• 28 Posts
  • 303 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 1st, 2022

help-circle







  • I don’t disagree that reading and writing are the basis of scholarship (as we know it), but I reject any suggestion that comprehending critical Marxist concepts should require a scholarly barrier of entry. If someone wants to become a theoretician then sure, it makes sense to analyse Marxist theory from primary sources with all its historical overhead, but if our goal is to promote efficient learning, then we shouldn’t be recommending archaic texts written for a whole different target audience. People don’t really need to learn French or German words to understand what the worker class and owner class are and their resulting material interests, or what alienation is. How many people need to know who exactly Kautsky was anymore? Can’t commodity fetishism be defined in simple terms? Archaic works absolutely still have value and relevance, but the Marxist ideas relevant to most workers can absolutely be made more accessible to your local audience while retaining its analytical value.



  • An interesting example I saw was in Archer. During an agitated rant, Archer finally interjects demanding someone answer the phone. The next shot is a plain still shot of the telephone, which the captions helpfully emphasise [PHONE NOT RINGING]; a recurring joke is Archer’s constant ear-ringing due to careless gun use.

    Having seen other, more careless translations, I can easily see jokes (or in other contexts, important clues) like this being missed and it made me think about how film techniques can imply audio silently. If there’s a plain shot of a phone, a hearing impaired person might reasonably assume it’s a visual implication that the phone is ringing.




  • Do you think things will get better?

    Yes.

    A lot of the problems we face are systematic, to do with how our society is organised rather than any human limit. They are solvable problems, and many have already been solved already in some countries. The reason they’re aren’t solved isn’t because we can’t, but because the few most powerful people are powerful because of this rigged system, and have a self-interest in keeping it that way by any means necessary.

    History has shown us clearly that even kings, dictators and other broken systems can be overthrown AND stopped from coming back, provided the people doing it are politically educated and organized. That’s the key. If we just get angry without a plan, we will end up like the pitiful Jan 6 riot. But if we educate ourselves with lessons from history and work to create a mass movement, we can finally move forward beyond this frightening present situation.







  • That’s a great point. While not the same, I think this relates to the bullshit assymetry principle (aka. Brandolini’s law), where as a result of the time it takes to respond to basic repetitive questions, especially those which are pretty easy to search around for existing answers, then entire communities can get tired of tolerating them. In some cases people just become rude and dismissive and in other cases staff actually just ban the person asking the question, which is already the case in some Lemmy instances.

    One potential way around it I’ve seen is having a decent FAQ available and well-known within the community, so one literally just reply with little more than a link to a page with the answer already written. In fact, one site used to (not anymore) have a culture where people would just attach a whole book as a PDF and simply reply ‘read this’, maybe listing a chapter if you’re lucky, which isn’t very tactful but it’s pretty funny and still provides a low-effort, high-detail answer (albeit maybe too high-detail for the kind of person who asks such a common question to reddit instead of trying to find the answer themselves).

    If we consider that phenomenon you described to be a problem, the solution is being able to make it extremely quick and easy to give a canned response and politely tell them to RTFM.



  • There are systematic reasons why Bernie (again) wasn’t able become the nominee, and I believe these reasons will apply to anyone with similar views trying to become a Democrat nominee. The party doesn’t want SocDems to be their leader.

    I don’t think that’s nihilistic. But it is rejecting the electoralist approach as futile for people who want Bernie’s policies in the USA. We must look at other ways, established ways of moving forward and bringing progressive change. After the past two elections, insisting that Bernie or AOC can win the nomination next time, being in denial of how the Democrat Party works, is not just unhealthy discourse but counter-progressive in practice.



  • This reads like someone who hates their own country, thinks everything sucks and is hopeless

    I don’t get that impression. I see someone who doesn’t like how their country runs, and understands the way its run is systematically harmful and ineffective. There’s a huge difference between politically critiquing a country and being a hateful nihilist!

    I’m okay if I still hold a goal of America being better than that.

    I think they do too. It just might not be an America as we know it - the problems go far deeper than who is in power. America wasn’t good under Obama, they just hid away the horrible parts very well.