Are the Israelis murdering Jewish people on mass?
I mean, sort of by proxy they might be inspiring a bunch of hate crimes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if their actions on sort of a broader geopolitical scale are inspiring a kind of antisemitic cycle of violence, but I dunno if I’d say that makes them more specifically “nazis”, in like, the 20th century hitler ideology sense.
In any case, don’t be a linguistic prescriptivist, it’s cringe.
If everybody acts collectively in their own interest, we all win.
I mean this is only really true so long as everyone is allowed to vote, which is inevitably never the case. We always have certain subsects of the population which aren’t really given access to democracy. It’s very easy to, even in a “total democracy”, still have a ton of xenophobia and imperialism, because obviously, people who aren’t citizens can’t vote. That’s a very large top-down example, right, but this creation of subsects happens at every level. Famous more american examples are gerrymandering and the electoral college.
The goal wasn’t to cover every single wall, just to poison the discourse.
They’ve successfully done that anyways even if all their bots get called out, because then they will have successfully gotten everyone to think everyone else is a bot, and that the solution and way to figure out if they’re bots is to basically just post spam at them. Luckily, people on the internet have been doing this for the past 20 years anyways, so it probably doesn’t matter and they’ve really done nothing.
I dunno, I’ve definitely seen enough people immediately default to, oh you’re a paid russian troll, chinese troll, in almost any political argument as a sort of easy thought terminating cliche, just as people will do so by calling anyone they disagree with fascists or SJWs or whatever the new terminology of the last 5 years is. Wokies, maybe, I dunno. This is just a slightly more conspiratorial extension of that, I think. It’s not so much that everyone will be convinced that everyone else is a bot, it’s that there will probably be more than a select few people that start to believe dead internet theory style shit, or start to punch at ghosts that don’t exist. I don’t know if those people would’ve just like, naturally existed otherwise, either, like if they would’ve naturally been paranoid schizos, I think probably they wouldn’t have and our actions do indeed have an affect.
But then this conversation is littered with “I thinks”, so it’s all just sort of, tautologies and feelings, so who really knows. I just don’t think it’s probably good for people to basically engage in mass amounts of what is basically spam, and then have that be acceptable just because it’s “funny”.
christ, I feel like every time I hear anything new about brake particles, I wonder why we haven’t moved to some other material for them yet. ceramics, regenerative brakes that just charge a small battery or capacitor or something, that just exists on the wheel, fuckin something.
So an interesting thing I’ve noticed people doing is basically claiming that whatever other side is being astroturfed by the “real evil”, right. “Fossil fuel is funding renewable FUD of nuclear reactors!” or “Fossil fuels is funding nuclear FUD of renewables!”. You can also see this with liberals claiming that anyone who disagrees with the DNC is a Russian bot, and with people who disagree with libs claiming that libs fund radical right-wing candidates as an election strategy and that this is one of the reasons why they are basically just as bad as those right-wingers.
The core thing you need to understand about this, as a claim, is that they can both be true. They can both be backed opposition, controlled opposition, astroturfing. Because it’s not so much that they’re funding one racehorse that they want to be their opposition, so much as they are going to fund both sides, plant bad faith actors among both sides, bad faith discourse and division, thought terminating cliches, logical fallacies, whatever, and then by fueling the division, they’ve successfully destroyed their opposition. The biggest help to the fossil fuels lobby isn’t the fact that conversations about nuclear or renewables are happening when “we should be pushing, we should be in emergency mode, everyone should agree with me or get busted” right, as part of this “emergency mode” is us having these conversations. No, the biggest help to fossil fuels lobbies is the nature of the discourse, rather than the subjects of the discourse.
Also I find it stupid that people are arguing for all in on one of the other. That’s dumb. Really, very incredibly dumb. Mostly as I see this discourse happening in a disconnected top-down vacuum separate from any real world concerns because everyone just wants to be “correct” in the largest sense of the word and then have that be it. Realistically, renewables and nuclear are contextually dependant. Renewables can be better supplemented by energy storage solutions to solve their not matching precisely the power usage curves and trends, but a lot of those proposed storage solutions require large amounts of concrete, careful consideration of environmental effects, and large amounts engineering, i.e. the same shit as nuclear. It can both be true that baseload doesn’t matter so much as things like solar can more closely match the power usage curves naturally for desert climates where large amounts of sunlight and heat will create larger needs for A/C, and it can also be true that baseload is a reality in other cases where you can’t as easily transition power needs or try to offset them without larger amounts of infrastructural investment or power losses. Can’t exactly preheat homes in the day so they stay warm at night, in a cold climate, if the r-values for your homes are ass because everyone has a disconnected suburban shithovel that they’re not recouping maintenance costs of when they pay taxes.
These calculations of cost offsets and efficiencies have to be made in context, they have to be based in reality, otherwise we’re just arguing about fucking nothing at all. Maybe I will also hold water in the debates for money not being a great indicator of what’s possible, probable, or what’s the best long term solution for humanity, too, just to put that out there. But God damn this debate infuriates me to no end because people want to have their like, universal one size fits all top down kingly decree take of, well is this good or bad, instead of just understanding a greater, more nuanced take on the subject.
If you wanna have a top-down take on what’s the best, you probably want global, big solar satellites, that beam energy down with microwave lasers.
No no, see, it’s gotta uhh, be ironic. It’s ironic, they’re ironically calling all the other pedo artists out, see. It’s, no, see, it’s because they’re just being ironic and edgy as a tasteless kind of joke, see.
I dunno man. The point at which it becomes totally indefensible is the point at which the 30 or late 20’s artist is sleeping or having romantic relationships with like, kids, basically. I dunno. I respect the right of artists to write songs about shitty or super insanely weird subject matter but goddamn these guys are just confessing that they’re pedophiles straight up huh
Fuck that shit, all the gas lawn tools should be backwards converted to run on hydrolysis-produced rocket fuel, feasibility and efficiency and safety be damned.
Yeah see the problem with the first two examples you came up with is that I can count a lot of people I’ve interacted with that believe that shit. Maybe I need to get new friend groups, but it’s really hard to avoid poe’s law online, because you can find basically anyone who will believe any random shit you come up with, if you try hard enough. There aren’t any strawmen online anymore, there’s just viewpoints. Weaponized apathy is pretty good though I like that one. Going to a protest and just like bringing a grill and being like “I just want to grill for god’s sake”. You’ve arrived at the function to grill but also to be apathetic in public where people will see your apathy, very nice, very absurd.
Ooh, new strat I just remembered exists that might solve this issue a little bit, self-contradictory satire. It gets everyone really mad, but also it’s impossible to conceptualize of what’s actually being said without putting in a little bit of thought to actually sus out what’s happening there. Being a pro-life fundamentalist christian that thinks of life as happening at conception, but also being early term pro-abortion and pro stem cell research, pro-test tube babies, pro-genetic modification. God creates the man at conception, and we are trying to act more in the image of god, it’s only right to toy with life in the same way, maybe. I dunno, just spitballing, but maybe something like that could work as a satire. A satire of nothing, a satire of someone that doesn’t exist, I guess. A satire of everyone, total hypothetical.
Ah, yeah, I see. I think if you’re going for that, the satire has to be more well-calculated than most tends to be. It can’t just be like, an extreme portrayal of opinions, because then you’ll either Poe’s law yourself into getting people that agree, or you’ll offend perhaps a target audience that needs their mind changed. I think I have noticed that I have had more success trying to kind of like, find a gap there, and then turn it around. Shitting in the street is likely to get you arrested sort of thing, if done as protest, RIP modern diogenes. But filling a cup with your own spit and then drinking it, that’s very weird, not something that anyone can really verbalize any logical opposition to, and is offensive. I don’t have any like, good political illustrations of that kind of satire, but, I’d go with something along those lines, something that can very obviously point out a flaw.
I mean something that satire gets pretty rightfully dogged for a lot of the time, as a schtick, is a lack of nuanced understanding of an issue. Like south park’s manbearpig schtick, or maybe like, I dunno, borat. Idiocracy. Office space, maybe, dunno, haven’t seen that one, don’t know too much satire. Tropic thunder, I guess, right. None of these are really nuanced portrayals of what they’re satirizing, because to do so is kind of antithetical to the genre.
yes, very true very true, your core point is true
Nothing good comes from a discourse when one relevant side is shushed every time they speak up. And this is the case.
I mean I think it’s a pretty mutual like, set of actions that happens as a result of the initial framing of the conversation being like a stupid absurd obvious ragebait hypothetical more than like, a systematic failing in our society. Or, rather, I think the systematic failing of society is that these conversations are only allowed to come about, to blow up, out of those sorts of bad faith framings, rather than happening more naturally on even ground. I think that’s the root cause, which I think affects both people groups, rather than it just being like a cultural failing that you might attribute to. I dunno, something else, something not as good as that.
I don’t even think it has to be like, in person, necessarily, I just think it needs to be engaged with in good faith outside of like, the framing of the conversation as being spurned on by some sort of hypothetical, or being spurned on without like. Reportage between two people, without a relationship there pre-established. I’ve definitely had compelling conversations online, it’s just that it happens so often to be kind of, in spite of the larger machine they took place inside of.
I mean the phenomenon of televangelists and televangelical megachurch pastors that spread their messages and propaganda through the same avenues as conventional media is a pretty like, well documented thing, I’d say. Tune into AM radio or cable TV and you can probably still peep some of them doing their thing. I don’t think their point is necessarily invalid, but I also think there’s more of like a happy medium between, watching TV all day and going outside and bumming around town as a latchkey kid and frying your brain on spice in the back of a much older guy’s car, or like. Robbing a low rent low security corner store on the edge of town.
Replace sex with race and you see how bad the viewpoint is.
I agree with your general point but I don’t think these things are really comparable or exchangeable in any way. Or at least, not in that kind of way of like, word search, replace, kind of thing. More complicated than that, for the fact that they exist together and not separately. The whole like, white women accusing black men of being rapists in order to get them lynched because they’re racist, thing, that exists on the same continuum, as a phenomenon, as the like, classic stats of male on female SA. Even on a larger scale the like, using female sexuality and purity as a way to justify racism is a thing that exists on the same continuum. I dunno, I guess I’m just advocating for things to be more complicated than just like the word search replace shit, which I see quite a lot, and I think it misses the point a little bit. Still agree with your general point though.
it’s a poorly framed joke about gay subculture, in which a “bear” is a big burly hairy gay dude.
A bear isn’t going to torture you or rape you. It’s a quick death.
This isn’t really true though? Bears aren’t cold calculated killers. If you were to fully accept death, slit your own carotid, whatever, sure, that would work, you’d die within like the next thirty seconds, whatever, which, I guess you could do in either scenario really, so, kind of a moot point. But bears, man, getting attacked by a bear is brutal. I dunno how many post-bear attack victims you’ve seen but it’s not pretty or quick. Bears will bat at you with their claws defensively if you try to defend yourself at all, down to the bone, they’ll put their weight on top of you and crush in your ribcage making it extremely hard to breathe and impossible to scream, leading to internal bleeding, and then when you’re incapable of movement because your spinal column is crushed and the adrenaline starts wearing off, it drags you off where it can start gnawing on you and ripping out your entrails.
Bear attacks are pretty horrifying, getting attacked by wildlife is no joke. I feel like a lot of people don’t have firsthand knowledge, but the bears, they are grisly.
It wouldn’t work, unless it was pretty heavily moderated a la askhistorians, or what have you. You’d probably just get like, AITA level nuance shit, where people drone on about like, things that are “common sense”, or commonly accepted talking points that have the pretense of nuance, but none of the actual weight. Maybe just like, mild centrism.
The thing about valuable, nuanced thought is that it’s mildly chafing in that it’s foreign and novel, introduces something new into the mix, but not so chafing that it’s impossible to accept from the current POV. Social media operates in contextually eliminating extremes, when you automate it all, you either get a system where people only push around stuff that’s highly agreeable, or stuff that’s extremely disagreeable. Nuance is basically anathema to automated online spaces.
The problem is that they might be right. They’re effectively just wanting to accelerate the genocide and land taking until they’ve taken absolutely everything, before public pressure mounts up enough in, mostly america as their cash cow, to shut them down. They have the green light pretty much until the election, since everyone’s scared that a major change to the status quo will alienate massive amounts of support for their own base and guarantee an election loss, something that’s really only true for republicans I think, since a large part of that voter base is evangelical christian zionist. So they’re basically just trying to score as many points as possible before the timer runs out, and deal with whatever comes up afterwards, if anything even does.
They’re taking advantage of america’s domestic political turmoil and instability, basically, which doesn’t seem to show any signs of stopping for me, in terms of larger driving economic factors, unless we maybe get big sweeping FDR style reforms from kamala, which I’m not really thinking will be the case. Which for them makes a slight amount of sense, since they currently are basically just a vassal, a colony, of america, and produce little to export iirc outside of our military industrial complex, and as america collapses further and further, they’re going to need to establish a more sustainable base for themselves with their priority obviously being to maintain as much power as possible. which means that they can’t become a peaceful country or seek to play nice with their neighbors, which might not work anyways since their country is basically built on blood, same as america.
It seems on the surface like it’s just some short term strategy for them, but it’s only a short term strategy insofar as fascism itself is a short term strategy, and is a political philosophy incapable of actually having long term thoughts. But assuming their own political philosophy, all of what they’re doing makes sense. Which is precisely why a denial by the US right now and an increase in pressure would be so effective at curtailing them, if only we had someone with the cajohnes and political power to step up and do so.