@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

It seems like the actually reasonable answer is to de-escalate and decrease the power and influence of the government so people can make their own choices about their own personal lives.

The experience of the past few years clearly shows that that would make them more ravenous to seize the reins of power.

I still remember the blue/gold dress discourse.

Was I the only person on the planet that went with "huh, that's a cool optical illusion"?

Or historical?

I'm not qualified to debate these. There's enough fog of war about issues I've seen with my own eyes, so I'm not sure how much it helps to bring millenia-old civilizations into the conversation. Also historical vs. hypothetical example is not a fair comparison.

I don't think that taking minor risks is careless.

We've been through this. He's not a milquetoast neoliberal, he's a radical transhumanist techno-surveillanist, with sympathies for (if not direct allegience to) Critical Theory.

Aside from the fact that the far likelier scenario is a stalemate resulting in extinction, as we (not)fuck ourselves to death, it's because it wouldn't go the way you think it would go. If you want to see a completely male- or female-dominated society, look at the gay/lesbian community. Even if you crack reproduction, neither of these is capable of maintaining civilization, IMO.

This is just like communists who adore their meme about how every other division between people is an invention of infinitely powerful capitalists as a distraction from the class struggle, the only one that the communists insist matters.

Not exactly. I think all divisions, including this one, are based on some kernel of truth, but while we can probably live with race war, class war, religious war, or anything else you come up with, we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.

You're changing the scenario from "pariah state" to a full-blown war with this.

"female" is equivalent to one of the many kinds of enemies.

Don't fall for the psyop, man. There's always going to be tensions between men and women, they're probably even necessary for our growth as a species, but we cannot let this turn us into enemies, or Klaus Schwab wins. Do you want Klaus Schwab to win?

It's @SkookumTree, on his way through The Hock!

Two astronauts orbiting, one with his arm extended, holding a handgun.

Come on, it's fun as long as it's just a joke. You can poke fun at women two, though it's different kinds of jokes.

He's swearing he's not American, but he does seem to say a lot of (sort of) American things. They do have huge swathes of actually wild land over there, so I can understand the sentiment. Though even then, I'm pretty sure plenty of Americans still go hiking alone.

If Texas wasn't sanctioned by China, what problem would they have?

The Panama Channel, possibly? Though I guess if Europe didn't really notice the detour around Africa to avoid the Houthis, it shouldn't really matter.

Maybe I'm stunted, but I think this is an essentially elementary school bullshit,

That's how I took it, and in that sense the whole meme seems pretty fun. It's just bants, confused flirting at worst, like you said. But then, I regret to inform you, that the male (or otherwise) feminists are at it again taking the whole fun out of it.

Whoops! I think I made some last-minute changes before committing, and didn't test.

I modified it to fix that, and to take the username & password on stdin

I'm definitely stealing that!

That would be the literal meaning of the phrase, but people often speak in shortcuts. I don't think it's a good idea to read so much into it, unless you actually talked to someone who supports "closing the border" and specifically asked them if they mean closing it to all traffic.

There’s a counterfactual world where this is a reasonable rule. Up until high school, sports are glorified team-building exercises. Who cares when the little monster who hit puberty six months before his team can outrun any of them?

I dunno, man. There's still the question of the government imposing philosophical (if not quasi-religious) beliefs on people. If you want to have a rule that says "sports should be co-ed" you can have that, but saying "it's ok for you to have sports sex-segregated, but barring someone of the opposite sex is an act of discrimination, if they have a 'gender-identity' corresponding to that category", is an imposition of belief.

I always go with a variant of "splitting society across various characteristics, and labeling on side of the split the 'oppressor' and the other the 'oppressed'". My problem with it is that it foments resentment, conflict, and hate, instead of fostering cooperation.

I've written a nix flake for deploying it - it's incomplete & rough & undocumented, but maybe it will be of use to someone: https://github.com/bct/unshittify.nix

Cool! I'll take a look at it, and might merge it to my repository

I've added 14 nitter feeds to my instance, but most of them are failing with "Miniflux generated too many requests to this website. Please, try again later or change the application configuration.". I wonder if I need to tweak the Miniflux configuration to avoid polling all the feeds at the same time?

Yeah, I should have either explained it the thread or added my conf to the repository, but that's exactly the issue. I think one tweak is already there (a short sleep between fetching feeds), but another one is just to limit the worker pool size to 1, than you'll be sure they're grabbed sequentially, and therefore shouldn't run into rate limiting. Here's the configuration I use:

POLLING_FREQUENCY=5
SCHEDULER_ROUND_ROBIN_MIN_INTERVAL=5
POLLING_PARSING_ERROR_LIMIT=0
CLEANUP_ARCHIVE_READ_DAYS=-1
CLEANUP_ARCHIVE_UNREAD_DAYS=-1
MEDIA_PROXY_MODE=all

BATCH_SIZE=25
WORKER_POOL_SIZE=1

When people say "close the border" they typically mean closing it to all traffic

Where are you getting that idea from?

Or how interstate commerce was taken to mean intrastate, as any change in latter could by substitution effect, affect the former.

Not only was it taken to mean intrastate, it was also taken to mean lack of commerce.

I think I remember seeing a lot of discourse a couple of years ago about how Title IX is this awful leftist thing that's the justification of universities' kangaroo court administrative proceedings against male students accused of sexual assault.

I think that was after a similar reinterpretation by Obama. Title IX itself is from the 70's.

Tell me you're American without telling me you're American.

Is there any society where owning a house/apartment is not generally considered necessary before marriage?

Plenty of married couples rent? That's without going into the "living like a pack of sardines at your parents' place, possibly with your sibling(s) and their spouse(s)" arrangement that was pretty common in my parent's generation, even in Europe, and is likely still common in poorer parts of the world.

Stage 1 and 2 seem to imply that all movements start with elites, who are not themselves a natural client. I'd prefer a more market-style reading, where the niche exists first, and may be filled with a variety of solutions. But as in a nature documentary, we choose to follow a particular entrepreneur who comes up with an idea that allow them to make money/gain power in the niche.

And I'd prefer that the proponents of a market-style reading made their assumptions explicit, and backed their interpretation by argument and evidence, rather than relying on the truthiness of their story, hoping it will be enough for the picture of "organic" power that they paint to remain unquestioned.

For example, sure it can be seen as "market-style" and "nature documentary", provided you have sufficiently cynical view of the market/nature. But for people who grew up under 90's liberalism, that sounds like the choices to follow particular "entrepreneurs" are freely made, and if this is what you assert, I'm prepared to push back with examples from both the market, nature, politics, and social movements.

I think this would capture an important truth, that a mass of people looking for change can be a powerful force, if they can somehow be harnessed to all work together.

That's no really new, it's a message that all democratic countries bombard their citizens with. What I think is far more useful for people to know is that this implies that if an "organic" movement is getting anywhere, rather than flailing around aimlessly, it means it's being led. If you're participating in one, and think it's "bottom-up" nature is evidence of it's good intentions and mundaneness, you better look twice, identify it's leaders, find out where they actually want to take, and make sure you are comfortable going there.