8__D wrote

I really enjoyed the article as well, but I did find it brushes over male infantilization. Maybe everyone is being infantilized? Maybe tying your identity to a mainstream gender too tightly infantilizes regardless of which gender? Who knows! I certainly think the author is equipped to tackle some of these hard-hitting questions.

Also, @OP, great writing! Many parts gave me chills :)


8__D OP wrote

I'm not saying anyone has to care if I do or don't leave, I'm just saying how I felt. I agree that the "could you please" was very polite, but I felt what followed incurred more shame on me than was helpful to the situation and I wanted to help you understand why I felt that way. I don't think I need paragraphs, but the message that was sent felt curt to me. Sorry if I was being a little thin-skinned, but I just wanted to let you know how I felt about your message.


8__D OP wrote

Good point, thanks. I've struggled with gender neutral language in my speech, and I'm working to correct it. I appreciate the reminder to be conscientious.

However, it'd be nice if you could bring it up in a gentler way. I don't want to go into it and dox myself, but I do not only know English and some of the other language(s) I may or may not use in my everyday life use gender in a vastly different way. Frankly, in the way I feel most natural in expressing myself, there are (basically) no filler words, and I wonder if my unfortunately patriarchal upbringing filled those gaps with gendered terms.

I get that when language is so influential and the dominant capitalist narrative is to ignore the power of language, it can feel like you need to use powerful language to get your point across. However (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm new here and don't want to pretend otherwise), this space seems set up such that most people here are on a similar page when it comes to gender issues, myself included. Your message initially just made me want to abandon this space rather than learn from my mistake, but I feel like a different framing of the message would have avoided that problem entirely.

Rather than appeal to a nebulous statistic, I wish you could have expressed how the gendered language affected you/how gendered language affected someone you loved in the past. When you bring up "80% of raddlers," it makes me feel like the whole of the internet is against me and that I am just wrong and need to live with being wrong. Framing it more personally could have made it easier for me to reflect on how I hurt someone. This could help my change in action to be from a "I don't want raddle to get mad at me!" (fear of authority) to "I don't want to make people feel unwelcome or unsafe" (taking responsibility for language), and I feel only the ladder type of change sticks for a long time.

With my piece being said, I do want to reiterate that I'm sorry to anyone I've made the space even a little more hostile to. I plan to edit my messages to have gender-neutral language (or just remove the filler words where more appropriate) after sending this. I hate to put the burden of education on others, but if anyone would have some sources I could read to help me find new words where patriarchal words remain, I would appreciate it. I will look for some myself too.

Thank you for bringing this up to me, and I apologize for any hostility that may come through in this message. Obviously you're right and I'm wrong, but I feel like many anarchists want to go past that level of discourse, and what other way to practice than by doing.


8__D wrote

To me, Unabomber reminded me of the ultimate anarcho-nihilist: someone who is discontent with the reality of the world, yet either has no avenue to express this discontent or is too scared to take the avenues posed to them (but has plenty of words to describe their anger, as if emotion alone could move mountains).

I think it also shows the logical extreme of anarcho-nihilism. You can find every word in the book to anarcho-describe your pain but until you anarcho-spray paint a building, you're not going to understand how GOOD it feels to make your belief action (or, at the very least, truly prove to yourself that the police are not some God-force looking to snatch you from the sky but instead some fuckin pigs that are easy to run away from, especially in the dark).

I brought him up in a discussion with one of my pro-capitalist friends, because my buddy claimed that if I didn't like the world I could just leave. Ted shows it isn't even possible to do that anymore.


8__D OP wrote (edited )

Also, here's an article questioning how much of an impact psychological profiling really played.

Personally, I suspect it's just a classic example of an AI learning weird, niche rules that are effective but just don't make sense to us. For example, I remember reading about how computer vision classifiers (like dog vs. cat discriminators) only really consider like 10% of the image they're classifying, if you look at how much the pixel inputs affected the pixel prediction outputs (I can't find the article again so take this with a grain of salt).

Similarly, I'm sure the psychological profiles are affecting certain types of users and the AI just narrowed down its focus to engaging those certain types of people while incorporating other small demographic stuff that the AI deems significantly significant about the person's profile (e.g. the example in the vice article about people who like American-made cars). This could be why we see stuff about how YouTube and Facebook always suggest right-wing content, regardless of where you fall on the spectrum (I wouldn't be surprised if some of this was intentional tampering too though, but maybe it truly is that fascism just happens to get clicks. The art of the spectacle, amiright).

blech, welcome to 1984 everyone. but remember, ACAB: All cameras are breakable


8__D wrote

Twitter's organization seems incompetant and I can only imagine it will get worse with Musk hemorrhaging staff.

But Zuck knew what he was doing before he became scourge of the earth b/c this shit got out and then double downed like an idiot.

And honestly, knew what he was doing is giving him too much credit. He was just a privileged kid who stabbed a bunch brighter, nicer people in the back. He knew how to sell American politics out for a quick buck, as the firm he gave the data to (Cambridge Analytica) was a huge supporter of Trump and Ted Cruz in 2016. DICKHEAD


8__D wrote

Reply to Taoist by monday

Bruh me when "I just feel like all the religions are a little right"


8__D wrote

Rishi has no working class friends.

Recent mayor NYC, Eric Adams, strikes me as another good example of this kind of thing. As a black officer of NYPD (retired at captain, whatever that means. fuckin head pig oink oink), he's been implementing a "tough-on-crime" approach, with plainclothes officers surveilling the subway system. And he was the democrat candidate!

I'm not sure we're gonna be able to vote our way outta this one guys


8__D wrote

ppl like this are self reporting. When they can't imagine themselves being able to meet their needs through their community (e.g. without wage slaves to serve them ubereats and fill their water towers), it shows that they've never had to have their needs met through their community in any way. And uhhhhh, hmmmmm I wonder what kind of material conditions that implies of the speaker... Like listen, the petty bourgeoisie is not the enemy but why they always gotta make the state their God?


8__D wrote

This comic for the modern day (that's a link to a reddit post).

Also lol @ the fact that the only reason this theory circulated for so long was b/c it's hard to make a new drug so pharmacudical companies instead just tricked us into thinking SSRIs work (that's a link to a technews article). Also fucking double lol at pharmacudical spokespeople in this article just can't stop themselves from saying "but SSRIs still work even though the underlying theory is complete bullshit"

While the original review paper focuses mainly on the serotonin theory, an accompanying article by Moncrieff and her coauthor Mark Horowitz in The Conversation took a different tack, arguing that the evidence against the serotonin hypothesis also disproves the need for SSRIs full stop. “We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile, or even completely safe,” they write. This conflation has been a particular source of frustration among commenting psychiatrists. “Many of us know that taking paracetamol can be helpful for headaches and I don’t think anyone believes that headaches are caused by not enough paracetamol in the brain,” writes Bloomfield. “There is consistent evidence that antidepressant medicines can be helpful in the treatment of depression and can be life-saving.” [Updated July 27, 2022]

Dude its like a headache just trust me bro


8__D wrote (edited )

"Political and media elites portray this gathering as a menacing summit where China’s leadership plots about how to take over the world."

Isn't that just any summit with state leaders? Like what is a summit than a bunch of leaders make leadership plots about how to take over the world (and its always by exploiting ppl)

Quick edit: Also fucking hilarious the reference to FDR when FDR also led a genocide in his 4 terms.