barsoap

Back when Hillary Clinton, an establishment Democrat with corporate and oligarch backing, ran against Bernie Sanders, an independent challenger with decades-long pro-worker, pro-equality, pro-good-things-in-general track record, Clinton's side smeared people who supported Sanders as misogynist, abusing feminist narratives and talking points to get rid of a candidate that, very much unlike Clinton, would've won against Trump. Easily. In a landslide.

...as such that particular strain of rainbow-feminist-capitalist-oligarchy might not have the power to push their own candidate through, but they do have the power to prevent a candidate that would have been better for the people, men, women, whatever, doesn't matter, but would have hurt corporate profits. And because they managed to be so completely unlikeable, so out of touch with what the average American actually wants, they managed to get Trump elected with their interference, twice. Not that Trump would be any better but that's another topic.

You have a false consciousness of your own that is at this moment blocking you from understanding what mean by “patriarchy”.

Side note that's why I loathe that word. The concept, roughly Butler forwards, makes perfect sense but the term is atrocious because it right-out invites misunderstanding, as in, if you take a dictionary and look up the components you get nowhere close to the "normative force wafting through overall society" thing but plain "rule of fathers", if even that, plenty of people misunderstand it as "rule of men". I know it's due to history and not deliberate obscurantism but it still sucks. Something like "the spirit of oppression" comes way closer to the modern definition, including the animist metaphysics it invokes.

I mean DNC consultants could not have pushed the "Bernie Bro" narrative and things could look vastly different right now, but that would have contradicted their class interest. But they're also not leftist, at least not in my book.

Funny how Sweden didn’t have these issues of gang minorities until they started passing more discriminatory policies against minorities years ago.

The problems started with de facto housing segregation, more like at least a decade or two ago, similar overall (but less intentional) as France and its Banlieue. They built housing that was unpopular with native Swedes for the simple reason of being in the wrong place, and if you, back then, said "wait this might cause trouble maybe we should take more care to mix people up, somehow" well you didn't because Swedes suck at complaining. Muttering at the kitchen table, sure, but publicly? Heavens, that would disturb social cohesion.

Thus the segregation issue wasn't nipped in the bud, or at least in early flower, as many other countries did, so it festered into lack of perspective and inclusion, and then it burst and you got angry kids on the one side and the Sweden Democrats on the one side and let's not forget the likes of Iran literally paying kids to kill people to make the situation even worse because Iran has a chip on their shoulder over Swedes being, on the international stage, arrogant, self-righteous, know-it-all swots.

a best guess as to what the next instruction or data it needs will be

More precisely it's speculating on the results of a yet to be executed (but already known) instruction, e.g. whether a branch will be taken or not, and begins to execute instructions in that branch before the final verdict of whether it will be taken is done. If it guessed right, it can just continue, if it guessed wrong, it has to cover its tracks, making sure that what it did is in no way observable. It's the latter part, "in no way observable", that all these security failures are about: If you can somehow observe that stuff, you might be able to observe stuff you're not supposed to see because the branch speculatively taken was "nope, you're not allowed to do this".

All that might be hard to grasp without an understanding how modern CPUs execute instructions, which very much is not "an instruction at a time", Computerphile has excellent videos about pipelining and branch prediction.

Windenergieausbau z.B. Was hier im Norden alles ohne Aufhebens passiert weil Buur Hinnerk denkt "das macht die CDU das passt schon" ist erstaunlich. Und geht eigentlich weniger um gemäßigt als um selbstsicher verwurzelt was dazu führt dass sie sich nicht genötigt fühlen sich dämlich-regressiv zu profilieren. Dem Söder würde doch der Hut abgehen wenn er in SH Schnüüsch serviert bekommt, das ist ja vegetarisch. Deshalb isst der ja auch keine Brezn mit Obazda.

SUMPFDEUTSCH

Weil Merz weder Günther noch Wüst ist und es nicht danach aussieht als dass es für Grün-Schwarz reicht.

“Brandmauer” (wall of fire against the AfD)

Firewall. As in a wall designed to hold back fire so that it doesn't spread. Specifically a masonry wall, "Brandwand" is the more generic term.

I don't want to represent or speak for you, I want you to speak your own truth, and listen to that of others. I also never said that it's "all women's fault", I'm saying that generalised enmity is counterproductive.

I'm saying that we all have a part of the puzzle and if we all manage to chip in instead of villainising each other in essentialist terms, things would move along a lot faster. I'm an Anarchist, not an incel.

you scream from the rafters that men are hurt to, but NEVER when I asked for fucking help!

They were. They were absolutely hurt and damaged when they were not able to help you because they internalised a patriarchal narrative: "Men are perpetrators, not victims". It's there to replace camaraderie with hierarchy, institute a pecking order. It does not serve men a bit, hierarchy never does any good.

These two things -- you not getting help from men, and men being hurt -- are not at odds with each other. They're causally connected.

I mean that a lot of the typical jobs women take up are in some form of middle management. It's not rare to see 70% or more women working in those areas.

Separately, feminism has lots of narrative power.

My overall point here is not that feminism didn't or doesn't do what it could to fix the deal for men, too, it might not even be possible, my point is that there's a female power base that men, especially young and low-class ones, experience as being capable of doing so.

Do you seriously believe that there's not a single man, in the whole wide world, who has your back?