I think you’ve said a lot that is in line with the video, tbh. Most of your points accurately spell out why a superhero movie involving a protagonist who disrupts the status quo wouldn’t work, mostly because we are living in the status quo and the general audience’s main frame of reference – that which they use to understand the story – is that status quo is overall good, that there are inevitable bad parts that must come with the good, and that mass change is inherently bad. You even note this last point yourself.

But it doesn’t change the fact that the superheros are still, for the most part, not proactively trying to recognize reorganize society, but keep it the same and react to its threats, which sometimes have interesting intentions of reorganization, but ultimately all end up doing an irredeemable act in the eyes of the audience so to signal that they are in fact the bad guy.

I don’t think this video is really meant to be taken as “superheros should change the status quo,” but more closely look at Graebers generalization and kinda jostle people out of their “the status quo is ultimately good, despite it’s necessary evils,” worldview. Graeber often said he’s not trying to provide an answer or solution to societal organization outside of hierarchical Nation-states, but just to allow people to break out of the traditional mental framework and ask the question, what else could work?

I would recommend reading or listening to Noam Chomsky’s Understanding Power. It is a compilation of several of his Q and As about his ideas about the US political and media systems. He has a whole book about the media called Manufacturing Consent, but Understanding Power will give you the lowdown.

Essentially, all mainstream US media is beholden to capitalistic (for advertising) or state (for funding) forces, so a person should always be aware that news sources are never going to print something that is against its own interest. Things like LGBTQ rights and right to abortion don’t put news outlets sources of money at risk, so they’re safe to print, but you’d be hard-pressed to find something that challenges, for example, the military industrial complex.

I’m not doing it much justice but that’s a very very general and incomplete jist of why it’s good to be skeptical of the mainstream media in general.

it’s mostly political

Oh I gotcha. Interesting. I don’t follow FSF or GNU or anything, do you know if they tend to be antagonistic toward nonfree devs who still try to be as free as possible? Honestly, I read the Stallman quote about FreeBSD in this thread, and a statement from GNU that acknowledges the impracticality of their philosophy, and I kinda agree with their ethical takes. Except, I also think people should be able to install nonfree software, because otherwise you have a pretty bad dilemma with the word “free.”

Ultimately, if they are actively antagonistic toward those who don’t share that philosophy, I think that’s not great. Sure, free software according to the GNU project may be the only ethical one, but we live in a culture that promotes the exact opposite idea, so why would I be surprised and upset when an otherwise ethically acting person doesn’t conform to my own ethical framework, and they go on and create nofree software. I’m still going to get a beer with that person because at the end of the day we probably have common values and how else am I going to sell them the idea free software

I’m afraid to ask this because I’m not a dev, but I have a fair amount of linux experience. Why is it that the ability to install Google Play Services on GrapheneOS makes it not FOSS/open source, while the ability to install Google Chrome (or any proprietary software, I guess) on Linux doesn’t make is non-FOSS/open source?

I’m not articulating that question very well, and I’m assuming I’m missing some key component, but they seem comparable to me, as a regular user. Is it something like the level of access that GPServices has to the kernel?

Yup, it’s “The Room” of music

my original comment was just meant to be a playful comment about your meme use rather than any analysis about the speech.

Like: “I agree with you, but can we talk about this thing or that?”

But honestly forget about it, next time I wont bother

Corey Feldman’s Angelic 2 the Core is without a doubt the worst album I’ve ever listened to. It is not just mediocre or underwhelming, it is not just a “miss,” it is actively and unforgettably horrible. Definitely worth checking out.

Not angry, just disturbed that there are even more lol

I’m literally agreeing with you. Not sure what you’re fixing about my phrasing – I didn’t watch the speech, so yes, I am ignorant, but am willing to guess that your comment was totally correct.

I’m also saying your meme-game disturbs my meme-less brain.

But I guess according to you, I have no idea what I’m talking about so in that case…you’re wrong? Idk what youre trying to say dude all I know is that just because O’Brien spoke at the RNC doesn’t somehow automatically make him a Trump supporter

Full disclosure I haven’t watched the speech, but I can believe it was in good faith, no doubt pro-labor/anti-capitalist. (btw, it’s crazy how bad the Democratic party has alienated the working class)

What I can’t believe is these disturbing-ass memes you’re posting lmao…I hate them very much and wish I could unsee. Good job!

I’m against any authoritarian structure, China included. At the end of the day, the state is just the threat of legalized violence, an industry monopolized by the police. Communist, Capitalist, doesn’t matter. It is unjust and stifles human freedom.

That has little to do with the ethics of profit, which are dubious at best.

Edit: actually it has everything to do with profit, as most profit seeking ventures are authoritarian and exploitative in nature

omg lmaoooo my bad disregard that last part then

But definitely still recommend The Dispossessed if you like sci-fi or anarchist thought experiments – it’s so good

You should check out Ursula K Leguin’s sci-fi novel The Dispossessed. It explores a society that has no concept of ownership at all, and the good and bad that comes with that. It’s really really good.

But the whole idea that profit/private property is inherently theft is a major tenant of Marxist theory as far as I understand it, so you saying

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of something like that before.

Is funny because people have been trying to think of solutions for the past ~150 years haha

Edit: behold my inability to sense irony lmaoo

I know you’re distinguishing between wage theft vs robbery, but especially since we are in a solarpunk community, and that has some ties to anarchism, is there really much point in distinguishing? Profit is just an owner taking for themselves what is due to the workers who produce the value, essentially stealing it. You could argue that, well the owner created the company with their investment and therefore incurred risk, but at the end of the day the only risk they incurred would result in them having to become a worker, themselves.

Profit isn’t illegal, so it’s not technically theft in any legal sense. But if a single individual (the owner) takes the fruit of an organizations labor and doesn’t distribute the entirety of that fruit to the workers (including themselves) and continual operation of the business, they are essentially stealing what is due to the business and workers. If the owner skimming off the top weren’t there, the workers would distribute the fruits equally, and ensure some is set aside for business costs.

This particular attack probably had nothing to do with any of this, but she could probably be described as offensive from the economic equality standpoint, because she is a billionaire, from the environmental justice standpoint, because she is a frequent private-jet user, and from the music scene standpoint, because she seemingly intentionally pushes out other female artists from billboard spots by re-releasing albums in specific locations/time periods during which her peers are releasing their albums.

These right wing-ass fuckers ruin everything you love, and now they’ve come for LOTR.

All that text essentially is summarised as “you arguing that Democrats are the lesser evil is defending them, and makes you a liberal.”

If calling Democrats evil, while also saying you should vote for them, AND work outside the political system to create meaningful widespread change, makes me a liberal, then I guess I’m a liberal. You can think that means I support genocide if you want, but I won’t be organizing with you if that’s the case. Hope you have a great day.

My contributions to this thread have upheld a single liberal value and that’s voting, which I don’t even think has that much value when you look at the opinions of the majority of Americans on core domestic and international issues vs the actual policies that are implemented by those they vote in. The United States is not a democracy, and simply voting Democrats will not fix anything. Not once have I defended Democrats complicity in the genocide, or the so called free market, their role in maintaining American hegemony through force and the dollar, the immorality of rent and interest collection, etc – they perpetuate all of that! – unless you count my noting that the Republicans of the United States are more in support of Israel than Democrats, as they have nobody willing to call the genocide a genocide, whereas Democrats have few, and they (Republicans under Trumps presidency) would and have tried further legitimizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians – mainly by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and calling West Bank settlements, which are obviously illegal, legal.

Multiple times I’ve said, yes, Democrats are complicit in genocide, and overall they exist to perpetuate the power of the state, which itself is, at the end of the day, a monopolization of violence through the police. But at the very least, they are less likely to go full privatization, full state authority over women’s bodies, and more likely to do something about the genocide other than urge Israel to “get the job done,” as Trump has said himself.

So while, ultimately, the Democratic party (along with all other political parties) needs to dissolve in order for individuals in the US to have full political and personal freedom, in the near term that is not going to happen, and even though my vote will almost certainly mean nothing in terms of policy, at least I can do that and try things outside the political system. Whereas not voting is not only symbolically useless, as they’ll just see me as another person on the couch, at least voting has a small amount of practicality.

And regarding methods of converting liberals to leftists, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Again, I’ll refer to the meaning associated with the terms socialism, communism, and anarchism in the US – they are demonized to the point where people simply dismiss you if you mention them, and then you’ve lost your opportunity.

Edit: Also, I appreciate your genuine response, but at the same time the gatekeeping of “well, what have you organized?” is pretty lame. The truth is, nothing. I’ve organized nothing. But I still believe that unjustified hierarchy is harmful and that at the end of the day what a state is is the ability to use force to uphold that hierarchy.

I’m really not sure what could be more rational than voting in the direction that leans away from what you don’t want (further genocide, further authoritarianism) while still recognizing that direction does not lean far enough, and therefore continuing to organize outside the political system.

What you would have me do is not vote at all (an irrational, symbolic gesture, ceding increased power to hard right authoritarians) and continue to organize outside the political system.

I choose to do both, vote and organize, because that’s really the maximum amount I can do here. You say a vote for Harris is supporting genocide. Well, a vote for Trump is also supporting genocide. And a vote for nobody means I have no preference at all. Well, I do have a preference – I prefer the party that, at least publicly, supports a two state solution. The party which consists of at least a few individuals who actually calls the conflict what it is, which is a genocide. As opposed to the other, which has ZERO members even willing to call it a genocide.

At the same time, recognizing that the system is broken, that the Democratic party is complicit in the crimes of the US, and pushing from outside the political system, for radical change.

I would use the full extent of my power as an individual, while you would prefer me to use only a portion of it. Could you explain to me how that is more rational than using my full power? (and that’s a genuine question, because if I know how your mind works maybe I’ll agree)