bokoharambe

I really don't think it's about social media. Conspiracy theories were a big deal on the leadup to the French revolution (look up the Famine Pact and the Great Fear), and there was no social media back then.

The conversation that no one wants to have is that American society is in a similar process of collapse, and conspiratorial thinking is only gaining traction because no one trusts that the state holds the general interest anymore. The real social challenge to overcome is government legitimacy.

If in our time conspiracies are perpetuated because of for-profit incentives, it is only because profit is what our society is structured around at a fundamental level. When the time for collapse has come, it brings itself into being by means of any and all existing institutions.

EDIT: and for the record, it's not about cognitive biases either. No one here has a real historical perspective.

No, for the simple fact that he'd still be stuck in an American prison where people are brutalized, sexually assaulted, denied access to medical care, abused by guards, etc. regularly. He deserves everything he is able to earn under those conditions, and truthfully it's a miracle he can work at all.

Americans have become too comfortable with their everyday sadism.

It's hilarious to see people talking about rule of law when the President of the United States himself is not bound by it. The President! You can see it very clearly why interwar liberalism failed. As Schmitt points out, they were too caught up in constitutional handwringing to comprehend that they had entered a state of exception, and that normal laws and procedures were not to be followed.

Forced room and board?

Given enough time one human can learn to do anything any other human can do. There is a general capacity for learning, even if someone will only ever transform a specific portion of that capacity into actual activity in their lifetime.

I really appreciate this writeup!

Using a DAW makes you a "skilless hack"?

The real question is, what is it that you're so afraid of with gender/sexuality that you think it makes sense to show some expressions of it but not others? Sexual norms change regardless of what is officially considered normative and regardless of what is repressed, so you must know you're fighting a losing battle. So who or what is it exactly that you're fighting for? I think it has more to do with yourself than with children.

I am currently coasting through a mathematics undergraduate degree after having taught myself how to do proofs using a proof assistant. The last barrier to autodidacticism in mathematics is overcome with them, because one no longer needs direct contact with the mathematical community via academia to learn the techniques used (at the undergraduate level.)

Prison alone is torture.

Much sillier to think "reindustrialization" is possible. It is a problem of social metabolism, not a policy issue. Industrialization was a particular historical phenomenon that has now fully passed in the West.

China "won" before the game even began for the simple fact of them being a very late developer. Development is not even guaranteed as a consequence of industrialization anymore; see premature deindustrialization. No misinformation needed, just cold hard historical laws.

I have health issues that I can't get help with because of my insurance, my rent increased significantly last month, and my grocery bills have never been higher. I have real life problems to deal with. The X gender marker does not even register as a problem in my universe. Our government seems to be more concerned with policing 0.5% of the population than with dealing with real life problems. Perhaps that's why?

I think the sycophants cheering these moves on are so interesting. I have absolutely no sense that any of these changes are going to have meaningful positive impacts in my life. "We all benefit" in what sense? Aesthetically? What does USAID have to do with me? What positive impact will I see from banning the X gender marker? How do undocumented migrants affect my life negatively?

Definitely read the criticisms section of this article, because it shows how strange and unsound the whole notion is.

LGBTQ rights are popular. Appropriate legislation could be drawn up and enforced. It would be an authoritarian move, certainly, but authoritarianism just won the election.

Prisons should not exist.

American prisons violate any notion of humaneness and rights from the outset. The abject subjects who are condemned to dwell in them cannot be used to illustrate anything about civil rights, other than the fact that the state regularly uses its sovereign power to violate them.

If I was under constant threat of rape or murder, I would do anything to get to a situation that I thought might be less dangerous.

Ah, the great American rhetorical tradition of masking discrimination in the language of civility. Just like pre-Jacksonian restrictions on voting protected the rights of the propertied from the depredations of the masses. Or how Jim Crow protected the rights of white southerners from those uneducated undesirables threatening orderly society. Or how restricting gay marriage protected the rights of Christians...

I hear exactly what you are saying, clear as day.

I'm not the one setting liberalism up to fail, it seems to implode catastrophically every few decades. Last time was during the interwar period. The failure of liberal governments to exercise their sovereign powers in the face of social and economic crises is exactly what handed electoral victories to fascists in the decades after WWI. Their failure was baked in and you were duped from the start for thinking that liberal democracy could be a sound basis for human emancipation.

I'm just saying that inaction is not a neutral act at all. It is a form of complicity.

This is kind of the point, the text of the law is totally ephemeral because the power to violate it is entrusted in the state itself.

Numerous pieces of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ legislation have passed at a state level under the Biden presidency. You might argue that that's outside of the purview of the federal government, but that certainly wasn't the case in the 50s and 60s where federal military force was used to enforce civil rights legislation. The federal government failing to use its sovereign power is 100% erosion of rights.

Still not quite right, not in a modern state. Law has always been sovereign power, and in the modern period the entire state is the sovereign (think Leviathan.) It is strange that Americans seem to think these are personal powers.

You can keep up the concern troll game as long as you like, but all I know is that on old twitter I never had anyone calling me the n-word (nor did I see accounts with that word as their name) nor could I regularly find gore in the hidden comments.

But at least the site is "balanced" now. Lol!

You sound like you're projecting your own maladaptive worldview/attitude/lifestyle onto others. Maybe the culture is changing, and not everyone who is calling out bad behavior at various companies is as narcissistic as yourself? In fact, it would seem to me that, in your bitterness, you are still just as self-centered as those you're attempting to criticize.

That's the spirit!

Humans both are a part of nature and are distinct from it at the same time. It is wrong to dissolve humanity into its natural constituents just as it is wrong to turn humanity into something totally Other or supernatural standing above nature. Both can be true.

Reject the law of noncontradiction.

I love that you point out that bullying is social and its relation to the ordinary enforcement of social norms. And I think this points more broadly to the function of social violence as a whole: much of it is regulatory and follows from repressive logics that exist in less overt forms. In other words can't have a notion like that of sex without also having sexism and gendered violence.

Obviously not, but Americans regularly tell me a dish doesn't contain milk, only for me to find out that it contains butter. The labels help.

Which in turn reflects prevailing conceptions (or misconceptions) about the nature of mathematical objects. The educator must be educated and all that.