“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ‘not anti-Semitic’ badge depends on his not understanding it." -almost Upton Sinclair
It’s not really arguable.
I get what they’re saying, and why they have to write it that way. But there is no possible debate among people who value true things and have looked at it in detail.
What on earth are you talking about? This almost certainly doesn’t happen. The person who guessed that it was a misclick followed by a not-yet-federated correction, might be onto something, but my feeling is that it’s some more basic misunderstanding than that.
If you DM me the example you’re seeing I can probably dig into the details and tell you what’s going on.
Yeah, and it’s working. The concentration camp he’s building is right there sandwiched in a corner between Super Bowl bullshit and EV charging.
Yeah. I sort of tried to second-guess it within myself, like maybe the mood of the country is just that much different now, but I really don’t believe it. There has never been a sporting event that he showed up to in the last 5-6 years that he didn’t get loud boos at, and I think it’s highly unlikely that the events of the last few weeks have suddenly made people love him again.
I also think the proliferation of stories emphasizing Trump’s reaction to Taylor Swift supposedly getting booed, is another strong tell. They know exactly what they’re doing. This is fucked, man. This is bad.
Bro
What in the fuck North Korea horseshit is this? This is genuinely alarming.
He criticises democrats so much because he doesn’t want people to believe it is republicans or trump that are THE problem.
Fair enough. But why is it generally so accurate and on-the-nose when the subject is not Democrats, and then when Democrats come into the picture, it’s all of a sudden echoing all these exact same talking points that are not accurate?
Like if he wanted to say that “Okay, Biden did good on climate and wages, but we probably won’t get that again from another Democrat within our lifetimes, and it was a drop in the bucket, and the Democratic party as a whole is so broken that there’s no point even trying to engage with them because all they’re doing is siphoning away any energy that might be going to positive change,” that would make perfect sense. It would line up with the way he makes arguments about general socialism topics: Coherent and well-founded. I might or might not agree with it, but it doesn’t seem dishonest. But that’s not the type of thing he does.
That’s actually why I picked out the capitol riot video: It’s a topic which seemed to me like it would present extremely minimal room for a reasonable observer to say “and that’s why we shouldn’t support the Democrats.” Whatever you think about either topic, it’s just blatantly unrelated to the subject matter at hand. And yet… he managed to do it, and constructed a bunch of Alex Jones proclamations about what Biden will probably do with his powers once he’s in office, that the ensuing years proved to be pretty much total fantasies.
Dude has had feds at his door for “anti-american” activities after a video he posted about the CIA
Can you link me to more info about this? Like I said, I’m pretty curious about it.
I am doubtful he is a republican psyop lol.
Are you saying it is unthinkable that someone who appears leftist on the surface might actually be trying to benefit the Republicans? I have some counterexamples. I have no idea what his deal might be, I’m just pointing out elements of what seems hinky to me.
The primary thing you’re demonstrating through these updates is that you deeply misunderstand my politics, but are happy to assign me reductionist beliefs and motivations that I don’t hold.
Are you not universally opposed to state power, and to elections? If I’ve misunderstood something, you can definitely explain it to me, or point me to what I need to read.
All of this because you’re desperate to have a debate where you appear the victor.
To a certain extent, yeah. There is a significant extent, though, to which I really want to help you understand what look to me like mistakes you’re making in your worldview. You may be right that I have your worldview wrong. I’m happy for you to explain. But you said some specific things about the world, totally separate from anything about anarchism, that I wanted to address, because to me they seemed extremely wrong.
If I didn’t take you seriously to some extent as wanting to understand the world and make progress in it, I wouldn’t talk with you at all. We definitely don’t need to agree in order to talk with each other.
But I can’t win or lose an argument against you. You only understand anarchism well enough to convince people with no concept of it that you do. You haven’t done any independent research despite the ease of finding anarchist writing on the internet, and you expect your intellectual adversaries to explain it to you. But even doing the work of explaining it to you is a waste of time
Nothing we are currently talking about is anarchism. I’m making a little bit of a jumping-off to criticizing what seems to me like dogmatism that might be why you think it makes sense that Trump might have achieved significant progress as described in the article. But mostly what I’m talking about is criticizing that conclusion, nothing about the ideologies involved.
Maybe you’re right that it’s not fair for me to ascribe to you the reasons why you made this particular mistake, when you interpreted this article as something sensible instead of as a hilarious fantasy. The truth is, I have no idea why you read this article and thought it made sense. I’m just guessing. Mostly I’m pointing out that world events after the article are backing up my interpretation of its (screaming lack of) credibility.
, as you’ve demonstrated that you’ll twist their words just as you’ve added non-textual interpretations of this article
What did I misinterpret from this article?
, or turn it into a straw-man, like what you’ve done in your mind to me.
What am I ascribing to you that isn’t right?
I’m not an anarchist out of ignorance of liberalism. I’ll all too aware of your beliefs and arguments
Why do you assume I’m a “liberal?” People who I disagree with often use this reductionist framework to tell me why I am wrong, or tell me what my beliefs and arguments are, and very often they are extremely wrong. I probably am a “liberal” in Lemmy’s consensus categories, but I have a feeling that if you describe what “liberalism” is to you, there’s going to be a bunch of stuff in it that I strongly disagree with.
Tell me: What do I think about Gaza? What do I think about US state power? What do I think about Biden’s performance in office? I’m curious what my beliefs and arguments are.
The way you act toward people with socialist and anarchist politics online is toxic
Why is everything this tribal framework with you?
I’m really not trying to have an extensive argument with you. You felt the need to follow up on my comment, so I’m following back up on the situation with you as it develops further. Like I said, I’ll probably stop, once the killing resumes at scale with Trump’s approval.
Do you honestly want to talk with me about this? It sounds like you don’t. I tend to be pretty hostile sometimes when I talk online, which I can understand usually leads to conflict which doesn’t need to be there. I’m trying to be better about that, actually. I sort of don’t get why I would need to treat people with particular ideologies with kid gloves, though, or whatever you’re trying to invoke when you say I act toxic to people with particular ideologies. What did I do here that is toxic? What are you saying that I do in general? I’m genuinely asking.
Update: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hostages-hamas-gaza-suspend-release-israel-rcna191507
Not that I am in any way happy about it. The whole reason I’m harping on this is that I think it’s bizarre that you are universally opposed to state power, apparently including even elements of it like elections that are pretty widely regarded as good features, but you’ve carved out a specific exception for this thing Trump did as an exercise of state power, even to the point of involving a MAGA-apologist fantasy about Trump and Israel’s future conduct in Gaza that anyone in any other context could have seen wasn’t going to be their future conduct in Gaza.
I’ll probably let it go after one more message notating the complete collapse of the peace, whether that comes in a few months or it comes this week. Honestly, I’m just trying to help you see that sometimes getting tangled up in “isms” can lead you to thinking up is down, because whatever world event has to always be manipulated and interpreted in a way that it always has to back up your “ism”.
I think this is a pretty key outcome for AI in software engineering: It really can speed up writing big chunks of code for you so you don’t have to do drudgery. But, you kind of have to go through doing some drudgery to really get familiar with what’s going on, how the algorithms work, be able to read and write code comfortably. I wonder if the new engineers coming up in the near future are going to be interacting with AI systems that interact with the guts on their behalf, but always have a significant disadvantage because they didn’t have to work with the bits and bolts thoroughly enough to get a solid understanding of how they work, and strengthen the muscles for years and years.
It might just be cope on my part, or it might be that the landscape will change so quickly that it doesn’t have time to even become relevant because the current way that it is will change in a few years anyway.
It usually stems from insecurity. People who actually are the boss are perfectly comfortable with someone who knows more than them about some particular area (like for example the life details of their own life).
I read a pretty sad article by a person who was trying to run educational seminars, and was running into an issue where almost everyone from this one particular culture was apparently so caught up in macho-thinking that they were more or less impossible to teach. The teacher would ask a question, and if someone was wrong they would tell them and tell them the right answer, and from that day forward that student would be the enemy. They would glower at the teacher, talk to them after class about how they embarrassed him in front of everyone, never answer questions again. Or maybe they would refuse to accept the answer the teacher was giving, and start arguments about it where they had to be right. Stuff like that. The end conclusion was “I am really trying not to be prejudiced about this, but it really feels like trying to run seminars in this locality is just a waste of time because they are almost universally hostile to the idea of ever learning anything, even from a clearly identified and accepted authority figure.”
I think it stems from the “I have to be the boss” mentality. If someone tells you something, and you learn from them, then they are the master and you are the learner, and to some people that is intolerable no matter how accurate it is, or how trivial the scenario.
It’s an interesting question, to me, whether the newspapers are ones that are trying to just be newspapers, or ones that are taking part in the massive centralized propaganda operation that is most of American media. The fact that there are so many “small-town” papers all centered under a single corporate umbrella which can be taken out in a centralized way, makes me a little inclined to think it might be the second one, but I have no idea. It’s an interesting question which will determine quite a bit how I feel about this development.
There are two types of people: People who are open to receiving new information about the world, including information about people they are interacting with. Their reaction is something along the lines of, “Oh, that’s cool, I didn’t know that. I’m going to go with the assumption that you’re not just lying to my face or just wrong about everything, or something along those lines, an assumption I would have arrived at for no reason at all.”
Then there’s the other type of person, who regards new information as an attack, against which a defense must be mustered.
Additionally, the port has been authorized to seek reimbursement from the Russian shipowner for the vessel’s extended stay.
Yeah, maybe. The issue is that none of that (except #4) has anything to do with constraining or controlling centralized power. It’s not like it goes away if you’re not looking at it.
IDK, maybe what you’re talking about is just the precursor to setting up the better way, establishing some kind of unification that can fight back once it’s grown enough and be a decent place to live in the meantime. It could make sense.
Tell him I love him.
What’s the problem? I for one absolutely applaud this move. In fact, I’m so excited that I think someone should go and get Bibi, and bring him absolutely for free to Germany to meet with some of Patriots.eu’s most fervent and longstanding members. Just show up with him, bust in the door, and announce who he is and let them give him a warm welcome.
Dude I think I need to leave this country. Pretty much nobody with money or power seems to really be aware that all this stuff is dangerous, or reacting to it any way but with agreement.