“You’re not being sacked, no, we are releasing you into a world of opportunity!” Yes, a friend of mine actually heard that one a while ago when he was ‘let go’. 🤨
It’s just so weird how they swing from “Biden old and inept” to “Biden is this massive 4D chess master rigging football games to make Taylor Swift rig the election”
… Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. …
Eco does make a point of clarifying that the presence of absence of any single trait he has identified does not prove a thing is or isn’t fascist.
But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
(The full text of the feature I quoted above)
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
It’s pretty fantastic. In 2020 (only just beginning my journey of recovery from a conservative upbringing), I decided I should understand what fascism actually was. I found that dictionary definitions were terribly imprecise but eventually found Eco’s essay. I understand there are other methods–of similar scholarly integrity–used to define fascism, but I have not spent the effort to find and compare these other works. It is my (uninterrogated assumption) vague understanding that Eco’s definition isn’t regarded as opinionated.
The browser in my computer at work doesn’t have an ad blocker. I haven’t installed one because I most of the time I’m using it to access our intranet. But when I do happen to use the internet, damn are there so many ads! They literally block the content I’m trying to read, and come back even when I try to close it.
All that to say, due to enshittification I will forever keep my ad blocker on my personal computer.
Can’t imagine what the web is like outside of ublock origin…
The few websites I see on pcs by clients are essentially state backed so they don’t have ads as well.
It’s because there’s websites out there that will entirely break, and for really dumb fucking reasons. I’ve seen some sites not even load due to google tag manager being blocked. Most of the time it’s a signal to me that I don’t want to have anything to do with that domain.
However, if this was at work, that would be a call to IT. Multiply that by potentially hundreds of calls on the regular, and that could get really expensive.
The better solution here I think, is to default the browser install with uBlock Origin already there. Then allow the user the power to toggle the addon to their own liking. Then last, train your employees to know what the addon is, and how to use it.
Then it’s the best of both worlds: websites aren’t necessarily breaking for all users, ads are absent as a default state, and users are empowered to control their own experience. (And yes there’s still going to be Jims and Karens calling for support, but they’re going to regardless, those types will always find a reason.)
It’s almost as though the overbearing Yahoo/Ask! toolbars that used to plague everyone’s Internet Explorer back in the day have mutated and infected the internet at large. Now most websites feel like one useless, giant malware-riddled toolbar.
It’s wild using a browser without a blocker. I’ve had one since they first started appearing so the internet I know is very different to reality. On the rare occassion I use a browser that allows ads, it feels like shit’s broken. It’s so hard to get anything done and a chore to read or view content.
The “belief” we’re in a simulation is more like a interesting idea than something people organize their lives around. Is it possible? Yes. Am I going to praise the great programmer every Sunday? No.
The belief in God in most cases is not just belief in some general higher power but a very specific deity with weird morality, silly mythology and bunch of scam artists behind it.
I think there’s a higher power…
Ok…
that got mad at us for eating fruits but then impregnated a lady with itself and pissed us off so that we murdered him and he could say he’s not mad anymore.
English is an endless deluge of that experience, because our orthography is bullshit. People have tried to fix it. Their clever rules were partly adopted and became even more exceptions and special cases.
I just learned of the Shavian Alphabet yesterday. It’s designed specifically for English and fits it well, except the sounds in it are so specific that when you write in it, you have to write in a specific regional accent. Fortunately it can’t become a new set of special cases because it’s an entirely new script not related to Latin.
Could an all powerful, loving God be real? Sure. Why not?
Could a powerful, all loving God be real? Yeah, seems realistic. In many ways, I am a God to an ant.
Could an all powerful all loving God be real?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
God is either inept, indifferent, or a straight up ass. None of those items are something I care to worship, even at the threat of the eternal damnation.
This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That “most” religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.
Religion’s weakest argument is the claim that the world was intelligently designed. When it so clearly isn’t.
Simulation theory doesn’t claim someone designed all this. They built a simulator where all this evolution and history happened, like emergent gameplay on steroids. It’s not the same kind of “design” we’re talking about.
Intelligent design is a broad, vague, and intensely mutable concept. It isn’t helped by the fact that there’s multiple kinds, with the pseudoscientific kind touted by the religious right in America and the more generic, very fucking old “teleological argument” which is also intelligent design at its core. To give a specific example of intelligent design philosophy that isn’t directly tied to a belief in a deity as an active participant, you can look at the deists, who believed that the universe’s fundamental laws were engineered by a kind of “clock maker” deity who left the universe running under its own principles but doesn’t have a direct, guiding hand in individual events. This is still a form of “intelligent design” and closely corresponds to simulation theory. At this point, you are redefining terms to suite your argument. Also, you can’t really say the world is or is not intelligently designed, as you have no evidence for either. The only truly “logical” position to hold for any of this is straight agnosticism.
The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed
The hypothesis of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.
The theory of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.
I think you mean “it may value nothing inside the simulation.” Because what you wrote doesn’t make any sense as it’s written. In either case, my “thesis” is not a thesis. It’s an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe’s existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it “created.” I think the only thing lacking here is your reading comprehension skills, as you’re clearly adding unfounded assumptions onto my observation independent of what was actually stated. Also, I posted that like a fucking month ago. Either you’re necroing dead threads looking to pick a fight or whatever instance you’re posting to fucked up its syncing with its federation.
It’s an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe’s existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it “created.”
The universe just getting created by an external force, and your phrasing that it is “intelligently designed” has no similarity. You are just escaping from what you had stated. You yourself assumed that the core similarity is intelligent design. There is nothing to observe here. The only one lacking in reading comprehension is you, or you are probably trying to find the little ounces of loopholes you think you can find because you’re just so disappointed by your thirty-day-old opinion but you also just can’t admit to it, or whatever else the situation may be.
Simulation theory does not share any core similarity with creationism. Just simulating a universe does not mean it is intelligently designed.
You’re getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. “Intelligent design” as an ideology and describing something as “intelligently designed” are not the same thing. The core similarity is what I’ve already described. You want me to mean something beyond what I’ve stated because you’re incapable of accepting what you read at face value. I have no interest in speaking further with someone without the intelligence to do something basic as understand the words they read.
You’re getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. “Intelligent design” as an ideology and describing something as “intelligently designed” are not the same thing.
They are different things, and I am not taking the phrasing in an ideological context. Something being intelligently designed and just being designed, are not the same thing either. Your previous reply elaborates the phrasing of yours that I quoted in a broader way that only you can come up with, because the phrasing simply had an entirely different meaning. I am also uninterested in having any discussion with somebody who throws up words on the internet, expects to be taken seriously, but is bereft of the mental competence to even phrase their words correctly.
By their own book, the bad guy thought the stupid naked people should have a bit of an education and the good guy punished them for trying to improve their knowledge base. Serpents rule!
I was taught in school that the real battle in the universe is between chaos and order. They gave it a fancy name, Entropy, but that was the gist.
So Chaos is God and Order is Satan. Live all hunter gathering under God or just go to the Supermarket under Satan, and spend the rest of your time doing other things, like making art or scientific theories.
Even now the Church is against progress. Don’t let them Gays get married for fucks sake, the world will explode.
Removing downvoting feels intuitively wrong to me (eg, I believe that dissent is a really important part of a healthy democracy). If all those mega-corp platforms are removing downvoting, then I’m pretty confident my intuition on this matter is correct
The voting will stay but your homepage will be a for you page that selects posts based on your usage data and whatever is trending instead of the votes, in an attempt to bring engagement to a maximum. Just like what’s been happening to Instagram for years.
And it happened right when it became apparent that we were living in the Disinformation Age and every bit of power to flag bullshit content became that much more important.
I’ve been aware long enough of big gaps in the libraries of streaming services that there was never a reason to give it up.
It took until fucking March of this fucking year for Spotify to have any old De La Soul to stream. Good thing I’ve had a high quality rip of their early discography for fifteen fucking years. Otherwise I would have been shit outta luck on listening to them.
I couldn’t stream a killer album from fucking 1989 in 2022. There continue to be massive gaps in their libraries due to licensing issues and people who just don’t want to get underpaid by Spotify.
The fact that visual collage can exist so easily, and yet audio collage is facing an uphill battle, some 40 years later, feels like a big indicator that copyright law in the US still needs a massive overhaul
Since if you decline they fire you. Yeah, this doesn't make sense since now they're still out someone for that shift AND out other shifts. But managers aren't logical or reasonable when they pull shit like this: they're vindictive.
In their eyes, it's more important to serve notice to the general workforce on what happens if you refuse versus the importance of any particular shift.
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS. Don’t sugarcoat it, CALL THEM OUT BY NAME. Otherwise they’ll just pretend it’s not them and do their damndest to act like they’ve done nothing wrong.
Even the ones who aren’t actively protesting on behalf of the conservatives are still voting for conservatives, who end up making the claims that they can never produce sufficient evidence for.
I think a lot for the guys that follow these morons and buy into this culture did not have positive male role models growing up, thus turn to media for some guidance.
This does not excuse their conduct or self-delusion, but does explain why it happens.
I’m in no way excusing their villanry, but most are so delusional that they won’t ever take a hard look at the way they are and wonder if they could be something else or if they need to change
I mainly feel bad with the young men who are not yet captured but are down that path. I’d like to think it couldn’t have happened to me but I had the luxery of going through that time of my life when that stuff wasn’t really around.
Though actually I had 4chan at that time and I turned out mostly well adjusted so they’re not completely blame-free.
people seem to think if you’re not in support of them or their position, then you haven’t experienced the same things and been on the same path. I saw where I was going and specifically changed it.
I’m still a depressed, alone, piece of shit, but I’m not a bigoted, fascist piece of shit.
Empathy doesn’t have to mean letting them do whatever they want. It’s the only path to reforming them. I’ve worked with a young kid with no dad in the process of going down this pipeline. You have to challenge them on what they think they’ve learned about being a man, but if you don’t try to understand how they feel they will just shut you out. Ultimately you can’t make someone believe something. So you either give up and label them a lost cause, or you actually try to reach them and convince them person to person.
What do you think they should have done differently? I am excusing their behaviour but I want to understand what should anyone with no positive male role model do other than turn to the internet?
well people can be both, victims of circumstance AND be accountable to their own agency that’s life its complicated and ambiguous. I bet like 20% of people with male socialization and no good role models haven’t become complete dicks
It’s not the fact that they’re on the internet, it’s the fact that being on the internet doesn’t inherently make them good.
Of course a boy subconsciously looking for guidance will find these guys and feel inspired or compelled by them. But maturity is the concept of learning from experience and challenging your own understanding in order to be a more balanced and level-headed person tomorrow. You know, exactly what these guys try to stop.
So the only thing these kids can do is embrace growing up, becoming mature, and finding role model figures that champion that instead of ones that peddle the arrested development that these charlatans do.
I find it crazy that I didn’t really have any real male role models, but the media I turned to ended up being guys like Henry Rollins.
The “finding myself” period of my life pre-dated the existence of this manosphere/shallow-ass-masculinity shit, but the archetype has been around for far longer and there were plenty of slimy douchebags to look up to. Sometimes I wonder what spared me.
Communists are very aware that social democracy exists. Social democracy very famously split out of socialist thought. Originally social democracy was another term for socialism.
Communists take issue with the very real fact that social democracy preserves capitalism and thus the exploitation that comes with it. Social democracy simply exports that exploitation. Without the subjugation of the global south, social democracy could not exist. Just because you have exported that exploitation doesn’t mean it went away.
Communists are very aware that social democracy exists.
Never said they weren’t. Said they pretended it doesn’t exist since SocDem provably fixes everything they claim communism does, but it just isn’t fascist enough for them.
Without the subjugation of the global south, social democracy could not exist.
Where we’re going we don’t need to cite our sources! Though admittedly this is better than the one guy who told me social democracy exists because USA spends money on their military. Dude was just as clueless as you’d think a communist is haha fucking funny lads you fascists.
Social democracy does not fix every problem communism claims to because it preserves capitalism. Social democracy, but without capitalism is no longer social democracy. That is socialism. Believe it or not, communists are pro-socialism.
All of the Scandinavian social democracies that are supposedly the gold standard are former colonial powers. Colonial powers extract wealth from their colonies to the detriment of the indigenous inhabitants of the colony. This is referred to as primitive accumulation and is a direct precursor to capitalism. These nations built their wealth through colonialism and continue to maintain wealth through neocolonialism. This is really only unheard of or controversial if you have your head in the ground. Look up the WTO and the IMF and how they fuck over the global south at the benefit of wealthy nations if you’re interested in more information (spoilers: you’re not)
Where are your sources that all communists are fascists? Are the communists in the Philippines fighting their fascist government also fascists? What about in India? The list goes on. You’ll find that neither of these groups of communists are particularly fond of China by the way.
All of the Scandinavian social democracies that are supposedly the gold standard are former colonial powers.
Dude read too much into finno-korean hyperwar.
Look up the WTO and the IMF and how they fuck over the global south
Bailing out countries that fuck themselves over with communist policies is now fault of the helper. Alright next time the west should just let them starve :)
Where are your sources that all communists are fascists?
Reality. It’s this weird fringe thing you’ve delusioned yourself out of
Are the communists in the Philippines fighting their fascist government also fascists?
Yep
What about in India?
Yepparino
neither of these groups of communists are particularly fond of China by the way.
Lmao communists aren’t fond of other type of communists, what a revelation. My country of Finland has at least 5 different communist parties, each with like 10 total members and they hate each other more than they hate the ruling pro-NATO parties.
God I live for redfash attempts at argumentation, the nazi ones get really stale after a while.
You really are not as informed on communist thought as you think you are. Nor are you very informed on the very real problems with the IMF or WTO saying that these organizations save countries from “communist policies” is so hysterically wrong that I can’t believe it’s an actual thought that someone had. This discussion clearly isn’t going anywhere because it’s like I’m talking to a brick wall. Have a nice life.
The actual academic take on this is that capitalistic forces are inevitable in the presence of scarcity. We’ve already proven pretty conclusively that mass murder also doesn’t end capitalism, and social democracy has arguably gotten much closer and is far more sustainable.
Capitalist forces absolutely are not inevitable with scarcity. Native Americans lived in societies that have been described as primitive communism. Did they not have scarcity?
Further, mass murder is not a prerequisite for communism.
right? It’s literally a pan leftist instance, there’s anarchist comms and everything. The thing that people are afraid of when they call people tankies isn’t any particular ideology, it’s just a fear of confident and firm left wing ideology of any sort. In order to not be a tankie, you have to be compromising and undedicated in your left wing beliefs, that’s it, that’s the criteria.
If this happens they’ll do the “A person who swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth says what” ordeal. If that doesn’t work they will just let you leave
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.