And some of us live in the US, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is built on genocide of the indigenous (still an ongoing problem), slavery (prison labor loophole still exists), and is currently funding and supporting a genocide against the Palestinian people. You can repeat the word cosplay as many times as you want, it doesn’t suddenly make your world real and others not.

My point about you “living in anecdote” is you’re playing the internet trope “I was X and I understand it better than you” card, and so far, as far as I can tell, you have yet to even name what this mystery country is, in spite of being directly asked by someone. Meanwhile, you’re pushing garden variety “vote blue no matter who” talking points and showing repeated ignorance of what kind of person Biden is comparative to Trump and what the US is actually like.

You are not “way to the left of Biden” in actual substance. You are enabling of genocide by framing one of two runners of it as lesser evil. You call others cosplayers, but it’s you who is treating the claiming of a political label purely as a badge you put on yourself rather than something that has to be backed up by, you know, actually aligning with it.

Trump was already in office for 4 years though. It’s not some big mystery how he would act as president. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The nature of US fascism is not identical to every other country, but you’re just ignoring history if you think it has never seriously opposed communism internally. Like, COINTELPRO for starters? Come on.

It just comes across to me like you’re inventing this arbitrary goalpost for fascism, so that you can say the US isn’t at it yet and then say vote for the other guy. With a helping of vague “I lived under anecdote” to go with it. Like what is with this language of calling people cosplayers? Where exactly do you think US citizens live, not in the US?

I’m genuinely confused as to what your politics are supposed to be.

I would say it’s closer to “the US taking the mask off on being fascist” vs. “finding ways to keep the mask on for longer”

It’s also not just about privacy. It’s also about safety (historically, ads can be a vector for viruses). And it’s about having garbage shoveled in front of you that makes the internet borderline unusable. Which comes back to capitalism and the nature of every space becoming an ad-infested hell because consume product is the god.

So, thanks for the back and forth on this. I ended up updating and it seems to be working again now. Since you figure it’s not using new functionality, my best guess is something old got deprecated in a way that my version was depending on in some part of the process.

Either way, working now, so yay.

Hi, I’m on desktop, Firefox browser. Though now I’m thinking about it, maybe I do need to look into updating my browser. I might have disabled updates at some point in order to keep things the same, but that might mess with it if depends on something newer? Hmm.

Barring any info that it might be something else, I might look into browser update later today to see if that makes any difference.

Well said, this is in line with what I remember learning in the past too, though I wasn’t sure how to put it into words. The phenomenon of capitalist realism, for example, I don’t think would be possible if economic systems were separate from the rest of social stuff. People who defend capitalism while not benefiting from it meaningfully are not just “brainwashed” in the sense of being convinced it’s a good system, their way of life and thinking is tangled up in the capitalist process. For example, the way I see some people in the US act about new products, it seems that it does not even occur to them to consider the idea of “new product” as a bad thing, only whether it is “good product” or “bad product.” Something that might be seen by a different kind of society as excess and waste is widely viewed as a form of progress and advancement under capitalism. This kind of thing, I would argue, is not just incidental, but necessary for the system to function with any longevity.

As of, I can’t recall exactly, a couple of days ago? The “Next” button at the bottom of the feed page just takes me to the same first page of results. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Something I haven’t seen touched on in this thread is the nature of surveillance. I find that western (idealism?) thinking often poses things as a binary good/bad in a universalized way. So, for example, state good / state bad, or surveillance good / surveillance bad. Another common one I see on the western internet is people who say censorship bad, free speech good as a sort of ideal, but they gloss over the practicalities of stuff like the Paradox of Tolerance.

I don’t know what the surveillance is like in China and you’ve already received plenty of answers on whether they have it. What I can speak to is I know that in the US, the nature of surveillance and violations of privacy has a distinctly chilling connotation. The US, last I checked, has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It has a loophole for basically slavery through prison labor, or in some cases bare bones wages that are on the borderline. It has a history that includes stuff like MKUltra and COINTELPRO. Or more overt stuff like its history of violence against striking workers and efforts to disrupt them in any way possible. And that’s just against its own people. That’s not even getting into the CIA and its violent history across the world.

So for a place like the US, surveillance is an extension of the already existing dictatorship of capital and imperialist history abroad. A lot of people in the US don’t trust their own government and for good reason (though sometimes the actual reasons they land on are out to lunch, compared to the well-documented ones).

What I’m getting at here is, the dynamic of the US informs the nature of surveillance. So I think it’s important to also investigate and take into account what is the nature of surveillance in China. How is it used and for what purposes. What need and intentions has it most developed out of. What kind of accountability processes does it have or enable. I think it’s safe to figure that since not every state has the same conditions or goals, the development of surveillance and its purposes will not be identical, and so the way it impacts the citizens and how they think about surveillance also will not be identical.

That’s awesome, well done!

I kinda hate it, but I also don’t tend to like “prankster” type of humor in general. In spite of that, it’s hard for me to think it’s valid to be opposed to it generally if the people involved are all okay with it. So like, two friends “roasting” each other, okay, I guess none of my business if they are truly fine with it and enjoy it. But even then, are they doing stuff similar to “aftercare”? Where they reaffirm they really do love and appreciate each other after any digging is done. Because if not, it seems like an easy way for people to be in an unhealthy dynamic, where one of them is crying inside and just going along with it to get along.

And in the context of a sub like roastme, there’s nothing close to “aftercare”, no real off button on it, and it’s complete strangers. So it seems like a horrible setup for doing it in a way that is at all healthy.

Exactly, well said. Some of the worst people/entities in history “worked hard” at doing horrific things. Didn’t make the things they did any less horrific.

Dream chasing under capitalism is similar to buying lottery tickets hoping to win the jackpot. They’ll let a few win big here and there to legitimize the idea of upward mobility, but the reality is, you are not going to be that person. And the “but technically I could be” mentality is what drives people in gambling, just as it does in driving them to believe in the legitimacy of capitalism.

Giving citizens access to the outside world would be an interesting thing to see them deal with.

Zero self awareness in people like this. Live in a western alphabet agency bubble of information, but think others are sheltered.

I can try to get into more detail on this another time (I need to wind down for sleep) but I guess what I’m trying to get at here is that when you point at basically all states thought of as AES (maybe I missed one?) and call them revisionist in one form or another, it can end up sounding exactly like the “that wasn’t real communism” trope or in another way, end up sounding like “that was real communism and see how it sucks and fails actually in practice.” I’m trying to word this carefully because it could go in the other direction too if presented thoughtlessly, where it sounds like I’m saying that criticisms of AES projects are bad (criticism is important). The point that I hang on is, making sure we’re not de-legitimizing the theory and practice as a whole by being unfairly dismissive of how closely practice aligns with the goal, where it is on the developing path. And also just making sure we are clear on tactics vs. corruption mindset. That to use a rough war analogy, sometimes you have to retreat in order to regroup, but that doesn’t mean your army has taken a step backward in its ideological goals. Retreating has the risk of leading to giving up and compromising on what you intend, but the one doesn’t automatically follow from the other. So making sure in the weeds of it, we are clear on when something is dangerous compromising on an ideological center and when something is a more complicated tactical development that undoubtedly contains some risk of losing the ideological center, but still has that center and has a specific plan in mind for how to develop past the “retreating” into an advance.

Edit: wording

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems like the term “revisionist” becomes all but meaningless when you apply it in this way, like a sort of “no true scotsman” style analysis. I’m not sure I understand what your expectation is for AES states.

Thanks!

Why does this person think it’s about “big name” worship? I don’t care how Newton would feel about AI development. In the same way, I don’t care if Marx would agree with how future things developed. His contribution was a scientific one and others have built on what he observed and documented. If he were still here to observe and document, then he could continue to contribute - great! But he’s not. So it doesn’t really matter. What matters is accurate and effective development of theory and practice. So, if there’s an individual who is contributing a lot soundly, it makes sense to give their work attention. If they are no longer, you don’t hang on what you imagine they might have thought about future stuff.

“Excessive force” is such a strange euphemism. Like it implies that there’s some amount of force that is inherently fine as force just so long as it isn’t “excessive.” But conveniently, who gets to define what is “excessive” is also the entity who has a monopoly on violence. So it’s that sort of “we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong” energy, ya know.

Aware I’m preaching to the choir, but seems like as good a time as any to re-emphasize the point about how liberals tend to believe their thinking can exist outside any predominant model of society, as neutral, when their thinking comes in some significant part from it. And it can take years of active learning just to become aware of those biases, much less try to unlearn them and replace them with something else.

(by smart contract, if I’m not mistaken)

No investigation, no right to speak and all that.

You don’t sound very confident on the details. I do appreciate the explanation and I am not trying to be snarky or dismissive here. But if you are trying to hold people to a standard of no investigation, no right to speak, I would expect a little more than this for being the one who has done investigation.

Here is part of the quote:

You can’t solve a problem? Well, get down and investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it. Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to “find solution” or “evolve an idea” without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a wrong solution and a wrong idea.

There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, criticizing this and condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed detestable. These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses and prove incapable of solving any problem at all.

The full thing can be found here for discussion: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm

My takeaway as relevant to this is that it’s more about people who hypothesize and invent wildly from nothing and resist going among the masses to learn what they need and how it can be done rather than being about people who are skeptical in the year 2024 in encountering anonymous claims made to them about technology on the internet.

I’ve been in situations before of having investigated something quite a bit and facing stubbornness from people who haven’t. I can empathize on that level. It’s frustrating when you’ve done the work to learn and people act like their knowledge is equal to yours in spite of having spent little to no time on it at all. But I think there is a line we can cross where it’s going to sound like we’re saying “turn your brain off and take my word for it” instead of “let’s educate the masses so they are better informed.”

In this context, for example, how are we defining what “within reason” is for skepticism? Skepticism is more or less a kind of wariness. I’m having trouble working out where you’d draw the line for reasonable or unreasonable skepticism if we’re starting from the premise that the whole reason a person is being skeptical is because they lack the information to confidently draw a conclusion.

I don’t ask a detailed reply here, just consider it as food for thought and if you want to dig into it, you’re welcome to of course.