17·
16 hours ago- 1 Post
- 170 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
8·16 hours agoThis looks like an AI image at first glance, but on a closer look I can’t find any artifacts. Please tell me it’s real and AI hasn’t finally passed my personal turing test. I’ve always been able to tell until now…
It’s been a long time since unions have gotten a win like this. This represents a major wind change, hence why people are so stoked.
That’s a much better outcome than I expected from this. Here’s hoping the trend continues.
231·4 days agoIn all fairness that was probably necessary to make it to the presidency with her head still firmly attached to her body.
You can’t take back what’s already been given, so you just learn and move on. Whether to keep their art or throw it out is your choice, just don’t support them in the future.
For example, I own a painting by Salvador Dali. Salvador Dali - if you don’t know - is a fascist. I inherited the painting, and even the previous owner likely purchased the painting after Salvador Dali was dead. My owning the painting does not support Salvador Dali in any way, and the painting has nothing to do with his fascist views. Most people would not recognize that it is a Salvador Dali painting and even fewer would know about his political leanings. It doesn’t bother me to hang the painting on my wall, and in the right context and company it can even make a good conversation piece.
Or you could do that by default while very selectively supporting specific artists. That way you can both stay within your means and exercise moral discretion over who you support.
It’s easy to talk out of your ass about how you would have done a better job, but you clearly have no idea what the circumstances were that the prosecution team was dealing with. This particular piece of evidence for example was attempted to be admitted but was denied by the judge for being “irrelevant to the case.” The prosecution was fighting a court stacked against them and you would have had a hard time as well.
his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill
This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” what they’re describing tends to devolve into “a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions” when questioned about what a “dictatorship of the proletariat” actually entails. Often they’ll try to justify it by saying it’s only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.
See what they actually mean is that they’re not really autistic, but they say they are because they think it’s a good excuse for antisocial behavior.
1·15 days agoWhose propaganda did you suck down blindly?
Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.
Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain
You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.
If copyright was not tradeable or transferable
Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.
And, after enough time, I’ve come to know Harris enough to trust her.
Keep your guard up, pal. Election years are mentally exhausting and when the dust clears you might start seeing things more clearly.
At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.
42·16 days agoIt’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.
Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.
But why? That’s a very hard sell and a very inefficient use of your time. At best you could convince some anarchists of the harm reduction argument, but you could never convince anarchists to be enthusiastic about voting for Kamala, which is what those very absurd memes seem to be trying to do.
Edit: And very ineffectively I might add. I still can’t make heads or tails of what those memes are trying to say.
It’s because they’re strange. The message they’re communicating is inscrutable.
Stop concern trolling. The ridiculous nature of the “threat” makes it obvious they’re being completely unserious.
Alright, I’ll play along.
Claim:
The document titled hamas human shields released by NATO Strategic Communications is propaganda.
Argument:
Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as-
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Let’s break that down. To determine whether the NATO StratCom document hamas human shields meets the criteria for propaganda we need to answer the following:
Q: Does the item in question contain ideas, information, or rumor?
A: Without having to verify any claims you can still confidently state that the document contains at least one if not all of these. Statements of opinion can be classified as ideas, and statement of fact can be considered either information or rumor depending upon the amount and veracity of supporting evidence.
Q: Was the item in question spread for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person?
A: By posting the document on a public forum for the purpose of defending NATO’s actions, you yourself fulfilled this criteria. Prior to that, NATO StratCom also fulfilled it, as they have an implicit interest in defending the actions of NATO (which this document serves to do)
For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.
I don’t dispute this.
Unless you disagree with the meaning of the word propaganda then everything I said is a statement of fact, not a personal opinion. What do you mean when you say propaganda (and don’t just give examples, actually define it).
