commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them] @ commiewithoutorgans @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

125

Joined

3 yr. ago

You can internalize racism you know? And even if not, you can still be convinced that a group is bad by shitty American propaganda even if you look like those people. You're not unique in that way, but it's just not really relevant to the situation

I'm not first bringing ideologies to the masses, it's first proving a method works and then explaining why and how. You do this through Analyze the rising maladies of a system, describe how they've come about and explain how the solution only moves in 1 direction, socialism. Now I'm not gonna waste time explaining at any more depth until you prove yourself to be someone at all worth my time here by showing you've read literally anything relevant to the discussion.

I'm not more intelligent than the masses, no in fact I think that this is precisely only how you can think. There are those who have the time to develop certain skills which can be applied to reaching the intelligence and needs of the masses and those for whom that time is difficult and they build expertise in their specific fields. A vanguard is exactly the people who learn how to learn from the masses, not the opposite. Lenin was beloved for his ability to do this, and Stalin soon after with similar astonishingly high approvals.

Let me remind you, you're the one who thinks you're smarter and better than those masses who had to perform revolution to improve their conditions. I think they're just better than you

Lol is that your best fuckin example? You didn't cite Marx lol you just misunderstood an analysis for a method and made a shit argument. You didn't deserve a good reply and dont now. I'm all for whatever analyses come out to peacefully move forward, but you're just preserving the current world for your benefit not trying to prevent some deaths or something. Millions die yearly to preventable causes which would end with global socialism.

Then read any fuckin book about this subject before speaking

Read Liberalism A Counter History or shut up about shit you don't understand.

The people already revolted in the worlds largest country and their success will convince people to make similar steps once it's made obvious you're being fucked by your far right regimes. The people are hungering in most of the world and they will stand up you brain wormed fucker

And the US still has a far right regime in power, and has since 1776. What's your point?

And even a majority is Muslim nations calling bullshit! I can't say the majority of nations, because I am not sure of sources for this outside of UN votes

No but it does clearly show prioritization when the 2 conflict, which is the point of contention (as well as using coal at all, if you give a shit about our planetary environment)

I loved them all, with my least favorite being the 2nd but it was close, and the 1st the best. I wrote a little thing somewhere about them, but basically I find it a beautiful representation of how changing material conditions can entirely flip interests and entire societal structures through the changes due to all the sci-fi shit going on. And you are treated as a knowledgable person in the world with the amount of info you have, but you are limited exactly like humanity as a whole is and the series develops around those limits.

my experience is the opposite. I take the shortest vacations of the people I know who usually take 4 weeks off and then just do unpaid later if they need more time. Definitely could be a difference of PMC vs the prolest of proles. I spread it out but i get looked at weird

I still don't know if we will get a definitive answer without asking that original creator or the image and post (which was made for the post supposedly) about their politics and shit.

But I can agree to the rest yes. It could be charming if we'll intended but it cannot be called that anymore

I had read Hong Kong users (also Chinese but with other interests) who were anti-Xi, but maybe I'm incorrect. (Edit: only know your meme has some history with a name. No real clue who the person was still tho and I don't have weibo) I can't find much I trust about the origins otherwise. Then I would agree that it was originally less or not racist, but usage now cannot be removed from the racism

Convince me of that. Any 2 people of different heights look like Winnie and Tigger then, and they look like any other pair of people who walk together. Why that specific choice? I will not be easily convinced that a yellow bear with small eyes was chosen for any other reason than the racism, consciously or unconsciously, of the person making the comparison. I think Chinese people can take it back if they want, by talking about how Pooh is actually a positive goal of enjoyment/relaxedness or such, but that's not what the comparisons are for.

And Tigger was a convenient addition to a horrible excuse for a joke. And that supports why that pair was chosen out of any pair

Also the original was even more racist than even this shows, with comparisons of Obama and Xi to Tigger and Pooh. I'm sure 1 letter change can hint you at what was intended behind the other comparison

You joking? Or is this parody of the other non-hexbear poster?

I dismissed cybernetics as a way to supplant the need for an underlying philosophy, which is what you were doing at the beginning. You can study cybernetics and believe it's supported by dialectics, but the other way is nonsense. I am in no way dismissing that MST s are another way to talk about dialectical movements, but it is not dealing with the essence of a thing or that thing in itself at the level of philosophy. Hegelians talk about similar things very often, with a lot of the examples on the pages shown being almost identical in form to things Engels pointed out. But saying you're not a Hegelian (we mean dialectician here, you're likely not a marxist either) indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all

Hegelian dialectics was possibly sublated by marx, but Marx's dialectic is not a dialectic idea but a material world which does exist as a basic assumption that is perfect for any theory which intends to be useful. You cannot sublate the material world itself. But again, I think that you are under the impression that, because you thought of a quick gotcha, that this hasn't already been thought about and written by many scholars before you. Hegel himself saw this gotcha coming

Ok you pull me back in, read some philosophy of science which is at the basis of your beliefs here. There are such huge assumptions under the ideas of mutual feedback you're representing here. I'm a Systems Engineer, I get the appeal and genuinely base my scientific analysis of socio economics in the ideas that I've developed through that lens. But I also understand the limitations of this because I've read philosophy of science at the most basic level.

You sound like the people who think that math is a formally complete system and base worldviews on it ("everything is math and we can understand all that happens by the math at the quantum levels and even below eventually") without realizing that the experts of the field are completely against this interpretation, and even claim it's disproven. You're doing intuitionism but I don't think you realize it. I do it too, because it's easiest for understanding and useful, but I know it's limited