Love how even in this future people still park on the fuckin sidewalks.
Lemmy is pretty damn close to that there’s only like five conservatives but they are all the same person.
Well, just look at what happened to the Lemmy conservative communities.
It seems like most have been taken over and turned into only satire posts about conservatives; only a few are truly for conservatives, mostly in other federations, not leemmmy.world.
deleted by creator
It is always funny when people who criticize the status quo (Democrats, Bernie Sanders, AOC) from the left instead of the right are labeled the boogeyman.
Nice try, though.
Dude, you spammed a hit piece about sanders that claimed he doesn’t support universal healthcare.
Now you’re whining about a lack of representation for maga chuds.
I would encourage you to rewatch the video.
It seems you just read the title.
I don’t click on spam.
No surprise there; label everything that is to your left or that goes against your thinking as spam or the boogeyman of your choice.
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship are not things we should be proud of; they are unhealthy for our society.
You’re not doing anything from the left.
I disagree, but thanks for sharing your views on the matter.
Edit:
- word, sharing
Anyone can just look at any of the cums you moderate or comments you make and make up their own mind.
True.
I make it easy to see what I share and what my thoughts are on politics.
I try to keep and share my views in simple terms so it is easier to understand.
Good. We don’t want conservatives here.
In general, or in left-leaning communities?
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship seem to hinder our views, especially when it comes to being able to notice populist viewpoints and what the working class views are on politics.
Both.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions. I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them. They are very anti-intellectual and bring down the quality of discussion to quips and shouting matches. BlueMAGA types are similar, but they are at least toned down a few degrees, and importantly, they aren’t openly bigoted and exclusionary. Like, you’re never going to have trans people and MAGA coexisting in the same online spaces and I’d much rather have the former than the latter, as there’s a much higher probability of them saying something worthwhile.
It’s like, imagine two doctors trying to discuss the intricacies of their field in a room where a conspiracy theorist, like, say, Jimmy Dore for example, is listening in for some phrase they can twist around and take out of context and attack them with. That’s what it’s like having conservatives in an online space.
Outside of online spaces, conservatives are largely incompatible with a functioning society, they don’t understand basic concepts needed for the government to function, and their heads are instead filled with a bunch of harmful and objectively wrong ideas. They will fight tooth and nail against their own interests just to stop anyone else from having good things.
On the rare occasions when they accidentally stumble into a correct take, it’s because they’re wrong twice, and it only muddies the waters for people who have a similar take for coherent reasons.
Name one thing that conservatives contribute to any discussion that’s worth listening to.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?
Thanks for your comment!
I agree, identity politics and social issues are divide-and-conquer strategies the duopoly uses against the working class.
We need to build a rainbow coalition (Black Panther Party), similar to how Chris Smalls was able to make the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) in Staten Island.
Bringing together the working class on what we agree on instead of focusing on what we don’t agree on.
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Divide and conquer strategies work.
I am saying that we need to unite the working class where we agree, not just focus on where we disagree.
The duopoly will always work against the working class while handing out crumbs so as to win some small points.
We must build a rainbow coalition (Black Panther Party) instead of continuing the political tribalism of blue versus red teams (Bloods versus Crips).
That is why I mentioned:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
It takes time and effort to build up a rainbow coalition, but it is possible.
Chris Smalls was able to do it with the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) in Staten Island; instead of talking to people where they disagree, they come together on things that they agree with.
The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances,
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glenn Edward Greenwald is an American journalist, author, and former lawyer. In 1996, Greenwald founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation.
Glen Greenward is extremely pro-Russia and continues to repeat debunked lies about Ukrainian biolabs.
extremely pro-Russia
repeat debunked lies
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
Those other ones are the ones that have five different accounts being ran by the same person.
I think that is the norm on lemmy, though, not just conservative leaning accounts.
I don’t think you’re right but I’d be more then willing to look at any proof you have of that.
Oh, interesting!
What is interesting is your complete lack of proof.
All is well.
Self-built echo chambers are not something to be proud of; we know those are unhealthy.
There is a whole world of political opinions that aren’t American conservatism. You can have a diversity of opinions without indulging fascists.
Well, when it comes to politics in the United States versus the world, it seems to differ a good amount, not just with conservatism.
You can have a diversity of opinions without indulging fascists.
Yes, that would be ideal, but we must not forget people do come to the same conclusions without needing to be paid or tricked into thinking or viewing the world a certain way.
Propaganda does affect everyone; we all have our preferred sources of propaganda, even if we see ourselves as being above its reach.
According to neo-reactionaries, eventually socialists will become the new conservatives. 1Dime talks about this. Crazy stuff.
TIL
First I am hearing about this narrative.
I see it as some socialists becoming communists over time, or they give in to the status quo, like AOC and Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for the link. I will have to make time to watch it; it looks like a weird and interesting viewpoint!
Generated Summary:
This YouTube video features a discussion between the host of 1Dime Radio and Michael Downs, author of “Capital VS Timenergy: A Žižekian Critique of Nick Land,” about accelerationism, focusing on the ideas of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), and the challenges of right-wing accelerationism. The conversation also explores “Timeenergy” as a basis for socialism and whether socialism might become a “conservative” movement against the accelerating change of capitalism.
Main Topics:
- Accelerationism: Exploring the philosophies of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin, particularly their contributions to accelerationist thought.
- Neoreaction (NRx): Discussing the core tenets of neoreactionary ideology and its connection to figures like Mencius Moldbug.
- Capitalism and Artificial Intelligence: Examining Nick Land’s thesis that capitalism is inherently geared towards the development of AI.
- “Timenergy”: Introducing and discussing the concept of “Timenergy” (Time + Energy) as a potential foundation for socialist thought.
- Left vs. Right Accelerationism: Differentiating between left and right-wing approaches to accelerationism.
Key Points:
- Michael Downs’ Background: Downs is presented as a working-class intellectual and autodidact philosopher.
- Nick Land’s Philosophy: Downs provides a detailed breakdown of Nick Land’s philosophical evolution, dividing it into six periods:
- Early Land: Focus on Denal Materialism, influenced by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Bataille, and Deleuze & Guattari.
- Mid-90s: Theory-fiction era, emphasizing capitalism as an engine of decoding and deterritorialization, leading to AI production.
- CCRU Period: Experimental philosophy collective, exploring the occult and the power of “hypers” (fictions becoming real through hype).
- Shanghai Period: Focus on mega-cities as accelerants of AI development.
- Neoreactionary Period: Embracing neoreactionary ideas alongside Curtis Yarvin, advocating for “SOV Corps” (Sovereign Corporations) and anti-democracy.
- Bitcoin Period: Interest in Bitcoin and its technological potential.
- Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug): Discussed as a key figure in the neoreactionary movement, advocating for corporate city-states.
- Critique of Democracy: Both Land and Yarvin are portrayed as being critical of democracy, favoring alternative governance models.
- AI and the Left: The discussion highlights a perceived lack of engagement with AI on the left, with many leftists dismissing its significance.
- Marxist Interpretation of AI: Downs argues that Nick Land offers a unique and valuable perspective on AI by analyzing it through a Marxist lens, emphasizing its connection to the structure of the economy.
- China and Capitalism: The conversation touches on China’s success with capitalism, particularly in the field of AI, attributing it to a Marxist understanding of surplus value extraction.
Highlights:
- The Nick Land vs. Žižek Debate: The video opens with a preview of a discussion about the potential debate between Nick Land and Slavoj Žižek.
- Downs’ Meeting with Žižek: Downs recounts his experience of having breakfast with Slavoj Žižek at a conference.
- The CCRU’s Experimentation: The discussion of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) and their exploration of theory-fiction, drugs, and the occult is a notable highlight.
- Land’s Influence on Working-Class Perceptions of AI: Downs shares anecdotes about how his working-class coworkers express views on AI that align with Nick Land’s pessimistic predictions.
- Land’s Marxist Perspective: The video emphasizes that Land’s unique contribution is his Marxist analysis of AI, linking its development to the structure of the capitalist economy.
