JFC I don't know which is dumber between unironically believing in accelerationism or stanning RFK. That is fundamentally not how the world works. What's actually going to happen is that we'll continue living in the shitty system we have now except with more diseases, less access to healthcare, and more quack medicine in its place.
Objection
joined 9 months ago
Appeals to restore past glory
Genuinely, what on earth are you talking about? China's past is full of poverty, humiliation, and exploitation, literally, "The century of humiliation!" The only people who "appeal to restore past glory" are the CIA-funded Shen Yun performances romanticizing "China before communism." The Chinese people I talk to will specifically point to the Qing as a clear demonstration of the danger of clinging to tradition and the necessity of adapting and looking forward.
China literally had a cultural revolution seeking to abolish tradition. I expect you would call that fascist just as you call if fascist whenever some people still follow tradition, after all:
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology... What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
The classic "Mechanical Turk" scheme from the 1700's lol
The voters could have also not voted trump in, why not get mad at them?
This is so completely upside down it hurts. "Why punch up when you could punch down?"
Even if voters were the ones at fault, it's completely pointless and unproductive to blame the public at large because changing their behavior is a hell of a lot harder than changing the behavior of the handful of people running the campaign. They should be the ones to change based on what the voters want, it shouldn't be the voters who have to change based on what politicians want to do!
You completely misunderstood. I didn't call it "extreme" to say that grandma should be allowed euthanasia. What I said is that that's an extreme example, as in, a case where extreme circumstances make euthanasia a reasonable option.
Before I used the word "extreme" I literally said, "Of course, 'grandma' in your example should be allowed to die peacefully." In fact, I even called the idea that she shouldn't be able to, "an extreme position." At that point, I can only assume it's a willful misinterpretation to dismiss criticism. There is nothing "extreme" about my position that euthanasia should be legal but only in special circumstances, it's literally the moderate position on the issue.
Just because Christians say something for a stupid reason doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically 100% true. If you read the article, the film isn't coming at it from a Christian perspective at all but rather a leftist one.
Of course, "grandma" in your example should be allowed to die peacefully. But you can't use an extreme example to argue for a general case. There's plenty of room in between the extremes of, "Forcing grandma to live in constant pain" and "On demand suicide for anyone who wants it."
With those two tactics, you effectively shut down a necessary discussion on the issue - anyone who disagrees must be coming at it from an extreme, Christian perspective and can be automatically dismissed. But when we look at a young, healthy person doing it, we have to consider the broader sociological implications. Like, could the existence and normalization of that option be used as a justification against providing accommodations or trying to understand the source of the problem? Or, could the breakdown of the taboo against suicide lead more people to follow through when they might have otherwise reconsidered and gone on to work through their problems?
Suicide is violence, and very often it is violence that is directed at someone who is not the actual source of the problem. Sometimes it's the kindest, gentlest people who go down that path, not because of anything inherent to them as an individual, but because of external factors and shitty people.
Most crucially, no matter what laws are enacted, we must fight to maintain the social taboo, and push back against anyone who tries to dismantle it. Whether a person walks into a doctor's office and blows their brains out, or whether they politely ask to go through a particular procedure and sign all the forms, the end result is the same and should be regarded in the same way - the only thing that's changed is how it's dressed up. The idea that if it's legal and beurocratic, it's no longer a tragedy must always be rejected, and it's worth thinking about how to ensure that remains the case when thinking about what laws to allow.
Price of eggs.
THE PRICE OF EGGS ANGLE WORKED WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT??
The economic angle has been tried to death
It really, really hasn't lol.
and a constant refrain I hear is, “how can people vote against their own self-interests?!” It’s because the other side speaks to the animal brain, not the frontal lobes.
Yeah, and the animal brain wants stuff. And so do the frontal lobes, so it doesn't really matter what part of their brain they're using. Of course, you can't just maintain the status quo and talk about how the other guy would be worse. The status quo sucks and is getting worse and even if it didn't our brains aren't wired to be satisfied with it. That messaging, sure, it's been tried and failed, because it's basically just lecturing people on how they're not smart enough to understand economics and should be satisfied with what they've got. When I say economic messaging, I mean promising people new stuff beyond maintenance of the status quo.
The murder of a pretty, young nursing student activates strong emotions and has a lot more cognitive stickiness than economic arguments about who gets paid how much to pick our strawberries. Guarantee that if voters picture his grubby, little fingers sliding into a vagina in a department store dressing room, they’ll remember it.
Ok, I would like to collect on that guarantee, right now. Because you tried it already, over and over again, and it didn't fucking work. I guarantee you that it won't work if you keep trying it. If your position was at all true, Trump would've lost in 2016 when it first came out, when they could hear it straight from the horse's mouth! No matter how you phrase it, it'll never be more compelling than that moment when it first came out.
I repeat this for the third time since you seem to have missed it the first two times I said it: even if you were right, which you're absolutely not, Trump isn't even eligible to run again. Even if you've finally hit on the exact right phrasing that'll definitely get through to people, this time I swear (you didn't), you're too late.
That's ridiculous. You're thinking way too small, you can't just use the same line of attack over and over again with slightly different phrasing and expect it to suddenly start working.
Trump repeatedly crossed lines that were supposed to tank his campaign. You can't just chalk that up to some people using slightly less visceral language than you think they should have. The reason nothing sticks to him is because people have decided, "We don't care how much of a dirtbag he is, because he's our dirtbag." The only thing that can challenge that is to attack him on economics and demonstrate how he isn't actually working towards people's interests, and in order to do that convincingly, it's necessary to adopt a platform that does benefit people in a direct, material way.
For all the words that have been spilled about things like finger-raping a woman or January 6th or any of the other shitty things he's done, how much of it directly impacts the average voter? The best way to reach people is by appealing to their own material interests. Instead of, "Donald Trump fucked a pornstar" how about, "Donald Trump is fucking you, right now."
The only time Trump lost an election was when his botched handling of COVID directly impacted people's lives. I'm not sure what would have to happen for liberals to understand that the electorate does not give a shit about Trump's character. And even if they did, as I pointed out, he's not eligible to run again, so the whole thing's moot. Maybe next time they'll run someone clean as a whistle with the exact same policies, although, I suppose if they're smart, they'll run another dirtbag so liberals get distracted focusing on that.
This is the same playbook they've been using since Trump first appeared and it doesn't work. People don't care that much about Trump's scandals, they need to focus on economic messaging. Besides, he's ineligible to run again so they need to have a strategy aimed at countering the right more broadly, not just one specific person.
17
Add "Havana Syndrome" to the list of fake stories that you're not allowed to question on .world
(lemmy.ml)
The first sentence on the Wikipedia page for it calls it "a disputed medical condition." Even the CIA itself has admitted that cases are not caused by "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power." The State Department similarly released a report that it was highly unlikely the symptoms were caused by any sort of directed energy weapon. In fact, seven different US intelligence agencies released a consensus statement saying, "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents."
But the clowns on .world don't care about things like truth or evidence, or even direct statements from the people who's boots they have in their mouths. If it makes an enemy of the US look bad, then it is absolute truth, and anything short of complete faith and loyalty must be purged from conversation.
Rare video clip of a .world mod
:::spoiler Offending post
This one included.
Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking.
The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible.
In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be proven incontrovertibly, by the following logic:
-
If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening.
-
If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist.
-
Fascism is wrong.
-
Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence.
As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on.
Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot.
However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of china, which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong.
In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist.
Thank you.
President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.
When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.
This is taken from the issues page of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the "If By Whiskey" tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.
Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).
Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.
Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.
Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.
Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.
Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.
In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.
Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.
tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.
What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.
Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:
-
Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people
-
Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today
-
Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon
-
Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own
-
Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire
Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.
Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.
Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.
So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.
Thank you for your cooperation.
view more: next ›
Shadowrun: Dragonfall, it's only for one mission but it's a really good one.