Excrubulent @ Excrubulent @slrpnk.net

Posts

17

Comments

2,698

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're angrier at leftists for correctly calling out the dems' genocide than you are at the dems for their genocide.

Calling a genocide a genocide should not be a partisan issue, and if you think we need to temper our discussion of genocide so that your preferred genocider can win a fucking election then you are a genocide denier.

The way for the dems to differentiate themselves on this issue was to stop doing a genocide. They couldn't do that, and so they enabled the worse option because they were just too horny for killing brown kids.

Asking for a historical example is not inciting violence, telling people to start shooting and put their money where their mouth is, is inciting violence, even if you're being sarcastic.

I wonder what you would consider as not "all talk"? Someone posting evidence? Gee, I wonder why people don't do that. I wonder if that's exactly what people engaging in direct action should never do.

I wonder how I can tell the difference between what you're doing now and how a fed would talk.

You want receipts?

And please, keep giving me your one downvote, it's not a sad & pathetic attempt to assert yourself that's transparent to anyone who happens to read this, not at all.

I'm just perusing my old comments and came across this, 7 months later. This is an amazing article, thank you.

And it's you, not the person you're accusing.

There's only one person here who's actually telling other people to get violent.

Dunno if you know dimension 20 and their Misfits & Magic mini-series, but it was basically a satire of Harry Potter, really attacking some of the unquestioned tropes in that series.

Anyway, this is a beautiful clip of Erika Ishii, who is NB, at the start of the series, saying what they think of TERFs:

https://youtu.be/4GiVpELykaE

Facebook has had a strategy for a long time of monopolising the internet of countries that previously had very little internet. They essentially subsidise internet infrastructure and make that subsidy dependent on facebook being a central part of the network.

So I'm not surprised to hear this. They obviously have found ways to inveigle themselves into key infrastructure in lots of places, even if they couldn't build it in from the ground up.

They are obviously not in a reasoning place. I wouldn't try logic, but they are susceptible to emotional manipulation. That's how they fell for fascist propaganda in the first place. I would go for emotional truth.

You have to judge if you're safe to do this, but the next time they're screaming about their absurd conspiracies, I would get a really sad look on my face, make direct eye contact, shake my head and say, "You're so full of hate, and it's really sad." Just go full sincerity and show them how you see them.

You can even set them up for it. Next time you try telling them some fact that they're going to have this hateful response to, you can have this in your back pocket. You start with a simple fact, they respond with hate, you reply by telling them they're being hateful.

This is a modification of this strategy: https://youtu.be/tZzwO2B9b64

Basically, don't waste time arguing with fascists, just point out that they're being assholes.

Now, I say you need to judge how safe you feel doing this, because you might be surprised how ballistic they go. People stuck in abusive behaviour patterns hate nothing more than having that behaviour simply described to them. But when they do lose their shit, you can just describe it again.

Sometimes they will just short-circuit and try to ignore you, or chastise you for speaking out of turn. The authoritarian personality is deeply connected to authoritarian parenting attitudes. Just persist over time, and maybe they will notice that they can't stop you from reflecting their ugly selves back at them.

I don't know how old you are, how physically big you are, how prone they are to serious outbursts, but again, pay attention to your body and how much you're feeling your flight instinct. Only if you feel safe.

I do this with my parents sometimes. Like if my mum is fussing over my kids in some way that I think is invasive, - this was a sore point in my upbringing, she has no filter and no boundaries - I don't engage on the facts of what she's saying. I don't tell her, "That tiny red spot you've noticed isn't a big problem," because that's also being invasive and speaking on their behalf. I say "People don't like to be scrutinised like that. If that's a real problem they can tell us."

It's honestly astonishing how fast this resolves some situations. That might have been a perennial argument about some fussy detail of my child's appearance, all the time adding to the boundary-crossing scrutiny they experience, but shutting it down by pointing out her behaviour really makes her stop, and it communicates to my kids that they don't have to put up with it. It teaches them that they have autonomy.

It's taken many years of demonstrating to her that I won't be pushed around or intimidated for me to get to this point though. It's not an easy road, and often the way to know the tactic is working is by watching how unpleasant someone gets when you do it, at least at first.

Again: only if you feel safe.

This is an online forum. It's words. Your idea that the people you're talking to are all talk is unfalsifiable. If anyone did post on here about pulling a trigger you could attack them for being all talk for exactly that same reason.

On this forum, you are also all talk. There is literally nothing else you can do on here.

But go off, everybody around you is all talk, all the time. That certainly isn't a feature of the place you chose to express your vapid rants.

People who are organising on the ground are under no obligation to keep you in the loop by posting about it publicly, especially given you clearly aren't interested in helping anyway.

My guess is your accusations are all a projection of your own feelings of powerlessness. I mean there's not going to be another election for about 4 more years, and your only method of change is useless until then.

Gee, I wonder if that's by design?

I agree broadly with the idea that the state's legitimacy relies on the appearance that they wield their violence justly, but I think you're giving the state too much credit when you frame it as a fair and considered exchange of power.

The state has had all of us under its purview since birth, it has pumped us full of pro-hierarchy, anti-autonomy, anti-social propaganda and it wields its violence more to prevent insurgency than it does to protect us.

There is no "social contract", nothing that I ever signed anyway, and even if there were, contract law invalidates any contract signed under duress. The concept of the social contract is just yet more hierarchical propaganda. It's a vague, handwavey vibe to obscure the fact that we really aren't given a meaningful option to leave.

The state relies on not just the appearance of legitimacy, but the appearance of absolute power. Both are illusions, and can be opposed by organised people directly building mutual aid on the ground. The more we meet one another's needs for security the less we need the state and the more people can see it for the charade that it is.

The radical flank effect:

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false

Honestly less frantic gameplay sounds good to me, I got sick of the "oh god they're after me now I fell oh well try again" parts of the gameplay. I might take a look. Thanks!

I played the first game and thought it was okay but not great. What were the changes? Maybe they'll suit me since I'm not so attached to the original.

There's nothing hornier than religious sexual purity culture. Add perfoming arts & fame and you have a very sordid cocktail.

Okay, that's all very interesting and I love the idea about dynamic music, I've had similar thoughts myself but wouldn't have thought to go this far to make it happen. I'd love to see what you come up with!

My only real thoughts are about the transpiling, so the editor uses relative time codes but the format itself uses absolute, if I understand you, and you're converting between the two?

That to me hints of code smell, because I wonder why that's necessary. For example, could you program the editor to display and work in absolute time codes, or is there something stopping that from happening?

Alternatively you could simply make the format capable of natively understanding both relative and absolute commands, so whichever is more appropriate to the context is what gets used.

Keeping them different seems like it will require you to program two formats, make them compatible with one another and deal with bugs in both of them. Essentially you've not only doubled the number of places where bugs can arise within the formats, you've added the extra step of transpiling which also doubles the number of interactions between the formats, adding even more complexity, even more places where inconsistencies can show up, even more code to sift through to find the problem.

It's the sort of thing that shows up in legacy systems where the programmers don't have the freedom to simply ditch one of the parts.

Personally if I had the freedom of programming the system from scratch I would rather commit completely to a single format and make it work across the entire stack, so then I only have one interpreter/encoder to consider. That one parser would then be the single point of reference for every interaction with the format. Any code that wants to get or place a note for any reason - for playing, editing, recording, whatever - would use the same set of functions, and then you automatically get consistency across all of it.

Edit: another thought about this: if you need some notes to be absolute and others to be relative, it might be worth having an absolute anchor command that other commands can be relative to, and have it indexed, so commands are relative to anchor 1, 2, etc. Maybe anchor 0 is just the start of the song. Also maybe you could set any command as an anchor by referring to its index. That way you can still move around those commands in a relative way while still having the overall format reducible to absolute times during playback. Also a note "duration" could just be an off command set relative to its corresponding on command.

I say that because as another principle I like to make sure that I "name things what they are". If the user is programming things in the editor that are relative, but under the hood they're translated into absolute terms, that will probably lead to unexpected behaviour.

It's neoliberal politics. Basically after WWII it was obvious people didn't like fascism and politicians couldn't openly embrace it. But it was too useful for protecting capitalist interests, so a bunch of neoliberal experiments were run in south america to figure out the best way to use fascism to oppress workers without creating that world-war style blowback.

And one of the techniques they landed on was to keep scapegoating the vulnerable, but to use sanitised language. So it's not "dirty n-----s, g-----s and k----s polluting our precious blood and soil", it's "immigrants taking our jobs". It's not "useless eaters withering the soul of our nation" it's "welfare recipients mustn't be allowed to freeload."

It's the same ideas dressed up to sound a bit more respectable and not trip the fascism alarm, but they work nearly as well to strip the social safety net, which lowers wages.

It's a good thing literally every critic of yours sounds like that ridiculous strawman or else you might have to think critically about your worldview.

The argument could be made that because the image generator is essentially a regurgitator with no artistic interpretation, there is no transformative artistic value in it. It's like applying a filter with extra steps.

Also the generators charge for access, so they are profiting off of the IP. That's quite different to making something for personal use or releasing it for free.