GarbageShoot [he/him] @ GarbageShoot @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

1,193

Joined

3 yr. ago

Yeah, a "Poverty of Philosophy" type beat, except they have given us so little to work with that it would be difficult to make anything substantial.

And yes by the way, I DO have an "ironic" "shitposting" tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the fella's eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 2 Bristol Stool Chart tiers of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

I can't say it would be a good use of your time (arguably, it would be actively detrimental to us all) but you probably could get a response if you reached out to the people who did this paper, if you were interested.

To be fair, I am very certain that they didn't mean adult diapers but rather very large baby diapers. In the context of these jokes, the people mocked are figurative babies, some weirdo conservatives

It's wild how liberal journos do all those ethnographic interviews of fascist groups but don't seem to do the same for communists nearly as often.

[slurs in bio]

A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler. I don't give a shit what the Dems have to say so long as the only offer they have to stop this is "vote blue forever". Promising that they won't personally end democracy while doing nothing to stop those who will isn't defending democracy, it's using liberal democracy's inevitable death to boost their career via a hostage situation. Wake me up when they promise to put Jack in jail or better yet Hell.

What's the Chinese text on Mao's? One can assume it's quoting him, but what specifically?

Yeah, but you can easily frame it as a dig at them. All the better if you can appeal to both audiences, right?

You know that many Israelis did come from anglosphere or now-EU states, right? It's not like it's just a new social formation of people who already lived in the region.

It's a project overwhelmingly lead by western states that has resulted in a huge importing of people who were born and raised in western states pretending they are indigenous to the region. If not for the west, Israel would neither have the resources to maintain its colonial project nor the population needed for occupying Palestine.

It might be worth reading the article

I don't think USSR became what anyone in the west wanted it to become.

Who is Yeltsin?

It's nowhere near neoliberal, for one, more like a mafia state.

Technically it quickly became something closer to classically liberal rather than neoliberal (as the imperial core shunned it) but to claim that liberalism is opposed to mafiosi is hilarious, it has never existed without them. It's like saying liberalism is opposed to slavery, there is some vacuous sense in which you could use sophistry to push that angle, but when you look at real, historic manifestations of liberal states, they are heavily economically reliant on various forms of slavery, whether domestic or via their dogs in the third world.

I don't know about propaganda

Agreed

If you think the Russian Federation and the USSR are remotely comparable, you're smoking crack. NATO won, and the depraved, neoliberal regime it replaced the USSR with is its own God damned fault.

This is in part one of those situations where your argument amounts to question-begging. The reason being, just as a test: What if Russia was on the correct side of the war, would this still be coherent? Is there any contradiction in these Russian publicity outlets publishing correct information that is then opportunistically used by the rival party to the current US administration to discredit the latter?

If you already assume slava ukra'ini and that reactionaries have some magical inability to say things that are true, you can make a coherent story, but I would argue that the antithesis is at least as coherent a story.

I'm sure RT, etc. also publish bullshit that is also used by the right just as readily, but imo the Russian center-right can get by on policy wrt Ukraine by simply reporting facts faithfully, because theirs is a position [shared by much of the Russian left as well] that is only more justified as historical context increases and actors are more closely scrutinized. I was objectively late to the party when, in 2018, I was reading about the CIA backing Azov, but still I saw reality completely recast leading up to the invasion and thereby I had some advantage over the liberals who seem to believe that Ukraine is Palestine despite the fact that it's Ukraine slaughtering ethnic minorities.

It doesn't help that Ukraine can't seem to find pictures of its military that don't include fascist symbols, or that they absolutely wear their banderite bullshit on their sleeve if you actually listen to them speak. You can just report on these things faithfully and make the Ukrainian government and especially its military look monstrous to many viewers.

but I'd propose that maybe unstable people who hurt people based on what they read are kind of inevitably going to end up on that trajectory regardless of the freedom of our speech spaces

You say that, but do you have any evidence for it? Are we just going to brush off the mentally unwell people that cults like QAnon prey upon as being a lost cause? As being people who would just be violent because the seeds of sin in their souls compel them to? You're just arguing for a secularized version of Calvinism that is even more reliant on faith because it lacks the element of theological reasoning.

And that maybe it's not worth sacrificing the free speech of all people simply because a few people are going to do bad things

Maybe this obfuscates relevant factors, like how money controls media and it's not just a matter of private citizens vs other private citizens.

What you're describing where people end up in their own media bubble is exactly why we need more open access to speech

It takes more of an argument than you have so far put forward to prove this, though I agree with you in a way that I suspect you would reject. Specifically, the blackballing of journalists and other sources who provide more useful explanations than exist in mainstream American Discourse is definitely part of the reason people resort to cults.

That said, if we are discounting questions like Class consciousness, your thesis falls apart entirely. These bubbles are largely self-selecting, based on marketing algorithms for the consumer-lifestyle brands that you call American politics. There is nothing stopping a brain-rotted Twitter Q freak from going on some socdem hive on Reddit, but they don't want to and they have been encouraged to this mindset by various forms of conditioning on the multi-billion dollar skinner boxes that are social media platforms. Of course, there are less polarized spaces and ones designed for "open debate" (and again Reddit provides an excellent example of these empty gestures) but overwhelmingly what we see there is more tribalism, just with a different set of etiquette.

This shows one of the many significant failures of idealist fetishization of open society: People only have so much time and effort to put into research, especially more nebulous ideological subjects. Ideology is first and foremost a survival strategy, and people will budget their finite resources based on what they are able to project as best serving them from the limited information they operate within, starting from environments that are overwhelmingly controlled by the rich in neoliberal societies. You already have your goddam Marketplace of Idea and it has failed.

free, neutral platforms for people to have these kinds of discussions on.

Neutrality doesn't exist and the bodies that claim to be neutral are just question-begging their own ideology.

Some people used to think that the internet would end war, but they were operating on a type of idealism similar to your own.

Jailing or sanctioning journalists and critics is some shit Putin and other despots do, let's not emulate him.

Let's not pretend that whichever western states are included in "us" here aren't similarly despotic. It makes little difference whether you kill the journalist yourself or have a dog like Israel do it and then cover for them.

I would stand with anybody who is sanctioned by the government for their speech regardless of how much I disagree with it.

Hate speech is bad and dying on the hill that people should be able to advocate for genocide is nothing but useful idiocy for fascists.

None of this is especially relevant to the particulars of this case, obviously Putin has mostly rather banal things to say, because it's either a: correct, b: wretchedly chauvinist in a way that Republicans agree with (e.g. homophobia), or c: that weird revanchist shit that doesn't mean anything. I just think your ideology is intellectually and practically suicidal and wanted to comment on part of it.

Because question-begging centrism is all that any of these really are