, and the crippled and took over a hundred hostage to slowly slaughter on video live before the world.
Where are the Palestinians resisting this behavior. No society would tolerate a neighbor doing that.
A good time line would have Israelis and Palestinians working together against monsters instead of killing each other but the honest truth is that the majority of Palestinians support terror like the majority of Israelis support displacement of the Palestinians.
What do you propose Israel does? Shall we begin an era of endless terror by proving it works?
I felt just like this after 9/11. I don’t know enough about your country to tell you what the right thing to do is. But I wish that the USA could go back in time and just gradually assassinate Al Queda with the CIA instead or something. Those occupations were doomed from the start.
The CIA is literally the reason the Al Queda exists. has consistently been the biggest force funding and training terrorists groups around the world. Al Queda is just the modern iteration on the Mujahideen whom US was propping up in the 80s.
The US government at the time did not want to do any such thing. Project For A New American Century, the think tank most of the Bush administration officials came from, openly wrote about how they were hoping for a “new Pearl Harbor” they could use to take the US into war with Iraq. Later, President Bush got a memo about how Al Qaeda was going to attack the US mainland and he did nothing. Then 9/11 happened and the government lied the country into a war with Iraq. What part of this makes you think they were going to do anything about Al Qaeda (other than giving them more funds maybe)?
I’m not talking about who shoots the biggest rockets and who kills more people here. I’m talking about portraying a literal slaughter fest as a tiny lil rocket, mosquito sting or whatever, which causes no harm at all. This is not the right comic & subtitle to show what happened ‘today’. At least in my opinion. Because it’s not disproportionate to what happened.
But feel free to disagree, it you think it is. To me OP is more or less mocking the victims and I find it distasteful. Especially because people were involved, who weren’t even culturally part of this ethnical conflict in the first place.
And no I’m not part of team both sides bad, because this conflict involves more than two sides and in the end people in Gaza suffer the most.
I don’t think disproportionate response doctrine from countries like the US and Israel should come as a surprise after more than half a century of conflict. Why murder 100 innocent people of your opponent when you know they will murder 1000 innocents of your people in response?
It may not be a surprise but it’s still disgusting and worth calling out.
Take 9/11 for an example, in response to a few thousand dying, America invaded Iraq (who was not even responsible) and killed several orders of magnitude more people. As well as looting their wealth, subordinating their government and economy to American interests, and effectively occupying them for two decades. Anytime an American says “never forget” they should be reminded how thoroughly soaked in blood they are.
Likewise, when zionists shed crocodile tears for a few hundred dead festival goers who were depraved enough to go raving only a few short kilometers from the world’s largest concentration camp. They must be reminded of what they have done to Palestine. Invasion. Displacement. Occupation. Ethnic cleansing. Apartheid. Imprisonment. Genocide.
This is nothing new. Often the actions of Israel are portrayed in the worst way possible. As a quick example: The UN considers everyone under 18 a child, hamas starts recruiting at 14. When the IDF does a raid and kills one of these members the Arab media screams „Isreal has slaughtered children“
“Palestinian women are not having lots of children because they don’t know about contraception, or can’t access contraception,” says Sara Randall, an anthropologist at University College London, who co-authored the 2006 investigation. “So one has to conclude that they actually want lots of children.” source
The article you linked to makes many excellent points. When you’re poor, bored, and chock full of bombing-induced PTSD, having many kids is seen as a good idea.
The soundness of your argument should not depend on your stance. It is a common tactic to state that you are “pro-X” but criticize X, because people are more likely to sympathize with your criticism that way. The commenter you replied to is simply reminding us of this.
I can’t stand how windows updates are so intrusive. Sometimes I’ll leave my computer on running a task overnight and Windows will just say “Oh fuck you, I restarted halfway through the night, and then your computer sat idle for 3 hours”. And, btw, I have updates “suspended”
I’m like everyone else here, I run Linux for most of my stuff, but Windows is on one last box, and it’s just so aggravating now
What are you all doing with your installs.
Literally never happened to me. Not in 1809, 1903, 1909, 20H1, 20H2, 21H1 ever.
It surely did some stuff believing it was idling while I was just surfing on my phone but it never restarted from itself. And I manage a good amount of PCs (Win 10/11 Pro) to say this is not a thing. At least not in Germany.
At a certain point, Windows decides that you’re going to update whether you like it or not. It’s one of the main reasons I stopped using it. And the updates honestly suck so hard. Such a shitty upgate process.
I’ve had it happen three times in the last ~1 year each time killing some running process that I kept my pc on for. IIRC it were robocopy backups twice and once during deep sky photography.
I get why they force updates, but resarting is a bit too much for me. Although I understand why they do it, there’s so many people just never shutting their systems down and Windows apparently just needs to reboot a lot for updates.
If you haven’t noticed it on your machines, it probably is because you keep them updated and restart them regularly (or disabled the “feature” somewhere).
I’m having a hard time reading this comment thru the “activate Windows” text. I gtg work starts soon, I’ll react when I get home, I work as a butcher btw.
I am so satisfied with my Windows Amliorated version because it will never have Microsoft updates ever again, only through playbooks. Every bad thing is removed. I just love it and ots the first time I actually feel comfortable and not betrayed. I feel like the OS is mine and not an entity with its own desire and magic.
But of course I use Arch linux btw. Only using Windows for VR gaming
Here’s one I know a few of you will be familiar with: 1st breaks a machine and can’t run product leaving it for night. Night fixes the machine and runs the orders but has to re-break the machine before 1st comes in or risk getting fired for fixing it and being productive.
Our third shift is all maintenance, no production, do they do their preventative stuff and nothing really happens. 1st comes in to a well lubricated factory, promptly fucks everything up and passes their problems on to second.
Way too accurate. Netflix, when it was the sole main provider, was super good. Then the other companies realised the big bucks they could get from streaming/peddling their own shit.
Thanks to this meme, I killed my netflix account. Nicotine is fine :D
It is good, if the competing products/services are interchangeable and they need to compete on factors such as price, convenience, or reliability. For example, competing grocery stores, all of which offer by and large the same products. Or competing mechanics, all of which can perform service on your car.
Streaming services don’t do this. They have carved up the market and “compete” by making you choose which products you want more.
Imagine two grocery stores, one of which had all the ice cream, and the other had all the chocolate, and neither could carry things that the other stocked. That is what streaming services are doing.
Modern copyright law is essentially a state sanctioned monopoly.
Rights holders should be forced to license the content to anyone that wishes to distribute it. As it stands now, they can lock it in a vault for generations if they wanted.
You mean like Disney still does… they just purged 500 million dollars worth of content from Disney plus and there is no other legel way to view most of that content now untill Disney decides to wheel it back out again (content that got a physical release is obviously still available)
They didn’t explicitly say they are back vaulting things again but I wouldn’t be surprised if they put out some of the content they took down back on disney plus or home releases at some point
Case law states that if media is no longer available, it’s consumption is considered preservation and is thus completely legal. Nobody can argue lost profits for something that literally isn’t even on the market. Fun fact: this is the reason why Nintendo releases their old games on the E shop for way more than what they’re worth. Once it’s up there they get to do takedown requests of every ROM on the internet.
this is the reason why Nintendo releases their old games on the E shop for way more than what they’re worth. Once it’s up there they get to do takedown requests of every ROM on the internet.
I want to be astonished and ask in disbelief if that’s really the case. But with how Nintendo treats not only piracy but content derived from their games in general (mods, tournaments and stuff), I can’t be surprised.
Do you mayhaps know why Nintendo is so hard on that front? I’ve heard that it’s “just the mentality in Japan”, but I can’t remember Sony cracking down on people like that.
Competition on price sounds nice because it prevents excessive prices, but it’s also a root cause of poverty and environmental abuse. Cooperating is much better.
Ehh…it’s entirely dependent on the product. Music streaming services are actually all comparable to one another and have not suffered the same fragmentation that the TV and movie streaming services have. With music streaming services, you literally just pick whichever works for you and you can get nearly all the same content. It just doesn’t work the same for every market I guess.
Look. It’s pointless to compare yourself to others. Everyone does things at their own pace, on their own time. Who cares if someone has lost their virginity before you have? Genuinely, it doesn’t fucking matter. Life your own life, and speak your own truth.
The virginity is less of an issue than 31 years of loneliness. Like, people say you don’t need a relationship to be happy and that’s true, but it really doesn’t fucking help in the slightest. It’s just a pointless platitude from people who don’t understand the pain.
Having been in a long distance relationship during COVID, with times where I couldn't meet my girlfriend for 12 and 18 months, I know just how the loneliness crushed me and how much happier I am now we're married and living together.
Oof yeah. My husband and I shared a house, but we rarely talked or saw each other during that time because he works in healthcare. We lived in separate parts of the house and didn’t even observe holidays.
Men need to be learn to be emotionally intimate with their friends instead of expecting that out of a partner. Loneliness should not be synonymous with being single.
Maybe you don’t but many people want a romantic and sexual relationship. There are many things that we don’t need to survive but make our lives vastly more enjoyable. I’ve had long term relationships and times where I’ve been single and while I enjoy my own company and the freedom being single I do miss the closeness of a romantic relationship. Friendships are great but it’s not the same.
I’ll take economic and ecological collapse over trench warfare any day of the week. I get to type this critique in air conditioning, while those dudes drowned in shell crater cesspools just trying to take a shit.
Not to discount how horrible our future will be. At least compared to what our ancestors went though, we’ve got it good.
They were ubiquitous, it just didn’t produce stalemates because armies didn’t rely solely on artillery and human waves to break through.
They were still used because they still worked against poorly supported infantry.
Still are used, look at Ukraine.
Obviously the comment was mostly referring to WW1 but there were many battlefields that would have looked very much like their WW1 counterparts until some tanks or air support showed up.
Or even simpler things that people take for granted, like antibiotics, which weren’t discovered until 1942 and weren’t widely available until 1945. Can you imagine how awful things like strep throat or a minor infection were to deal with before penicillin.
I grew up dirt poor without healthcare until I got to the Army aat 18.
I’ve gone through many infections without antibiotics. Nearly died from sepsis once because I didn’t go to the ER until the line in my arm was halfway to my shoulder.
You have a point. At the same time, the silent generations kids, the boomers, lived through every technological breakthrough, on times of huge economic growth. Also they owned cheap house, had almost free tertiary education and a better labor market. Lastly they had access to banking dept and never woried about the environment. Now they are reaking all these benefits and while they fucked around for us to find out.
Except many of the communists on some instances call everything that isn’t their brand of authoritarian communism “fascism” which isn’t how things work IRL.
I think that’s awful an immature behavior. When you fight idiocy with aggression (at least on social media) you just get idiots who think they must be right and start truth social or something
I find that a lot of crazy right wingers do it to “own the libs” or get a rise out of their supposed enemies. It’s all just a sports game to people like that.
If you ignore them they get bored and stop being so staunch in their awful beliefs. When you fight with them it makes them feel like they’re right. You end up forcing them to rationalize every shitty position.
Almost nobody posts on the internet trying to challenge and reconsider their beliefs, so it’s not like you’re going to change their mind anyway.
Does ignoring the fascists make them go away? Please.
If you ignore them they get bored and stop being so staunch in their awful beliefs. When you fight with them it makes them feel like they’re right. You end up forcing them to rationalize every shitty position.
So now you’re accusing us of making fascists more fascist, as an excuse for your ridiculous theory of just ignoring fascism.
like you’re going to change their mind anyway.
Its not even about changing their minds. Its about forcing them out of shared spaces. Fascists should driven out, shamed, harassed, and redacted.
What you think is lib bullshit that gets your spaces infiltrated and taken over by fascists and reactionaries.
You want to ignore them fine, but don’t condescend to people who confront them and drive them out of shared spaces as if you have a more “mature” solution. Your solution is literally “if i close my eyes they go away” baby logic
We actually study history and read shit. Like I just finished reading Long Walk to Freedom & Armed and Dangerous, both are a fairly good firsthand on how “fascists” respond to non-violence and only start to have reservations when the oppressed shoot back.
It’s just polarizing. You’re just making people more staunch in their beliefs or just annoying people who would rather not deal with aggression (like myself)
If your goal is to drive people away and make a space where everyone just agrees with you all the time then it’s effective.
This is really the point to hammer home. Back in my lib days, I started hanging out with a dude who was much cooler than me, and his anarchist friends. We once got to talking about how our town used to have a pretty substantial neo-nazi presence, in the 80s-90s. I said something to the effect of “good thing people are smarter today!” and he and his friends got really animated and saying how “they didn’t just go away one day, we fucking chased them out of here!”
While at first I just didn’t like getting yelled at, it eventually dawned upon me that that he was right. I, and everyone I had ever talked to about it (other libs), just assumed that that whole unpleasant nazi thing just went away, through the magic of progress, presumably. It was just a thing that was there once, now wasn’t. People like him and his friends (and I’ve since met many more) were the actual people who went out and risked life and limb to oppose the nazis everywhere the went, to vandalize their posters and stickers the moment they went up, to show up in numbers every time there was a demonstration. To do everything to make life as shitty as possible for these pieces of shit until it just wasn’t really viable to be a nazi in our town anymore.
That whole realization did a lot to cure me of my “we can’t sink to their level”/freezepeach brainworms.
Polarization is clarifying. It drives away fascists which protects their targets and makes spaces safe for them. It also exposes people who would more readily share spaces with fascists and just ignore them than with the people who oppose them.
If it drives away people like you who ignore fascism, yet want to argue that opposing it is immature, then that’s a bonus
When you fight with them it makes them feel like they’re right. You end up forcing them to rationalize every shitty position.
Literal fascist talking point. “Look what you made me do”
I mean that’s what I think, at least
Investigate before you start thinking next time. Are trans children out there looking for fights just by existing or is your belief that fascists need to be provoked first founded on nothing but bullshit?
Yknow I’m talking about on social media platforms, right?
Frothing at the mouth raging at someone on a social media platform doesn’t do anything but cause more radicalization, so I just ignore people instead. I don’t spend most of my life fighting with people on the internet over politics.
I don’t spend most of my life fighting with people on the internet over politics.
You won’t push back on fascists, but you can’t shut up when pushing back against people who believe in pushing back fascism.
cause more radicalization
Its been pointed out multiple times now that this is literally a fascist talking point. Pushing back against fascism is not what makes people fascist. In fact its how we protect the targets of fascism on shared spaces online or off.
As has also been pointed out to you some people just existing is seen as an incitement by fascists. What are they supposed to do? They can’t just ignore threats and the invalidation of their humanity. That you can shut your eyes to that says a lot about you.
Great to hear that the targets of fascism “can do whatever they want.” They don’t have a choice in the matter of being a target, unlike you obviously.
I’ve already told you this but our goal isn’t to change fascists minds. Its to drive them away, to shame them. To not allow them to spew their bullshit or attack their targets without resistance.
Pushing fascists out of our spaces is the only way people whose existence is targeted by fascism can actually “do whatever they want.”
I have no goal here. Just sharing my opinions. Not failing to do anything.
Yeah being aggressive is good for driving people away. And yknow given that your goal is actually to drive people away I was wrong to say it’s immature.
I just don’t like aggression. I don’t go on the internet looking for fights.
These skidmarks actively call for America to get nuked/civillians getting the wall and then turn around and project their fascist bs on others. The only group more representative of fascism today is maga.
Regardless of handwringing about it, the fact remains that we’ve driven out and proud fascists off of lemmy instances that we’re federated with. The simple existence of hexbear pulls the Lemmy overton window so far left that social democrats are now the right wingers - this is a good thing.
From what I see, it’s full of wannabe rebel communists, who claim to be communist because they like the idea of revolution. The type of people that think that wallstreetbets is communist because “they fight the system”.
Marx and gramsci are turning in their grave reading some lemmy post
I’m sorry but the Marxist and communist discussions on here are an absolute far cry from wallstreetbets lmao, not to mention using WSB favorite word gets you banned in a lot of these communities
Sorry Im not sure why but clicking on context provides nothing for me. Do you need me to explain what return on investment is (ROI) or is your comment regarding something else?
Some are well read and others maintain nonsense because they don’t know what anything means. Many seem to not have any understanding of how things work IRL. Fir example someone claimed China was a democracy and did not understand that the central party’s ability to determine who could oppose them meant that they are in fact not a functioning democracy.
Complicated issues are complicated. Neither Reddit, lemmy, Twitter (x?), nor any social media platform is particularly well suited towards discussing complex decisive topics.
To avoid crazy right wingers go to exploding heads and block the top twenty or so posters. Now all the authoritarian dipshits Im hearing from are at least coming from a better place than the auth right.
A whole bunch of these self proclaimed “communists” are supporting trump/trumpism…started with unfunny memes and well, I think we can all guess where they’re all going to end up.
The funniest part is arguing about current “forms” of communism and capitalism and not realizing that it’s just the same shit from different assholes and a far cry from either.
Yes I go into a phone booth as my normal commie antifa self and come out as Chudly Dugsfermpt local pool supply company owner and lover of Milton Friedman
Yes, every night I stop being a bisexual trans communist and put on my MAGA-Man leotard superhero suit and start ranting about immigrants and the woke gender ideology to people on the street
Damn, we found their trigger word! Lesser evil! LESSER EVIL!
It’s funny how hypocritical you are right now, too. You wanna label “liberals” as fascist, but get all pissy when the same happens to you with the same amount of credibility.
What’s funny is that you lot all seem to fail to realize that “Liberalism” is not inherently left or right wing, unless you are a reductionist who doesn’t believe that social liberalism exists and only believe Classic Liberalism exists. You all talk big about your political knowledge and how nuanced your beliefs are, and then you fall victim to the classic conservative notion of reductionism. Seeing “lib” used as an insult around here is just as hilariously pathetic as all the “snowflake” shit
I never called a lib a fascist. Liberalism is inherently right wing because its the ideology of capitalism. I understand that there’s distinctions between different types of liberals, and between them and fascists. I did call libs like you and the other poster, to use their phrase “the lesser evil” because you support capital but arent fascists.
If you don’t like being lumped in with other right wing tendencies then stop supporting capital. Its not our fault that reality is marxist che-si
Why are you lot so obsessed with reddit? Can’t you leave that place behind? I mean, haven’t you ever thought that people on reddit talk the way they do because its how most people online in general talk? Reddit didn’t invent linguistic trope. I digress.
And what makes you think I am a libertarian? What makes you think I support capitalism? Just because I don’t directly support your exact ideology doesn’t mean you get to straw man the criticism away. You and your ilk with that and ad hominem, or some other fallacy. Never able to directly hold an argument on it’s own merits. It’s fuckin hilarious lmao
Why are you lot so obsessed with reddit? Can’t you leave that place behind?
Can you blame people for being reminded of Reddit when you and your posts reek of Reddit?
I digress.
You and your ilk
ad hominem
Pretentious shit like that is the stench of Reddit.
And what makes you think I am a libertarian?
So far you’ve claimed not to be a liberal and not to be a libertarian, so if you’re one of those very tiresome “I have no political ideology” bullshit artists trying to dodge labels to seem extra enlightened, as seems to be the case, that’s actually a move that has overlap with both.
It’s fuckin hilarious lmao
You like it that
It’s funny that
It’s ironic that
It’s interesting that
Reddit minded people like yourself keep trying to mask their rage behind such tiresome “totally not mad” sentence fillers.
Lmao, you are one to talk about being pretentious. Hypocrisy is definitely your watchword.
Also, dont know why my comment said libertarian, definitely meant to write liberal and my shit must have autocorrected. I definitely have a political ideology, and its democratic socialism, which staunchly criticizes Marxist-leninist ideology. Like I said before, I dont agree with your philosophy but that doesnt make me a liberal or right-wing or anything. We agree on a lot of fundamental ideals, but theres a lot of disconnect, too.
I know you folk always have a “you’re with me or you’re against me” attitude, which makes sense considering your authoritarian nature. I think its just fun how easy it is to set you off. I mean, I can leave one half-baked comment and you guys swarm like vultures! I can see how the gish gallop is so successful.
So you’re one of those people that only support socialists who lose. Not a lot of room to talk about hypocrisy then, that’s your whole ideology. Makes sense you’re also into using logic pedant terms
What are you even talking about? This is the least comprehensible comment I’ve seen here. Everything you’ve said here has nothing to do with anything I’ve said; it’s the trifecta of straw man, non sequitur, and red herring. And using terms for logical argumentation doesn’t make me pedantic, it makes me able to precisely detail why and how your logic doesn’t work. I can see why you are afraid of that.
And, predictably, when all else fails, you basically resort to “no u”
You non-sequitur-ed, you double straw man-ed, you red herring-ed. Its not pedantic unless its from the pedant region of France. This is just sparkling smugness.
I’m sorry that you couldn’t comprehend my post, i was being pretty clear. You’re one of those western left anti-communists. You dont support actually existing socialist states. You think the men and women of the world who have fought revolutions and built real world socialist projects did it, or are doing it wrong. People like that usually have admiration for socialists who failed to bring a project into the real world, where their actions could be critiqued, where mistakes can happen and be visible, because only projects that aren’t real can live up to your idealist vision of socialism.
Mocking you for logic pedantry, and reddit debate bro bullshit to be fair is technically unrelated from your “ideology.” But there’s an obvious connection to how people who don’t find actual real world socialist projects worth supporting would also be into flinging thise terms around like anyone outside of online debate perverts would care
Damn, that’s a lot of wrong assumptions about me you just made. I can see that you lack the intelligence to actually see that I never really said much about my own ideology, so basically anything that you just tried to claim about me was pulled deep from inside your anus, and is objectively wrong. For the most part I actually support even communist states, but my main criticism with actual communist states is their authoritarianism, made easy by the inherent totalitarianism of communism.
Big problem with your criticism tho: there aren’t any true socialist states that exist today. There aren’t any states that have successfully fully implemented a socialist society today. A society where the actual individual workers own and control all the means of production, where all basic needs are met, and people are guaranteed the right to their freedoms. I absolutely support and laud the people out there working to achieve those goals. I don’t think any state will ever be able to perfectly achieve those goals, so I don’t expect perfection out of my fellow socialists. I do expect the abolition of the class, however, and that has never really even been close to being achieved. Not for a lack of trying, but because there is always some asshole who wants to be above others, and they have been very good at fucking things up for the rest of us.
And, you know, that gets me thinking… this whole conversation is exactly what capitalists want; infighting. You think I’m not radical enough for you, so you then label me as completely opposed to you. The problem is, I can guarantee we share a great many ideals, but you are too busy gatekeeping to allow others with slightly different but reconcilable ideals to be allies.
That is, of course, if I suspend my disbelief that you are a capitalist troll who is spitting vitriol, trying to make communists look belligerent and inhospitable.
Your explanation of your beliefs just proved me right. My thoughts about you didn’t come from my ass they honestly came from Michael Parenti Black Shirts and Reds
All governments are authoritarian, its a useless word. I didn’t make that up either. Its from Engels On Authority
Totalitarian is a bullshit concept invented during the Cold War to conflate fascism with communism, similar to double genocide theory, to use against communist states. To say its inherent to communism is like saying killing 10 gorillion dead, Vuvvezzuula, no food, no iphone, is inherent to communism.
You believe these things because you’re a left anti-communist. You can say that you arent, and then continue to describe to us all the ways that you are again if you want.
No, no it hasn’t gotten you thinking. If we share values, then why do you attack us. There’s more than once where you’ve popped off saying something weird directed at us. If you think our differences are reconcilable, why not lead with that?
Instead you started with TRIGGER WORD, and some comment about us being the same as fascists by saying we’re like Hannah Montana or something. Then you dicked around flinging out your straw mans and ad hominems and no true scotsmans instead of telling us about your ideology or making a real critique about ours.
Lmao I thought you wanted to move this discussion to your safe space, but your coward moderators banned me for literally just engaging with you. You guys are so fragile it’s hilarious. Carbon copy of The_Donald cosplaying as revolutonaries.
And, you know, that gets me thinking… this whole conversation is exactly what capitalists want; infighting. You think I’m not radical enough for you, so you then label me as completely opposed to you. The problem is, I can guarantee we share a great many ideals, but you are too busy gatekeeping to allow others with slightly different but reconcilable ideals to be allies.
Gatekeeping? That was always the issue I had with “democratic” socialists who have us-foreign-policy positions, but insist that they’re the ‘democratic’ ones because they want to make sure the slaveowners keep getting a vote (and continue existing).
If I’m a liberal, that would make you a turbo liberal. You guys keep throwing that word around, I’m not sure you even know what it means at this point. What kind of liberal wants total worker ownership and control of production? That is antithetical to the free enterprise fundamentals of liberalism.
If you oppose my actual beliefs (not the ones you made up and assumed based off of nothing) then you oppose your own beliefs, as Marx himself believed that a socialist state was required to be implemented before it could serve its purpose and wither away. If you oppose the implementation of socialism, you oppose communism. I merely suggest we implement socialism and go from there, see where things lead us. I don’t think the state would ever be able to wither away, as there will always be some need to facilitate the regulations decided upon, and we are long past the scales of community that allow that to happen autonomously. Apparently that’s such a radical notion that it makes me liberal. You guys are trying so hard to shift the Overton window, but the window has to at LEAST stay on the wall. You can’t shift left further left than you guys are, so just because someone isn’t ALL THE WAY left, doesnt mean that they are on the right.
Not that you guys are capable of arguing in good faith, anyways.
I mean unless we’re talking about the rich. But like my whole political ideology kinda hinges on aggression in that direction so…
I think the common Communist definition of “Rich” and Marx’s might differ vastly, and I think the vagueness of the word is half the reason. I see too many Communists calling for the death to (for example) computer programmers because many of them are able to save up a couple million by retirement. I know a few that ended up with $10M cash because they worked for a profit-share startup. While I’m not an expert on Marx, I’m pretty sure that’s not what he meant when he referred to the bourgeoisie.
Hell, I don’t think he ever predicted the massive number of “petite bourgeoisie” that we have now in much of the west, people who put in 60-80 hours simply to live the same life the rest of us live but not have to obediently answer a boss. I’d do that if I could. You’d think Communists could make allies of both the successful proles (like programmers) and the petite bourgeoisie.
If you draw “rich” somewhere close to the $100M mark or higher and include some asterisks on the ones you think should be murdered in the streets (assuming that’s what you meant by “unless we’re talking about the rich”), maybe most people will agree you’re not an aggressive communist (but still be terrified of you like we are of anyone who wants to kill someone for who they are). If you’re going to look at a grandma who has $2M in savings after her husband dies, the world’s got problems with you.
I mean, if you want to peacefully dismantle people like Musk, then I’m 100% on board with you. If you would support someone taking sudden and violent force to him, as much as I think he’s a douche, that’s why we use the word “aggressive”.
I have no problem with an individual acquiring wealth on the fruit of their own individual labor. The computer programmer getting a buy out from a venture capitalist has successfully gamed the system without being personally responsible for harm to others. At least directly. Usually.
My problem is with people who exploit the labor of others for profit. No billionaire earns that last zero without causing harm. They perpetuate violence for profit, knowingly. That violence can take a lot of forms, from unsafe working conditions all the way down to actual fucking slavery.
The thing is, you can’t participate in capitalism without either extreme ignorance or at least a little complacency towards that violence. And fine, there’s little to nothing most of us can do about it. You exist in this system, you’re a part of it. You’re either ok with others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate in your breakfast croissant, or you aren’t.
I don’t see a peaceful remedy to this problem. We can talk about theory, about “yeah just organize and vote” until we’re blue in the face but the reality is that system is actively rigged against us. We can talk about organizing your workplace and demanding better conditions, but that system is actively rigged against us too, even if you’re already in a union.
We are actively rocketing towards a very bleak future and every passing day without cataclysmic change only pushes it down the line. And every day we push it back, it increases in magnitude.
So frankly, if someone is going to commit violence on my behalf, I’d rather it be directed at the problem than directed at my peers in the working class, wherever they may be.
My problem is with people who exploit the labor of others for profit. No billionaire earns that last zero without causing harm
I’m mostly on board with you. But I’d like to cite “Notch” (of Minecraft) as an example of someone who earns the last zero without causing harm. Pure fucking luck? Sure. Should be part of a society that will redistribute his wealth? Definitely. Perpetuating violence for profit? I dunno what he’s doing now, but he wasn’t when he got that billion.
The thing is, you can’t participate in capitalism without either extreme ignorance or at least a little complacency towards that violence.
As a demsoc, my whole position is described by stopping the violence from within. There are parts of capitalism that are palatable, though it will inevitably end up in a horrible state if left to stagnate. But if I had to choose between universal healthcare and welfare for all and a violent revolution that fewer than 10% of people actually want, I think the former is a better option. And despite me having a lot of the same goals as the groups seeking that revolution, they still terrify me.
You exist in this system, you’re a part of it. You’re either ok with others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate in your breakfast croissant, or you aren’t.
Please understand that this terrifies me. The black & white no-middle-ground thinking is the foundation of so many atrocities. That idea that you cannot improve capitalism, or that a “better capitalism” is still identical to “others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate” is the kind of madness that leads to authoritarian regimes. I’m against capitalism in general. I’m also against a smallish number of people with guns replacing capitalism with something else.
I don’t see a peaceful remedy to this problem.
Can you acknowledge that a state that over 90% of humans would be happy with is still within “the problem” for you? If not, please understand that THIS is why most people incorrectly batch Communism with Fascism. If so, please understand why you having a problem is the problem and you need to learn to differentiate between the Bidens and the Trumps. Biden is “the other side”. Trump is satan.
We can talk about theory, about “yeah just organize and vote” until we’re blue in the face but the reality is that system is actively rigged against us.
Let me be clear about this. I’m part of the same category batched as “progressives and leftists”. WE represent about 9% of the population in my home country. That part is unfortunately Democracy working as designed. Not rigged. WE should represent a larger percent of the population, but unlike Billionaires and Church Leaders, we can’t seem to find common ground between Far Left V1 and Far Left V2.
But you’re right. With less than 6% of people in your country supporting your particular views, voting is not the answer. But, IMO, neither is violence. If 6% of the country manages a coup, I will not be happy no matter how much of their views I agree with. Because that’s an authoritarian regime.
We are actively rocketing towards a very bleak future and every passing day without cataclysmic change only pushes it down the line. And every day we push it back, it increases in magnitude.
Everything you say here I agree with. But if we can’t get the support for “very bleak future” under 90%, then you’ve failed even if you temporarily succeed.
So frankly, if someone is going to commit violence on my behalf, I’d rather it be directed at the problem than directed at my peers in the working class, wherever they may be.
My wife’s best friend is Petite Bourgeoisie, she owns a breakfast diner near the local project. She makes less than her workers in all but the most perfect months. I have no problem with her. I have problem with anyone who will make her choose between surrendering her freedom not to answer to an ownership structure (even a communal ownership structure), or “going up against the wall”. Ironically, it is the part of me most sympathetic to the goals of communism that support her attempted independence from private ownership. I have, on many occasions, been told she would be in line for death or disenfranchisement. Do you understand my reservations? I PREFER an imperfect capitalism if that is the only alternative. And you might not have meant it, but you came across as saying that’s the only alternative, and by way of violence.
Whether or not notch directly hurt anyone himself. (He is now) The money he was paid was blood Money derived from persecuting destroying and monopolizing the market on Microsoft’s part.
So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
No. Definitely not as long as he will help to work to make a more just and amicable Society. However if he or others try to violently oppress or push everyone down. All bets are off. One of the things these wealthy people need to remember is that we far outnumber them. And their money only isolates and protects them as long as we are marginally content. Should we ever get focused enough to the point to come for them. They stand no chance. So it’s in their interest to work with us. I don’t care if they have a slightly better life than average. So long as people aren’t homeless and Starving in the streets.
I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of “bourgeoisie”, or merely “the rich”. And (I’m sure you can understand why I’d have a problem) that some folks talk like I’m in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.
I know it’s not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I’ll happily have a beer with you.
I don’t think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling “no true scotsman” even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.
If you just happen to be luckily a member of an ingroup. Chances are you will have minimal issue. But that doesn’t mean people don’t. Your personal experience is yours and yours alone. And not shared by everyone.
There is no nebulous definition of bourgeoisie. If you labor, you’re proletariat. Even if you’re sympathies mistakenly lay with the bourgeoisie. If you live off wealth, and use it to amass more wealth. Bourgeoisie. Owners of many, or large company’s and middle management. Bourgeoisie. Landlords/slumlords bourgeoisie. Career politicians? Bourgeoisie. Stock traders etc? Bourgeoisie.
There is more than one type of communist. So your generalization is well, …highly ignorant. However, when it comes to leninists. I strongly agree. Those are the ones you’re referring to. Anarcho-communists have a hard enough time organizing together let alone finding the desire to go after bourgeoisie. They want to be mostly left alone. Authoritarians of any stripe are the problem. Not communists.
And yet nobody minds the aggression of capitalism and the right on anybody other than well off cishet white men 🤔
Across the country LGBTQIA people are being actively censured, stripped of their right to exist, and outright physically assaulted. There’s no concerted trend trend to bitch about THAT violence, but mention a guillotine and half the fediverse comes out to cry about how we’re all just meanie tankies out to murder anybody who makes more than minimum wage.
And yet nobody minds the aggression of capitalism and the right on anybody other than well off cishet white men 🤔
Really? NOBODY minds that? I can’t be pro-LGBTQIA without believing that any possible system except strict communism will work? You’re talking black & white thinking, the same as the anti-LGBTQ extremists. There are miles of Left, even far left, that aren’t Authoritarian Communism (that isn’t authoritarianism but does involve Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the exertion of authority. I was fucking THERE, marching there, when they legalized gay marriage in my state, one of the first in my country. I had a good friend be in the first 50 gay marriages in my state. Does it not count if I’m not a Tankie? All my friends who were out there risking their safety against the Catholic alt-right violence in my state didn’t count?
Look, you touched a nerve here, and I’m trying to take a breath. Maybe I misread you. Are you genuinely trying to say that you can’t oppose far-right violence without being a Communist? Or (perhaps just as bad) are you trying to say that if I’m not ok with violence against queer and transgender individuals that I need to be ok with violence against all liberals?
And I’d like to quantify that I got hit this morning with a dozen replies putting me in the “liberal them” pile, basically agreeing that if I don’t strongly support violence against the non-Communist supermajority, I’m a liberal and have no right to call myself a leftist. I hate the tearing down of the pacifist Left I keep seeing.
you woke tankies are all the same the mind virus is infecting every aspect of our life and culture we must use violence to fight it before we wake one day in the pod eating bugs with no gender and no country
You frame it as killing someone for who they are (rich) while the aggressive communist frames it as what the rich have done (destroy countless lives for personal monetary gain)
Not saying that it’s ok, I wouldn’t condone murder in a public setting of course. Just saying :)
I’m not ok with the death penalty for serial killers and rapists, and I think the laws we have now (if they were enforced) cover for corruption.
I have a rule. No matter how shitty the rules, nobody should die for playing by them. Ex Post Facto protections are a hallmark of preventing justice from being another name for authoritarian persecution. Of all people, it tends to shock me that Communists struggle to see that when they are the first to back extreme versions of ACAB-attitudes.
I know rich people who are… just fucking rich and that’s it. Lottery, good job. Smart little investment. Most rich people don’t destroy lives directly for monetary gain. Is there an indirect effect between wealth distribution and suffering? SURE, but holding someone accountable by violence for something they indirectly effected when it was legal? I just can’t see it no matter how they frame it.
It’s like COVID opposition. When we didn’t have laws against their bullshit (COVID spreader parties?) it is unjust to now go back and pass a law to punish there behavior merely because it caused hundreds of thousands of extra death.
I’m pretty positive the only thing keeping my mother-in-law from getting lung cancer is the constant supply of cheap cigarette smoke she’s pumping into them. That shit’s killing the newborn cancer cells before they can ever replicate.
Wow, I don’t even know how to process this. The dumbass conservatives are getting so confused about life they’re actually creating sarcastic comics about their way of thinking unintentionally.
In case you haven’t heard of them, chick tracts have been hilariously bad since before the Internet. They are plentiful, and at least as insane as this comic here. You could dedicate a sub to them. One of my favorites was one ‘in the near future’ where non-christian children were compared to Hitler youth.
My biggest disappointment in life was finishing a whole campaign of D&D and never getting invited into a cult to cast spells with THE REAL POWER. Maybe it had to be with 2nd edition instead of 3.5?
Conservatives don’t know how comedy works. I call it the Yo Mama hypothesis.
When you were a kid, and other kids lied about your mom, you got mad, right? And eventually they’d say - relax, it’s a joke, stop crying. And if you’re reading this then you probably grew to understand the difference between saying something and meaning it.
I don’t think every kid got there.
I think a lot of kids, maybe a whole quarter of humanity, only learned that jokes are insults you have to shut up and take. They’re cruelty you’re not allowed to get mad about. How would those kids act differently? They’d stop crying, mostly, when people told rude lies about their mothers. They’d snap back at other kids, telling rude lies about their mothers. From those events you’d figure, great! They get it. It’s not real. Except… they only look right from the outside. On the inside, they’re gathering a list of excuses for vicious behavior.
These people know what jokes look like. They’re clever enough to build a punchline. They kinda get how you tell jokes. But they have no idea why you tell jokes.
People defending Dave Chappelle insisted “he’s a comedian!” like that absolved all his opinions. I’ve walked those people through how jokes require setup that reflects sincere beliefs. (Like how “eat the rich” is a joke about classism and cannibalism, but it’s only joking about the cannibalism.) I’ve cited the many times Dave repeated certain claims far from any stage. But these folks never come acknowledge that being a TERF is not part of the act. That’s not how it works, in their worldview.
Being a comedian means he gets to say things you’re Not Supposed To Say, even if they’re things you absofuckinglutely believe. That’s all they thought Jon Stewart was doing. That’s why they thought Stephen Colbert was on their side.
The same people routinely parroted “you can joke about anything,” which is equally revealing. They’d heard it because they insisted “you can’t joke about [blank]!” even for the most benign, supportive, and inoffensive gags. And also for dead-baby jokes and antitheism. Point is: these types don’t care about severity, because they don’t care about meaning. They believe in blasphemy. They think condemnation, criticism, or even just speaking less-than-reverently about a subject is profaning something sacred, and chances are good they’ll hit kids for doing it.
We told them every subject is fair game for fair jokes. They’d stop yelling, mostly. And from that event we’d figure, great, they get it. But on the inside, they still believe the issue is what a joke is about. They still think joking is an attack under agreed-upon rules of engagement. So of course funny black man shit on trans people. They don’t like trans people. It’s hardly a secret. What’s our beef, saying he’s not allowed to spout jokes full of prejudice and hatred? They’re jokes. That’s what they’re for.
I think conservatives are just generally bad at creative endeavors because they lack empathy. You need to understand the audience to be able to connect with them. Someone who lacks in empathy is going to have a tendency to not care about what they’re doing affects other people. If it’s funny to them, then it’s funny. The audience’s feelings don’t matter.
This has been exacerbated by podcasting. Used to be if a comedian bombed, there was nothing to do about it other than work on their material. Come up with some new jokes. But now a comedian bombs, they go on Joe Rogan and whine about how bad the audience is. They feel like the important people on the podcasts are their friends, while the audiences are an enemy unless they conform to what the important people define as being funny.
Conservatives have a tendency to prefer hierarchies even when they’re at the bottom of it. To them, the famous person on stage is more important than the audience. Therefore the audience is obligated to laugh at their jokes. If they don’t, there’s something wrong with the audience, not anything wrong with the jokes. Doesn’t matter if the jokes are old, doesn’t matter if culture has changed since the times when those old jokes got laughs.
You’re a bad person if you don’t consume the content that the important people make. Cancel culture!
Of course the reality is there is such a thing as creativity, connecting to the audience, understanding cultural norms that you can use them in interesting (and funny ways). But if you’re lacking in talent in these things (or just gotten lazy which is what I feel happened with Chappelle) you can always go the route of “I hate the same things you hate” then all you need to do is make something that resembles the form of something actual creative people make. Conservatives fall in line, laugh on cue, and the uncreative people make money.
Hierarchy defines conservatism. It’s tribalism. It’s the default human mindset, where truth is defined by people above you, and if they’re wrong about stuff then they’re the wrong people to have above you. So disagreement is a threat. A leader can’t just be wrong. That’d mean they’re the wrong person, to lead. How dare you challenge them? Look how much money they have. Their penis must be enormous.
Basically - reality is a team sport, to some people. They have no objective means of evaluating claims. In their worldview, that is not what claims are for. Even their stated ideals are ad-hoc justifications. Nothing matters besides ingroup loyalty.
Notably this is distinct from right versus left. There are left-wing conservatives. Mostly tankies. It’s hard to square a critical philosophy opposed to hierarchy with loyalist posturing for ingroup supremacy, but they have the benefit of not really caring what words mean.
Conversely, there’s right-wing cranks who are not conservatives. You can spot them with boot-prints on their backsides, once the group radically shifts to some new bullshit. They believed what they were saying. The fools. They’ll argue the new leader isn’t last-year’s-bullshit enough, which marks them as traitors who want him deposed and humiliated and short. It’s too bad that being shunned as a RINO leaves them full of bad arguments for worse ideas.
The saddest part of this is probably the school-shooting victims with braces. I mean that’s just money down the drain. The saddest part of this that’s not a shock-comedy aside is that conservative humor can be good. Some More News had a video about that modern wasteland of kneejerk contrarian bragging, performative allegiance, and joke-shaped sentences. But they also remind us the Blue Collar Comedy Tour was full of fantastic material. That wasn’t a lifetime ago. People can’t have changed that much. But the figureheads of the figurehead-obsessed went from bad to indefensible - and when those assholes are out, that won’t address the underlying cause.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.