daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

it's a poorly framed joke about gay subculture, in which a "bear" is a big burly hairy gay dude.

A bear isn’t going to torture you or rape you. It’s a quick death.

This isn't really true though? Bears aren't cold calculated killers. If you were to fully accept death, slit your own carotid, whatever, sure, that would work, you'd die within like the next thirty seconds, whatever, which, I guess you could do in either scenario really, so, kind of a moot point. But bears, man, getting attacked by a bear is brutal. I dunno how many post-bear attack victims you've seen but it's not pretty or quick. Bears will bat at you with their claws defensively if you try to defend yourself at all, down to the bone, they'll put their weight on top of you and crush in your ribcage making it extremely hard to breathe and impossible to scream, leading to internal bleeding, and then when you're incapable of movement because your spinal column is crushed and the adrenaline starts wearing off, it drags you off where it can start gnawing on you and ripping out your entrails.

Bear attacks are pretty horrifying, getting attacked by wildlife is no joke. I feel like a lot of people don't have firsthand knowledge, but the bears, they are grisly.

It wouldn't work, unless it was pretty heavily moderated a la askhistorians, or what have you. You'd probably just get like, AITA level nuance shit, where people drone on about like, things that are "common sense", or commonly accepted talking points that have the pretense of nuance, but none of the actual weight. Maybe just like, mild centrism.

The thing about valuable, nuanced thought is that it's mildly chafing in that it's foreign and novel, introduces something new into the mix, but not so chafing that it's impossible to accept from the current POV. Social media operates in contextually eliminating extremes, when you automate it all, you either get a system where people only push around stuff that's highly agreeable, or stuff that's extremely disagreeable. Nuance is basically anathema to automated online spaces.

this is some damn 2011 millennial humor

yeah I bet there's a lot of weird things you'd come across huh buddy

I mean something can not be intended as bait, but still be bait, you know? It's the way in which it's framed in social media, which creates bait out of otherwise well-intentioned conversations and reactions. Strip out context, show someone this side by side with a feed of schlock about say, an ongoing war, a bunch of shitposts, whatever, and it can make it appear trivial by comparison, not worth engaging with, in good faith, you know?

I'd also say, right, like, sort of along the same lines of what I said up top about like, people not being able to have conversations anymore without making each other feel pissed off, right. Without pressing buttons, you know. Part of that communication, part of that speaking up and speaking out, is the back and forth. I think for that back and forth to exist, well, probably social media not being helpful to that is the biggest factor, but that back and forth also has to be like, a conversation. I dunno. Clarifying questions go a long way, or like, "oh what about this", you know, kinds of things. It integrates people into the conversation more than just like, a big chicago style dump on the chest, or like.

I dunno, have you ever been in those conversations where it's just someone kind of awkwardly venting for like 30 or 40 minutes, and then everyone else is kind of not engaging with them and is actively avoiding them? That's sort of like the thing I want to avoid. To be clear that's mostly the fault of the people actively avoiding or not engaging with it, for whatever trauma. I mean probably that's better than like asking shitheel questions that cause the venting person to go off more or just get mad, but yeah, still bad to just uhh, remain silent as a response to someone talking to you. Not to say that's what you're saying when you're saying like, make sure women aren't silenced or, asked to soften their language, right, but, I guess that's just my accompanying like, stipulation right. That conversations are two way kind of by definition, you know?

I'm also speaking in generalities right now, and yeah the bigger problem in general for sure is just that social media is kind of a context stripping machine that encourages pithy comebacks and imposes character limits and pushes human communication through image macros and other high pressure needle jets the size of a pin that can cut through diamonds.

Billionaires are laughing in their private jets

I think the sad thing is that they generally tend to be pretty unhappy from what I've seen

most animals will just fuck off while humans will remember you and find a way to fuck you for their gain.

I mean this is mostly not true, though? Without identifying information, like say, being in the forest, it's pretty easy to lose track of someone if you both live in anything above a small sized town, and then just never see someone again.

New thing I thought of, new idea, on top of all the other shit, about like, women vs man vs bear, right. If you choose the man, the chances that the average woman can outrun the average man I think are pretty high. I think the psycho outlier males maybe skew that stat a little bit, but I think on average, the chances are pretty good, and if I remember right, women can even, on average, run for longer than the average man. I dunno about faster, so the initial chase would probably matter more there, but, yeah. On the other hand, you can't outrun a bear, since they can get up to like 40-50 miles per hour and can pivot and maneuver way better on account of their quadripedaliness.

So I think probably that should be a good factor in the decision making, on top of all the other stuff.

Okay but now that I've got you locked in, I think I want to like. The hypothetical, the meme, is interesting, because it's obviously bait, right? Like it's obviously just something that's meant to be divisive but "illustrative", or something. It's not really successful at being illustrative and inspiring empathy, and as this meme posts, reading bell hooks would probably be a better maneuver for most men, or just like, engaging with a woman's experience of the world generally in good faith, or like, treating them like they're smart fellow human beings instead of just bringing up some counterpoint every five minutes that the chick's already thought of, and then instead of bringing it up as like a good faith question they bring it up in a way where it's like primed to treat the woman's stupid. But I dunno, maybe people just don't know how to talk, really. Small talk, sure, but real talk, no way.

Uhhh, but what I was saying, the original meme is bait, right? And it's so obviously bait that it sort of, I think, inspires two separate reactions. One treats the meme seriously because it's so absurd, right. Usually the male response, right, the idea is that we've never really had to think "oh do I take a man on this hike so I can feel more safe, or do I go alone, who can I trust to go along with me", right, the thought process would be more along the lines of like "who do I take on this hike". Existing in a male as default state, the idea is maybe that men are going to be less predisposed to gendered thinking because they don't need to think that way out of self-preservation, or culturally ingrained bias, or whatever. This doesn't mean they aren't biased, right, but it's sort of like, the white dude that's got a lot of racist notions floating around but then they don't realize it, it's implicit. So there's like, not good faith engagement, but like just total acceptance of the premise as an absurd notion to be toyed around with, right, sort of along the lines of, as I've heard another commenter say, along the lines of "what animal could I take in a fight" kind of discussions.

I think then women are maybe more likely to, on the opposite side of what I just said, actually relate more to the premise, treat it less as absurd maybe, or maybe understand more that it's meant to try to illustrate a point or get at something, and then with their responses they're going to do the same. Try to use their responses to get at something or illustrate some principle rather than just being like "oh I dunno I could probably take a bear in a fight" level shit. Like no shit that's not what they're getting at.

So, I dunno, in conclusion, the meme was primed to be bait from the onset, and, it's never not going to be bait, and, from the way social media works, the bait engagement is encouraged, the bad faith engagement is encouraged, yadda yadda. I think I will say, to put on my meme criticism hat for a moment, of this meme, this meme either operates on the assumption that someone will google bell hooks, or that someone already knows who she is, so that's kind of, narrowing the audience to those who already know, and probably don't need it as much. I'd probably go with like a bell hooks' book passage or quote which is both productive in itself for people to hear, and can maybe also drive traffic towards a book of hers. Maybe make the talking head quote that passage and then the chad soyjack can pog up on hearing it or be crying or whatever. Also I'd probably replace the "black woman" soyjack with a bell hooks specific soyjack, but that might be too high effort.

Also looked up bell hooks while writing this, didn't know she was dead as of 3 years ago, RIP to a real one, that sucks.

I would agree but stipulate, unpaid third places. Third places still exist, they're just all monetized. Hang out at the movie theater, gotta buy a ticket, hang out at a concert, gotta buy a ticket, hang out anywhere around town, you're loitering and there's nothing really there, hang out at the mall, everyone's trying to sell you stuff and there's only just stuff to buy. There's maybe the park and the library left, which aren't exactly the most hot of spots.

there's also the idea that you go to a college, possibly a community college, and then transfer to an out of country college for the degree, which I have heard is a great way to be able to live in a country, acclimate, and work from there

I just hope it'd be more like trans krakoa and less like trans genosha

What did it look like in person?

that's so based hoo lee I must've missed that one gotta do a rewatch

we'd do it cause it'd be funny even if they weren't tortured or nothing. can you imagine a little asshole running around the utopia being like "no, no, I'm supposed to own things, where are my stocks, where are my numbers, no!". probably it'd suck that all their friends are deade though. I'm sure you thaw a couple cause the have rare diseases or certain kinds of DNA though.

Bring it back as an HTPC like the peeps are saying, low-ball it on the price like 500 bucks or less, maybe even take a hit on it or just a hit on the profit margins, pre-install all the stuff people might need, and then blam, you've guaranteed that most people will be casual users who want a lower-end computer and a smart TV/console replacement, and not higher tier hobbyists who want a more powerful machine. Confining your audience to that specific market share basically guarantees they won't take advantage of the lower or negative margins on the hardware itself, and will probably buy some amount of steam games. They're also using a device in your ecosystem now but idk what you do as far as that goes to make a good profit while not being a scumbag

the point people are generally making when they complain about corporations comprising the majority of the emissions is that they have the majority of the actual control in the situation, there's not really a real alternative that exists to a lot of these other options that's viable for people to actually partake in, short of moving out into the countryside and deciding to start homesteading, which also takes a lot of resources to start up. And then also that, because the corporations have a lot of the control, and the consumers can't realistically do jack shit, it makes more sense to put the focus on them and regulate what they do.

lots of people can't live without a car right now because they don't have access to public transit. lots of the food supply that exists right now is energy inefficient because it's profitable for the corporations to rely on publicly subsidized highway infrastructure and underpaid non-union trucking and guarantee consistent delivery times compared to huge idiot precision scheduled rail operations. some people can't switch over to a non-coal power plant without cutting out basically all electrical use from their life (not sustainable) or ponying up for solar panels on their roof (can't be done everywhere, potentially makes the grid less stable, expensive even with tax credits, can't do it if you're renting).

none of that is shit that they're really given any say on outside of occasional city council meetings which realistically affect very little about their local community, and like an election every couple years. I don't think there's an equal share of responsibility there, and I don't think the people even really have the ability to take responsibility for it. even just looking at it pragmatically, even if they had the ability to do so, they probably won't. it makes more sense to attack the head of the pyramid there, to attack the concentration of power.

I mean I'd probably change my answer depending on the phrasing of the question here.

If you mean like, classical liberalism, which includes both laissez-faire capitalism and interventionism, you'd probably find quite a lot of conservatives at this point who would define their economic ideology (if they even have any) as belonging to that kind of realm of thought, at least with laissez-faire. That shit's pretty old, we've been through like multiple cycles of that, both globally, and domestically in america, and calling for a regression to a period when your specific breed of liberalism was in place is pretty possible. Which would be kind of lumped under conservative thought, despite the window dressing of like, wanting to just kind of, hedge your bets, maintain the status quo, and "conserve" things, and even the branding of "this is the way things really are, so we need to conserve the real reality", it's mostly actively regressive horseshit.

So, that's to say, you could both be a liberal and a conservative at the same time, if you're going based on the like, actual political definitions of things. I get the sense you're more trying to use the term "liberal" to mean "progressive", or probably more accurately "socially progressive". If you want a reason why I'm making this kind of stupid semantic distinction, it's because I think it's important to distinguish liberalism, and neoliberalism, right, which refer to economic freedom, from other more actually socially progressive ideologies. I'll get to that later. In any case, it's pretty much part of the intrinsic nature of the ideology that, being okay with gay people, at the least, is going to be more chill than not wanting gay people to exist. The same for trans people, the homeless, racial minorities, neurodivergent people, whatever.

Socially progressive values are also kind of default, I think, in a vacuum (which hardly anything is), whereas nutter conservative ideology is something you have to be more actively radicalized into. If you don't give a shit about gay people, you're probably also fine with them just like, going about life and existing. You might also be fine with their oppression, but you're not actively hindering things, necessarily. You have to be actively radicalized and convinced they're bad, though, in order to call for them to be like, killed, or barred from marriage, or whatever.

You would have to more actively want gay people to have rights, to care about them more in a positive way, and actively oppose their oppression more, in order to like, actually push for things. It's a more active position, basically, to be actually socially progressive, or actually progressive. It necessitates caring. I think despite it just being on the surface more nice as in ideology, which helps prevent people from being like, actively hateful, I think it's probably also sadly the case that a lot of people who would otherwise pretend to be socially progressive don't actually give two shits about what happens or doesn't happen, and are just mindlessly occupying what they see as kind of a default position at the time.

If you go back to like the 2000's, lots of people who are otherwise pretty "progressive" nowadays would've been pretty turbo homophobic and transphobic. That's not really a slight against their character, right, we're all products of our environment, but they're just occupying kind of whatever position they think is acceptable to the mainstream.

Put even more simply, they kind of, understand that one side is right and one is wrong, but since they don't really understand the underlying reasoning behind either side, they're just jumping onto whatever they get better vibes from. That used to be some more reactionary stuff, because we were kind of in both a more apathetic and callous cultural era where "not caring" was seen as cool and offering a better vibe, and we were seen as being kind of in a "post-history", "post-racial" world, where if you were offended by racism, that was your fault, because we ended racism, and now the only real racism is you thinking racism is real, man hits bong. Just sort of like, the idea of racism as existing in a purely cultural state, just as a remnant, a cultural artifact relic which we need to move past culturally, but doesn't affect the "real world" in any way. Those ideologies were kind of appealing to a mostly white mainstream cultural population, who could pretty easily just walk around, and make edgy jokes, and pretend still that everything's gonna be okay because they haven't encountered a housing market crash and the consolidation of all of the wealth in a fraction of the population and a once in a century pandemic partially accelerated by huge misinformation campaigns. Basically, because the mainstream cultural consciousness, mostly controlled by white people, was still insulated from the worst of the worst consequences, and because they were still getting treats.

We still had a white suburban middle class, basically. We still do, but we used to, too.

Now though, people see being socially progressive as having a better vibe. Probably this is because we're on the long end of the economy being shit, and everyone having realized that collectively burning your children's futures in order to further white supremacy isn't a sustainable thing long term and just fucks you over, probably it's also because the internet has made it easier for marginalized voices to occupy more space in the cultural consciousness, whereas before they would've been screened by industry gatekeepers. Probably it's also because conservative nutters collectively lost their fucking minds and kind of went mask off with trump and gamergate shit, partially as a reaction to obama just being like, black, but also those other factors I've named.

Probably it's because the middle class that you used to see in all those 90's movies, like fight club and office space, got automated away, outsourced, or otherwise traded for a bunch of IT and internet developers, which can mostly take their place as part of the managerial class. We go from cubicles in high rises, to open floor plan offices in mid-rises, to work-share rental spaces in low-rises, to work-from-home setups, and the amount of people allowed treats from their overlords narrows in total population because you simply don't need as many. The amount of people who are actively fooled by corporate propaganda and bootstraps mentalities also narrows with the proliferation of the internet and with the lack of people who are now "in" on this middle class lifestyle, so your immediate social group is more likely to have people who you know are chilling but are also struggling a lot financially.

yeah I think that's all I got as far as this one goes.

woah, that's like advanced piss docking, I've only seen that in my animes. nice.