image description: poster naming 9 soldiers involved in the bloody sunday and ballymurphy massacres who murdered civilians fighting against british colonialism, Terry Hood, David James Cleary, Alan Cook, K. Gallop, (unknown first name) Lee, John S MacPhie, Andrew Robb Welsh, (unknown first name) Blakely, and Ian McKay

Just wait until tankies start to camp with Bukele

Does the voting even impact how a post is displayed?

I'm not really against the voting mechanic itself, but I'd hope that there would be some commentary that indicates why something is getting the votes it is getting.

Was wondering the same. Voting shouldn't be a thing on this site in the first place, as just like in the electoral system any coward can just use it as channel for their resentment.

Idk /f/worker /f/rojava ?

Edit: ha didn't see ziqs post

from the title, i'd say either f/worker or f/rojava

Probably the wrong forum. Where do you think it should go?

General questions around our access to information and entertainment.

Above is a quote from the sidebar

How is this relevant to this forum?

why the fuck would this be downvoted? Some real petty shit going on.

I'm not sure how you're relating the part of living a hunger-gatherer lifestyle to any of this, but anyway...

Biological Sex

anti-Woke folk: There are two biological sexes, Male and Female.

Contemporary human biology: There are more than two sexes. There are the standard Male and Female sexes which refers to XX and XY chromosomes; however, there are also more categories. For more info, here is an article found with a quick google search - https://scienceline.org/2020/10/beyond-x-y-chromosomes-and-sex-organs/

Gender

anti-Woke folk: There are two genders, Man and Woman. Those two genders correspond with biological sex, Male and Female.

Contemporary gender studies: Gender is constructed socially and changes depending on time, place, and group of people considered. By socially, that means gender requires more than two people. Gender is constructed by society thinking about itself collectively and forming ideal roles to be fulfilled. Usually, the notions of "masculine" and "feminine" are used to describe gender roles. Both "masculine" and "feminine" are notions composed of various descriptions of character traits, attitudes, aesthetic preferences, and social functions ...among other things. Aggression usually plays a role in descriptions of "masculine," while nurturing plays a role in descriptions of "feminine". Gender in some cultures are more-or-less of a mix of masculine and feminine than in other cultures. Some cultures have only two genders, while others have more. At the end of the day, we can't predict very accurately any of the character traits, attitudes, aesthetic preferences, or social functions someone will wind up with based on their biological sex.

I'm not going to give examples for how contemporary social science is more complex than what "anti-woke folks" tend to think for other issues, like race and ethnicity, nationality, homelessness, crime, etc.

Fascists love to weaponize antidefamation laws.

So what do you mean by more complex models? Or how are they so important to adopt?

I'm living by a rather simple, illegalist "hunter-gatherer" model within industrial society. If I had a better choice I'd be living out of literal hunting-gathering full year, but I just don't want deers and ducks to suffer and die because of my desire for better meat.

There are multiple jumbled thoughts in this, but I don’t think “woke people” failed or something. If you look at developments in social psychology, psychology of human sexuality, cultural studies, and other related fields over the past few decades there really are advances in how all sorts of stuff is modeled. And a lot of that agrees with what gets called “woke”. But that is all specialized knowledge. It develops for application in contexts that most people don’t find themselves in. So how is that specialized knowledge getting into popular discourse?

Here’s some options:

1. That isn’t where that knowledge is coming from, it’s just coincidentally similar conclusions.

2. Students

3. Think Tanks and other politicians sifting through academic shit and looking for inflammatory material.

I think it’s a combo of 2 and 3. I think it’s 2 because I have seen and sometimes been 2, annoyingly loud enthusiast of new models. I think it is also 3 because the right wing has a history of doing that kind of thing, especially during red scares.

So it’s not like anyone is inventing a woke straw man out of thin air. But some fairly normal adolescent behavior, especially at colleges, is being used to scare people or make them feel like college elites are all judging them or their way of thinking that works for them is wrong. And it seems to me what primarily motivates this are policy proposals, not more general cultural clashes. I think there are definitely cultural clashes but they’re not focused so sharply on specific stuff the way that the woke/anti-woke discourse is focused on stuff.

So there is a lot going on there, but what I am sick of is leftists distancing themselves from more complex models of social life because they’re embarrassed about what the right has been shitting bricks about. Like… no, we do need better models of personality, culture, social institutions, history, etc. We do nothing good by coddling right wingers or boomer leftists that don’t want to deal with more complex models for various reasons.

I agree with the sentiment in some of this text, especially the part about people being under a continuous mass-manipulation racket...

But this appears to be about two subjects that are intersecting but may not be that related. Namely "culture wars" fed by social media representation politics, and the related cultural models of living... and how the so-called woke people are failing at having decisively defined models for a living, right?

The DIY spaces i used to be involved with were dealing with everything that the #metoo movement was about a year and a half before it came into public consciousness, which was a frankly exhausting amount of work.

Imagine when your buddies sound like they're remote-controlled by some dubious (mostly) online entities to a point they're doing volunteer, near-forced labor for them; literally parroting if not enforcing narratives and language they got from corporate social media.

Very late-stage capitalism.

So I wonder how they are DIY space people...

I see it as similar to when an isolated community starts to develop its own accents and dialect.

I think to a degree small insular groups creates an environment where Divergent ideas can naturally form.

This doesn’t mean we need to isolate ourselves on an island or anything but it can even happen in friend groups,

I have a couple friend groups where if you get them in a room together they almost start speaking another language, the amount of in jokes and slang and even the grammer changed, I think in a sense most people are more culturally versatile than you would give them credit for. I think put anyone together for long enough and they might pick up quirks from the other person in the room. Influence is a really interesting thing to me.

Usually these things are very private things. Most living culture is an oral tradition.

It’s interesting to me that a lot of these topics that are being plucked by politicians are things that exist in the academic realm, a culture that is not based around an oral tradition. Most people don't have access to these writings, and most people haven’t engaged with them either. But regardless how accessible the writing on things like CRT is, there now exists a very strong oral tradition against crt that has been constructed by politicians and pundits on the right…

I really can’t discount the power of media to shape conversation. especially when it is subjects that people are not familiar with and their introduction is from a vitriolic talking head.

I think we should try to understand how this became mainstream to begin with. My hypothesis is in the revised version of this entry… basically politicians looking for ways to split the population on issues like universal healthcare and win a section over to their side. I share your experience with subcultural spaces being advanced in this, but from studying the history of subculture that advancement began decades before any of this became mainstream. Like when I listen to old Naked Aggression songs I’m like, “already in the 90’s…” and go back further to Crass “Already in the late 70’s…” and the more I go back (not just with music), the more I see that countercultures have been talking about all this stuff then. So something has to account for the breakthrough to mainstream and I actually don’t think it’s something like cultural osmosis (if that’s a thing), but is much moreso related to concrete policy initiatives and geopolitical events that politicians respond to by finding cultural examples to exploit. And from that it becomes a “culture war” phenomena where it is experienced socially through attitudes and commonplace conversations. Why is grandma suddenly taking about decades old legal theory (CRT)? It isn’t because students of CRT had a huge impact on culture. It’s because politicians used CRT as an example of something progressive intellectuals study to stigmatize higher education because they want to stigmatize higher education. Why? It’s a demographic split in the population and they want people without higher education degrees to feel superior to those with them. So they exploit those feelings people have or use their media outlets to make them feel surrounded by college elitists.

Maybe not exactly that, but that pattern. Those seem to be the motives and the process of topics become mainstreamed.

I think everyone thinks in most cases its weird and ridiculous to shame strangers online for something they said on twitter 10 years ago, trying to deep dive peoples social media for anything problematic has been a bit of a pathological obsession for some people.

I think a perfect example of this would be for people who want to cancel Ru Paul for being “transphobic” despite them very actively being against transphobia, and if you bring up all the evidence against Ru Pauls transphobia, people bring up Ru Paul investing in fracking or some shit, and no one wants to hear that just like Ru if you have money in a bank account your bank is investing in the same oil and gas companies, or if you pay your taxes that money subsidizes industries that you don't like, and every wealthy person puts their money in investment funds that inevitably fuels industries that are inherently problematic. The idea of cherry picking individual celebrities for things like this is funny to me. Because i feel like saying “dont you know how money works?”

I mean hate on ru paul as much as you want, i think theres a lot of noise and opinions online that dont have much to back them up

Model trains are pretty cool i guess 🚞🚂🛤️

I guess you can’t usually really force most people to change their worldview, especially when they are surrounded by people that are pressuring them not to. I think people are pretty emotionally attached to a lot of things that could be considered cultural norms, if you want to exist in any sort of explicitly queer or subcultural space of course you’re probably going to have a lot of those norms challenged, or more likely already are challenging them yourself.

I think it’s funny though because other than a lot of really incoherent discourse online, the people in queer/subcultural/alternative spaces often are a few years ahead in this kind of discourse…

The DIY spaces i used to be involved with were dealing with everything that the #metoo movement was about a year and a half before it came into public consciousness, which was a frankly exhausting amount of work.

As soon as an idea hits mainstream it becomes warped to fit into a narrative that the mainstream can work with, including to the people who are trying to engage with the idea in good faith.

#metoo became #cancelculture in public discourse; Speaking truth to power, and holding powerful people accountable became public shaming of strangers online in substitution for the ideal of “accountability”

Really the whole idea of accountability became skewed. To me accountability is about taking active effort to improve, and acknowledging past behaviour, the thing about conflict is that no one is obligated to accept an apology from someone or reform a relationship after some sort if trust has been lost or violated.

I think that the general public really doesn’t have much of a useful role to play in interpersonal conflict. At the same time often the reason the conflict is there is because the people experiencing it don’t have the ability to work on the conflict so some form of mediation might be needed -

Good faith Conflict resolution needs to be non adversarial.

The thing is that mediating a conflict between two friends can be extremely exhausting, and can change how you view your friendship.

Anyways blah blah blah, I'm going to grab some lunch…

ok I updated it. Let’s just call it a work in progress.

yeah well this isn’t an essay it’s a blog entry.

You spoke in so many metaphors and allusions I literally don't even know what u are criticizing and what u are pro..

Didn't ask for it but they gave me another year of free access, that's very nice of them.

yes I know I biffed on my own audio... sucks.

INDUSTRY 4.0 THE NEW DATA DRIVER METAVERSE COLLABORATORS SOLUTION AI BLOCKCHAIN FUCK