lennivelkant @ lennivelkant @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

1 yr. ago

So you thought Trump was the better option.

I dont vote for war criminals.

You don't vote against openly bigoted felons seeking to destroy what's left of democracy either?

In fact, just right-to-repair the whole car. In fact, the whole everything!

Boy, that escalated quickly

But yes, please.

With respect to Israel? Sure.
With respect to international policy otherwise? No.
With respect to domestic policy? Hell no.

By focusing on one issue - a horrible issue, don't get me wrong, but one this election wouldn't influence - to the detriment of all others, you pretend that everything else doesn't matter. Fuck transgender kids, fuck immigrants, fuck labor laws, fuck economic exploitation, fuck the Ukraine too while we're at it, fuck everyone and everything, but at least you didn't vote for one genocide supporter (but got the other, so you achieved nothing anyway and never were going to).

Instead of directing that frustration at a more precise channel like protests, pestering your representatives, more severe forms of activism specifically messaging your discontent about that one issue, you used the vaguest possible opportunity with the most side effects. The US democracy may be broken, mutilated and in dire need of a fundamental overhaul, but it still has some democratic elements. Pretending it doesn't is disingenuous.

If that changed your view after all, then I'll take back everything else I'm about to say, but if you genuinely think nothing but making a show of caring about Palestine matters, this is where my charity and civility ends.

You're a transphobia, racism and christofascism enabler, and a hollow gesture of caring about Palestinian lives that was never going to do anything for those lives except put a bunch of other lives in jeopardy doesn't weigh that up. In a word:

You're a hypocrite.

An impossible choice between...?

The persistent myth that both parties are equally bad is patently bullshit propaganda by those fostering that disengagement. Pretending that all the other issues don't matter in the face of the decision between "not going to stop genocide" and "going to make it worse" is narrow-minded. Again, if someone thinks "I'm not going to vote for genocide" is a justification for "I'm not going to vote against the fascists", they're trying to show their virtue with respect to genocide, while not actually caring about anything else except that signalling of virtue. That's the hypocrisy.

If life's a game, it's chess and we're the pawns. Except that pawns in chess have a higher chance of promotion.

Oh I have plenty of people to be mad at - Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, Harris, Biden, the DNC, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, authoritarian bootlickers masquerading as leftists...

Voter disengagement is an issue, yes, but people advocating for voting against Harris on grounds of voting against Genocide (which, you know, is the whole topic here) fail doubly: First, they pretend it's the core issue of the election and their vote puts them on the anti-genocide side, and second, they pretend it was a topic of the election at all, such that there would even be an anti-genocide side to put them on.

So yes, I am mad at people pretending that voting against Harris somehow makes them more virtuous. I'm even more mad at the people voting against her for actually relevant reason, but that's not the topic here.

I think that's what they meant by wealthy

People who ignore the realities of strategic voting in a FPTP system, then pat themselves on the back for their moral superiority are hypocrites. Anti-Genocide wasn't even on the table. Ignoring literally every other issue that was on the table just so they can feel good about throwing away their vote makes them hypocrites.

The Palestinian people have gained absolutely nothing from those anti-genocide votes. They're virtue-signalling at best, intentional spoiler votes at worst.

Meanwhile, there are labour protections, checks on corporate enshittification, mechanisms to slow down the accumulation of wealth and institutions of democracy that the incoming administration will tear down (or at least try to) that the alternative wouldn't. All of these are victims of that arrogance, to think that an anti-genocide vote is worth more than an anti-christofascism(+genocide) vote.

There has been a recurring argument (not mine, heaven forbid) both prior to and in the aftermath of the election that not voting for the dems would show them that they can't keep running away to the right and still expect to win. It would teach them a lesson.

It baffles me that they think a) the Dems would actually learn the lesson, b) the alternative wouldn't be that much worse and c) the alternative that quite explicitly aimed to abolish democracy entirely would willingly afford the dems a chance to learn that lesson. If they can't eliminate democracy itself, they'll try to neuter and bias it as heavily as possible until they've got the same kind of pseudo-democratic one-party fuckery that you see in other countries like... China, North Korea, Russia, Belarus...

Huh, that's funny, seems like all the countries whose boots they're so eager to lick. I'm sure that's coincidence, right?

Actually, that's a lie. I don't believe it's coincidence at all. I think it's part of a deceitful strategy to undermine democracy through spreading willful ignorance and channeling voter frustration and disillusionment into frustration with democracy itself. Hell, there are even people claiming that a dictatorship is a necessity of revolution, that you can't build a new and better system without placing someone in charge of building it - because that worked out so fucking well with the other communist revolutions, right?

Every single fucker who gargles dictator cock under the guise of "communism" and "leftism" is an authoritarian, a traitor against the people they feign class solidarity with. You don't save democracy by not participating. You don't hold politicians accountable by supporting their opponents.

And that's being charitable and assuming they're just misguided, not intentionally malicious foreign actors.

When even the Department Of Justice publishes reports that more severe punishments, explicitly including death sentences, don't work for deterrence (see points 4 and 5 of their summary), people really should start thinking about better ways to prevent crime.

(Personally, I'd propose tackling the conditions that force crimes, particularly those of desperation, as well as reevaluating the catalogue of what really counts as crimes, particularly if there's no victim, but on here, I'd be preaching to the choir.)

Sure, if that's what you want to look at for comparison, though America has plenty of its own (as do other nations). Pretty sure extreme wealth knows no allegiance but to itself. Nations are pawns to them, nationality a way to draw lines, nationalism a way to make people fight over those lines instead of fighting the vampires making bank off of that conflict.

Whether you'll end up under Russian exploitation, American exploitation, European exploitation, Chinese exploitation or literally any other oligarchy you could come up with doesn't really matter.

Better to fight for a chance at freedom than fall for the deception that a particular flag makes one parasite better than the other. And if it should come to violence, maybe it will at least train a force of veteran resistance fighters if the eurasian powers come knocking. We've got a live demonstration of how a motivated resistance can give an imperialist invader a hard time.

War is a waste of lives and resources and regrettable in any circumstance. I hope that changes for the better can happen without resulting in bloodshed and destruction. I hope for a better, happier, more prosperous future for all of us.

1. That's a personal preference. Many people do care about aesthetics and I don't think invalidating their taste is fair. Hence, if you wanted to add factors accounting for that preference, you'd have to define some additional variable for it.
2. If a is a subjective measure of aesthetic value - as it must be, since taste is a subjective thing - you might as well include the factor already.
3. If a is normalised against some fixed scale, but bloat (having effectively no upper limit) is impossible to normalise, it would be more reasonable to increase f instead in order to model the fact that a larger distro may also come with more functionality.
4. You don't need the extra parentheses around 0.5*a
5. We're both fucking nerds and I love it

10 days seems too low to fully grasp the misery of long-term homelessness, and a few millionaires isn't quite the same as a few billionaires. Still, I like the premise.

Ideally, the support would be so overwhelming that it doesn't come to actual protracted violent conflict. But if the alternative is an erosion of civil rights by a greedy oligarchy, I have little faith that they'd actually oppose "eurasias plan" either, so it doesn't seem like there's much to lose here.

Nope, McTurtle got rich along the way. But his lifelong goal has been packing the courts.

He is literally salivating like he just walked into a salad bar at the 42 vacancies Biden is about to hand over.

Moscow Mitch is a politician, and a good one (in the sense of "good at manipulating political affairs", not "a good person"). He's a canny cunt, and that's the most dangerous enemy you could come up with: one that knows what they're doing.

Hey, here's a thought. You know about the guy that shot a parasite in NY? AOC could try that too. She'd need enough vocal (and armed) popular support to avoid conviction (and retaliatory assassination) and it might turn into a civil war, but it might also work.

I think drag takes this too literally.

Certain image boards turned that stereotype into a meme, where "autistic screeching", aka "REEEEEEE" was used to signify excessive complaints. I'll note that it's a false equivalence that makes light of autistic people's genuine pain, but I don't think drag (or anyone else here) needs an elaborate lecture on that.

In any case, its idiomatic meaning has become detached from the literal one, so when the other user referred to the authorities' "autistic screeching", it most likely was intended to mean "excessive complaints" rather than the whole mental process of failing to cope with discomfort.

I definitely agree with drag that we shouldn't equate corporate calculation with genuine human discomfort.

Yeah, that's what I mean with conjunctive instead of disjunctive.

The original idea is the stereotype of autistic children who start screeching when something happens that they don't want.

The underlying phenomenon is people failing to cope with discomfort induced by things others don't perceive as uncomfortable. I'm not a psychologist, this is more an informal way to express my own experiences.

For example, a person (possibly, but not necessarily autistic) with sensory issues may find grocery store visits unbearable if the lighting of that store triggers that discomfort, or the hum of the AC, or the general noise of the place. Trying to ignore this discomfort may work for a while, trying to block the triggers may help, focusing on some reward or comfort may help the brain hold on to more pleasant thoughts, but if those fail, eventually the brain will reach a point of overload.

It's particularly bad when some method of coping suddenly fails or the discomfort spikes suddenly. If I was trying to make it through a grocery trip by promising myself some comfort food, then reach the shelf where that food is supposed to be and find it empty, that cuts quite a gash into my mental barrier. Some noises, when unexpected and loud enough, can bring me all the way from "calm" to "overload" in an instant

The exact reaction can differ, with some options being less visible. I usually enter a type of dissociation where only the most routine things still work (like beelining for the checkout, paying and getting the fuck out of there, rest of the grocery list be damned), but since I still function to some degree, it might not look like an overload.

The most visible reaction is probably when the "dam" trying to contain the discomfort breaks so violently that it turns into acute pain, with the result looking much like you'd expect someone in acute pain to react: screaming.

Thus, the most noticeable expression of Autism in people you don't know is probably when something seemingly minor sends them over that edge. You don't see the buildup, you don't see the other ways people deal with the discomfort, you might not even understand the discomfort itself, but you see a child suddenly breaking down and screeching.

There are other things too, like breaking from established patterns, but this is getting top long already. The mechanisms is similar, in any case: The break from the pattern produces discomfort, a sudden break producing sudden discomfort, which can lead to the same kind of overload.