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

Posts

0

Comments

95

Joined

5 mo. ago

I would say that's true if not for the stuff around it, because it's accusing Netanyahu of "getting us into endless wars" right around this quote, and it's generally a negative claim about Netanyahu the whole time. Trump also wants to destroy all enemies of the Zionist entity, but he wants Netanyahu groveling at his feet to do it. This video makes it seem like Netanyahu just gets his way. And trump doesn't like it when others get their way lol

such a chaotic moist-boy

Trump shares a video of Sachs where he talks shit about Netanyahu. Netanyahu will come groveling and Trump will give in and help with genocide. It's a tragic and horrific spectacle. The kayfabe is impressive.

unhoused people who have been pushed into LA and shoved around until they had nowhere and no options?

For sure, my question is basically was the original movement really liberatory/historically progressive or something like a petit bourgeois liberal uprising?

Holy shit how close is this to like the center? I know it's mostly suburban hell, but that looks like it's getting close to burning down skyscrapers too. That's some dangerous looking fire. And I imagine the large unhoused population is in major fear with few options...

Anyone listen to the RevLeft episode on Syria? I'm very curious about the position that the 2011-2012 period was a possibly real and meaningful revolution. The speaker said that after this period, it was coopted by the west. But what that period in Syria looked like seems interesting. Any good resources on that specific period?

Yep, working in a safety critical environment and constantly hear how safety reports will be made by personally tailored AI and requirements developed and managed with AI. Then the natural step is to hire AI consultants to do that. Fuckin hell it's looking bleak. And because every business executive thinks this is the solution, it'll become a race to the bottom because all capital will also go to those dumbass ideas, then all people capable of doing work without AI will be replaced by those who do it less well with AI over time. I'm entirely unconvinced that this will be good (despite the fact historically that such advances have been fine, like with calculators or computers generally). This time we don't KNOW how the solution is reached..

Very good! Seems to be heavily based off of the release of archival evidence of the last 20-30 years and worth while. Little completely "new" evidence for people with lots of background knowledge, but lovely little bits of writing from random people. I'm a bit confused in how its organized tbh, because I feel like it doesn't stick well enough to a strict timeline, but to be fair, I'm listening while working out and not having my full attention on it, so could be on me.

I have not done ANY looking at sources and such, so I'm not yet 100% believing stuff I'd never read or anything though.

I was also trying to imagine in what situation this was possible and what notation it could possibly be

Wtf is this lol. Is this what American culture is? It's actually kinda cute for once

As one tracks one's own calories, and tracks and keep consistent one's activities, it can turn it from estimated to a hard science. That's what I mean. Just that CICO CAN be super accurate, more accurate than most biology we can do in simple "uncertainty" terms. But my overall point is that this is not effective at tackling desires/problems around weight at any larger scale than the "individual in trackable conditions". My only disagreement is linguistic here, I think, and partially a separation of levels of complexity.

I mean that CICO is very precise when isolated, but not precise with variation in a person or groups lives. And CICO is not useful in most of the cases, despite being perfectly scientific at the less complex-scale.

How does one explain body-builders, who calculate very closely their intake and burning of calories (as well as nutrients)? That's not just "close enough to be useful," is it?

I understand that CICO isn't useful when applied to a social, biological, or psychological situation in which CICO isnt practical or desired or such. It seems to me this discussion is very clearly a case like "of course water is just protons, neutrons, and electrons pushed together with forces in a shape" to explain water's purpose in cellular reproduction. It's technically correct (it's absolutely true that these basic components are what makes it up), but their interactions and forces between them cause emergent properties which need to be dealt with in chemical and biological terms.

This same thing feels like why this discussion always goes badly: of course CICO is real, because 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law for humans too. But of course it's not useful to discuss lifestyles, desires, appetites, and complex activities. If you can spend lots of time tracking it all really well, and not allowing any externalalities to grow, it is useful. But that's not a useful solution applied to healthcare on any sociological scale. And it's not useful when there's no "solution" wanted or needed.

I am not sure honestly how to have any sort of proof about the affect of fatness on other health aspects, or whether there is. Scientifically, it seems almost impossible to me. What does that proof even look like? Major comparisons of health outcomes taking only BMI into account? Finding the bias against fatness separately and taking it into account? But then it will be discovered that health indicators are based on studies of skinny people, so the indicators need re-evaluing, and further down this chain. This cycle is where we are lost and people are talking past one another. Solution to this? More focus on health study funding and diversity in it/remove capitalist incentive structures which always want to change everyone. Then see how the health indicators are looking.

Anyways, this ended up not just being a reply to you, but my take on the whole situation. Sorry for that. The first paragraph (and partially the 2nd) were to you though

Plinth does sound fake, though. If you were saying s nonsense sentence and threw in plinth, I'd forget it was a real word immediately.

Just a lot of "you're a billionaire because you exploit workers, not because you're smart"

The word exploit used constantly next to "workers", just makes me think: she's read some theory theory that she takes seriously.

She's gonna come out as a commie if she hasn't isn't she? I watched her SA in physics video a long time ago, her Feinmann one, and now seeing this one. Really good stuff, and she's perfect at describing physics and adjacent stuff in a way which really shows the roots of problems.

This is the correct position. On the longer and larger scale, IP is the much more powerful regressive aspect. OpenAI is damaging to the environment, but some other company is gonna find some shitty way to do the damaging stuff they're doing regardless of the method of profiting off it. The positive effects of damaging copyright are way larger than the slight shift which OpenAIs failure would have

What have you read that made you come to these conclusions? It sounds like you read the encyclopedia entries for these ideas and that's your basis. Also pulling lots of 'debate-bro' tactics, which I don't appreciate and is influencing the way I'm trying this interaction

Defining materialism as 'nothing immaterial exists or has any impact on us as material beings' is fine and correct. But the way you discuss them takes that definition and applies it In a straw-man. 'nothing immaterial' doesn't mean that consciousness is simple electric and chemicals. That's my point. Complexity and emergence are still material and part of a materialist philosophy once the dislectic is accepted as the relation between and within material

I'm not replying to the rest. Not worth our time

Sorry this is getting very long and I don't have the time at the moment, but I think a major point of disagreement is misunderstanding. I'm not claiming profits increased with women's emancipation on a "day before"vs. "day after" basis, like comparing profits doesn't probably show an increase. But it is a huge increase relative to the other option given when women (and supporters) would've taken even more drastic action. (no increase in absolute terms is necessary for a relative higher profit compared to a theoretical future) Compared to revolution, the choice that the bourgeoisie made as more profitable. And the form of the concession lent itself easily to continued profits in the future (when compared to the option of women's emancipation and not proletarianizing the work that they were doing).

My position, based on Engels. You gotta add Dialectics: material things can combine in such ways that are not singularly traceable to the material basic components, but instead rely on emergent components when they interact. Consciousness as we understand it IS material but is not understood through vulgar materialism which says that it can be broken down into electric signals/chemicals to be understood entirely. This is the way. Dialectics of Nature.

Nothing "idealist" exists, but things not understood in their complete totality do, and emergence is real. But emergence is material, not Magic. Trying to make a definition of "materialism" which says human consciousness is simple cells, chemicals, and electric is a straw man of good materialist analyses. These definitions are all based in a non-dialectical framework and that's why they run into the same issues that Plekhanov ran into.

Are you insinuating that Wittgenstein's position of linguistic disagreements is applicable to differences of idealism and materialism?

Can you explain it? Is it lyrics or something?