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

Posts

0

Comments

142

Joined

6 mo. ago

I would like to enjoy this, but I think I'm majorly out of the loop. And googling "tony stark dead name stuff" doesn't seem like it's gonna get me too far

After reading replies: Ok so there's memes about "doing stuff" and someone claiming to be stuff, and this person nicely assumed that stuff was the pronouns preferred by Tony Stark? Or that Stuff was Tony's name after transitioning??? Got it I think.

Ok this sounds convincing to give it a go

Damn cool!

quote theory??? When??

Has been my phone background before, I can laugh out loud alone (not just exhale, you know) repeating "Rollin Coal in my Barthole" to myself.

Perfect thanks!

Most recent link to the Louis Theroux documentary? Got a lib who needs to see it

Well there's 2 options to accept here if we accept that society will change at some point revolutionarily: 1. (Less likely) We need to change our strategy to reach those people because they are revolutionary. That's not someone's fault or something that anyone deserves to have to deal with, but if we want to progress, we have to find some way to connect. Or 2. (More likely) Those people aren't the revolutionary class, and my word "societies" needs to be interpreted more broadly to encompass whoever has the potential to revolutionarily change your society. These people may be physically far away, but we should be using our correct analysis to undergird the strategies we build with them.

I'm not dismissing the racism, sexism, abelism, or any of that, to be clear. I doubt the people expressing that in the 1st world are really part of any revolutionary potential. Or at least won't be until some more major changes happen.

We need to reach the revolutionary classes in our societies with this correctness and connect it to our normative claims and strategies. How we do that? Idk we're still working on it. But being constantly right would be great if the rest of the strategy was worked out..

Damn I'm gonna try to get my brother to do that marathon with me there. Make it my first. Well, if it's at all affordable

Thats Capital and its direct minions

Wait is this real? I thought I'd seen a similar post before but don't remember it being from her?

Anybody trying to define fascism based on the very specific characteristics of Italy, Japan, or Germany is going to run into reasons to call trump a fascist or not and be able to debate. Like the 14 from ur fascism. I don't think that's a useful way to spend our time. I think that the definition of "Actually Existing Fascism" from redsails is the one that is useful, and there Trump can really only be considered the current captain of a success of fascism. The US has been fascist (in expropriating from its shifting periphery) since it's inception, and managed survived the birthing pains. The "classic" fascist examples failed to become the dominant force of their own existence and thus failed. So Trump is just as much a fascist as every other American president; he just partially shifted the periphery to be an internal enemy instead of external.

Western definitions always find that shift mega-important, but I think Cesaire's famous quote ("fascism=colonialism turned inward") was dialectically supposed to mean that all the expropriation at the periphery has been fascism too, not that fascism should be defined by its inward turn. That would only make the definition of fascism be an easy way to hide the oppression of the 3rd world as better than oppression of the 1st world. We Marxists should not accept that.

So yes, his fascism aims slightly different than the democrats, but of course he's a fascist

Oh.. think it'd be funnier without that one, that's already enough I think

What's the gun, sunglasses, and hat backwards one?

Fair enough. Probably just some social anxiety lol

I have yazidi acquaintances in my area (not gonna tell more than that for opsec) who yesterday told me they were celebrating Easter excitedly. Any comrades know much about Yazidi culture/Religion wanna help me find some sources to understand this a bit better? They're super nice, and I'm sure they'd explain if I asked, but I'm kind of embarrassed to know them so long and just now realize I know less about their religion than I thought. And Wikipedia is useless, and other sites that come up on Google are giving very conflicting information.

Something changes once a language is standardized, and that standardizationis malleable in direct relation to how important the "standardized language" is to the current culture.

Like Vampire said, Standard Arabic is very conservative because the Quran is considered holy only in the form of standardized Quranic arabic. So, you can see Modern Standard Arabic as being a ship with an anchor in the Quranic language and thus moving very little.

Regarding many European Languages, there was a standardization around the time of the protestant reformation because of the translating of the bible into languages. The example I'm most familiar with is the Dutch/German separation based on 2 major translations done in the area near Amsterdam and in the highlands of the German south. Translators were the closest thing to modern linguists, and attempted to find the most broadly understandable way to write something (with, of course, class differences and such taken into account). And people became grouped geographically by which translation they could understand well enough. To extend the anchor metaphor, this bible translation was similar to the Quran but without the specific necessity for not changing. So it had a braking effect with regards to diverging linguistic trends, but can't really be called an anchor.

I'm sure some people understood that this was an interesting development, where they were not only expected to do simple trading/travel across a Sprachbund, but were expected to understand writing and complex concepts in a specific wording. The consequences of that might not have been fully realized. That is a super interesting thing that I want to study a bit into.

English had Shakespeare as possibly the biggest braking trend in the past 300 years (up until WW2). I find it really interesting to try to analyze how much English has changed after becoming the Lingua Franca of most of the world relative to before that. Does being spoken broadly cause converging or diverging change? I assume is has a strong converging element, but does that converged lanuage also change faster (think of spreading of memes)?

idk if i gave any answers, but I also love thinking about this

Yeah that article is so full of bullshit that I don't believe it's main claim. Comparing LLM's to understanding built by children, saying it makes "creative content", that LLM's do "chain of thought" without prompting. It presents the two sides as at all equal in logical reasoning: as if the mystical intepretation is on the same level of rigor as the systems explanation. Sorry, but I'm entirely unconvinced by this article that I should take this seriously. There are thousands of websites that do translation with natural language taking examples from existing media and such (duolingo did this for a long time, and sold those results), literally just mining that data gives the basis to easily build a network of translations that seem like natural language with no mysticism

Is it emergent?! I've never seen this claim. Where did you see or read this? Do you mean by this that it can just work in any trained language and accept/return tokens based on the language input and/or requested?