Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her] @ Zuzak @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

262

Joined

5 yr. ago

That's the point. He did basically what you said he should do. It's like you're saying, "I agree with his decisions, I just don't agree with the outcomes they led too." I don't have any information on when precisely Stalin decided he wanted Trotsky dead, but you can't just assume that he can write his name in a death note and have him drop immediately, and if one guy surviving ten years in a foreign country can destroy an entire revolutionary project just by writing then tbh it seems like the whole thing was doomed from the start. You can't predict every such case, it's not a valid criticism.

Stalin did have Trotsky killed though, eventually. I just feel like you're looking back with the benefit of hindsight and seeing things, not necessarily with Trotsky specifically, but generally being like, "The problem is they let bad people come to power instead of good people," and that's not a valid criticism if it's something that you can only see in hindsight. Did Stalin let people he thought were reactionary/revisionist hang around? If so, why, if not, then was Stalin's method of determining who was bad flawed, and in what way? You can't just say "these people shouldn't have come to power" you have to look at why they came to power and how they could have been identified and prevented.

I meant for Mao, but for Stalin is also relevant. I still don't see criticism or suggestions, just "these people were concerning."

But what's the specific criticism, about what should've been done differently?

Liberals rallying around China bad vs Maoists rallying around China bad

If Mao was so great, why did he create the conditions for "bourgeois elements to emerge and seize power," and what should he have done differently? Cultural Revolution, but harder? There's never any serious analysis of that question, at least that I've seen. The material conditions of the people of China improved with both Mao and Deng and the others.

Can't believe ISIS would do something like that 😔

I've been watching Voyager for the first time and just got to the episode. I think I agree with the decision (as a lever-puller) but it does raise some interesting questions. As Janeway mentions, if they'd been able to do it immediately, she'd have done it without question, but after two weeks of Tuvix integrating with the crew it's a more difficult question. If Tuvix had been around for say 5 years I think I'd disagree with separating him. I think the way I look at it is that the social bonds possessed by Tuvok and Neelix are more important than the mere two week old bonds of Tuvix, but if Tuvok and Neelix were long dead and their loved ones had already mourned them, while Tuvix had had more time to become a fixture in people's lives, then the circumstances would be different. Tbh I disagree with the idea that Tuvok and Neelix get the biggest say - I think that the input of Kes and the rest of the crew is valuable, and Kes pleads to get Neelix back while none of the crew back Tuvix.

Does that mean the worth of lives is based on popularity? Not generally, but I do think that social connections are a relevant thing to consider. Part of what makes murder bad is not just the loss of the individual's life, but also what it means for everyone else. If you could press a button to create a life then press another to end it, would you have made the world a worse place by doing so? I don't think so. But if you press a button to create a life then go out and murder someone who already existed, then I think you have.

I'd also say that the captain's responsibilities in her role as captain are relevant and also support the decision.

Food has a cultural component tied to its manufacture and identification. And IPAs are food that probably shouldn't exist and which only does as a byproduct of market capitalism. They're the Lacanian 'object a' - an empty, manufactured falseness. We don't desire the thing itself, but the thing whose absence it symbolizes. What you're really consuming when you drink an IPA is its innate mechanical predictability.

(Thanks to the thread last week arguing about pumpkin spice lattes for giving me a new copypasta to use about anything I personally dislike.)

Boss Battle music

Always fun to see accusations with no link and speculate on what actually happened.

I was raised Catholic and left it at a young age and spent a lot of time uprooting the brainworms so I don't think there's much left. However, whenever I can't find something I really need and start getting stressed, I'll still recite, "Dear St. Anthony, please come around, my X has been lost and cannot be found." It's a useful way to calm down and focus instead of freaking out and panicking.

Other than that, I still retain a lot of the theology I learned in high school, and I can still sometimes get a little opinionated about various things even though I have no dog in the fight.

If people are skeptical of Söhnlein, he understands. “Forget OceanGate. Forget Titan. Forget Stockton,” he tells Insider, referring to his late partner at OceanGate, Stockton Rush, who was one of the passengers aboard the doomed Titan.

I don't think it works like that bro

Well, some of those are actual bigots and some of them are false positives

Years ago I tried my hand gambling on politics on PredictIt, and I didn't lose all that much, but there were a couple bets I lost that seemed like sure things. Mostly the lesson I learned is that talk is cheap and there's no real consequences for people saying one thing and doing the other.

For example, in the 2016 election, there was a market on whether no-name Carly Fiona would qualify for the CNN debate, and by the rules they set she didn't qualify, but there hadn't been as many polls in the right timeframe as had been expected. Still, they released a statement days before the debate, saying "rules are rules," so I took a bet at like 90% odds thinking it was completely safe - then they let her in at the last minute and I lost big. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I think I lost a fair bit on a market about Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un, which was a pretty chaotic market. The most chaotic market I ever saw, which I avoided and wanted no part of, was whether Bernie would win Iowa in 2020, and watching it closely in real time made it very obvious that some really shady stuff was going on. Probably the most I ever lost was Biden winning the 2020 primary, which is about when I got out of it.

I would not recommend gambling like that because if you have money on the line there's an incentive to be glued to the news in a way that can be really unhealthy. Honestly the stress was worse than the money I lost. It's more trouble than it's worth, the fees will get you, also it's generally more about predicting what the market will think so you can profit off the swings, and personally I think it's kind of a distasteful way to engage in politics. At the same time, it can be a learning experience - it definitely got me in the habit of asking "And what consequences will this person face if they're lying off their ass?" every time I see a headline about someone saying something, and of not paying as much attention to statements in general.

Hexbear has a powerful immune system designed to target bigots. Sometimes that immune system sees a threat where there isn't one. Veteran Hexbears have either learned how to avoid being seen as a target or have learned to endure it when it happens, and as much as we may regret false positives, we also recognize the value in purging legitimate targets.

Some people hate the immune system because they're false positives, but a lot of people hate it because they are the legitimate targets - and generally they were always going to hate us regardless. Then there are those who haven't been targeted but just don't like the idea of an immune system on principle, the free speech centrists and tone police who see us an indistinguishable from 4chan (kinda telling on themselves that their main problem with 4chan is the rudeness, not the bigotry).

We'll always have a solid core of haters who we also hate who's concerns we don't care about. I've lost track of the number of times someone's whined about us being too harsh only for it to come out that they said some nasty shit about the homeless or something. For the rest it's a matter of convincing them of the advantages of the immune system and communicating how to avoid becoming a false positive, while making sure to double check targets on our end.

Veganism is not an "aesthetic lifestyle choice" nor is it "meaningless" in reducing emissions. Reducing reliance on cars is good (where possible), doing both is better. Some people's living situations do necessitate using a car and not everyone has the money to pack up and move to a place with good public transit.

Have you considered the possibility that some people like the taste of pumpkin spice lattes? Or do you just get to dismiss everything you personally dislike as "The Lacanian 'object a?'" You could substitute literally any food or drink for PSLs in what you said, it's completely meaningless.

It's just empty words and phrases for you to feel superior to others based on what treats you enjoy or don't enjoy.