mark-fisher-capitalist-realism.jpg

Lmfao what kind of dumbass theoretical is this noah is so braindead

i don't really get this, i mean that's at the discretion of the couple, but trying to tie this to anti-capitalism doesn't make sense, and the couple has free will, you shouldn't try to guilt people into practicing it through ethical appeals

both sides of this tweet suck

bad tv writer and dumb nerds malding over a s***ty remake being cancelled or something

if you're trying to say "that's a bad leftist/anarchist, etc." for having a writing job, that doesn't really make sense in most cases

the left's commitment to a weird asceticism in this regard is funny

irony is quite funny though

i subscribe to the school of thought that if youre from a rich executive/corporate family you should have to put that in your bio alongside all of your other pronoun/political/orientation/etc declarations (joke)
i'm not against people having money or nice lives, and i don't think coming from a certain family inherently excludes you from a political movement. what does exclude you from a political movement based primarily on economics however is larping as a revolutionary while simultaneously leaning on unfair corporate nepotism and being a corporate radlib

DSA bureaucracy is some of the funniest s*** ever, i've heard it through the grapevine myself

a lot of this really just goes back to the unfortunately highly mutated strain of philosophy originally stemming from 60s-70s deconstructionism and whatnot as applied to modern social discourse. it's not really leftist by any means and has nothing to inherently do with leftism but because of social semantics and evolutions has become linguistically associated with left politics by proxy.

when it comes to building a political coalition, the DSA should serve as a fantastic example of success to replicate; as long as you do everything literally completely the opposite as them you should be insanely successful

i mean i kinda like the concept of deconstructing power relations and stuff like that, but it is ultimately up to two consenting individuals in a mutual relationship to do what they want as long as they are not harming each other, and if the other person does not consent, they can end it

if someone wants an open relationship and their partner doesn't, they can go their separate ways, and i don't think that's necessarily wrong

i've been seeing this a lot more recently, where it's like people try to use implicit shaming through ethical sentiments (from the way i see it) to sell lifestyles and its really odd, because it should be up to the individual for what and how they wanna live

its something i see with the vegan anarchists (well, vegan leftists in general tbh) which is really annoying, because i have my own critiques within that realm, and you always get blown off as a "speciesist" or a "anthrocentric" person, for the most infamous example

@krishna_bound

Yeah I'll give this one to Hasan for sure. It's different for a rando or something to be asking what's up with that but Glenn still calls himself a "journalist" and is QRTing edited bullshit to support his point rather than do his job (which is supposed to be finding out what's edited and what's not). He's Taylor Lorenz NYT-tier at this point.

breitbart.com/tech/2021/12/11/bokhari-julian-assange-is-anarcho-tyrannys-victim-number-one

entire article belongs here

also f*** the author of this article

Lib moment

look at my red-brown movement coalition dawg we're never gonna transcend liberalization

i dont even know if black hammer has any sort of real following but my god they are scum of the earth

cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker

reported

twitter banned me for replying cracker to someone LOOOOOOL

see this why ktt the best

wtf
wwwttttfffff

i think this is incredibly stupid but this is a classic case of a lot of the fans of the people in question now being faced with the double-edged sword of the same egregious standard. Of course because of context some words/slurs are worse than others - thinking cracker is an insult is like thinking a palestinian child throwing a rock at an israeli tank is a war crime. But the problem is the platforms which do moderation aren't judiciary courts, they are not and cannot really mediate context on an individual basis per-user unless they give extra-special treatment to some accounts (which they already do more or less). So it's kind of hard for a big site the size of twitch or twitter to just enshrine in site law "well cracker is okay but (list of slurs) is not", so they need to put up a more generalized policy. However, of course, the "private platform" discourse or the wider "content moderation" (proxy for "advertiser friendly") discourse is really what comes up here. There's never going to be a platform which can only represent values (even if they are correct values) perfectly, so the best they can do is put up universal standards derivative of those values (i.e. calling someone a slur is wrong -> raises the question "what is a slur and who determines that"; on a wide industrial level that can't be answered so it needs to be applied broadly).
They can't measure violations because of size (it's not like KTT where it's such a small and hegemonic site that it's easy to moderate based on context w/o influence), so they have to hold things to universal standards based on the rules, and that leads to "unfair" rulings like this. This reminds me very much of when twitter mass purged left-wing organizing accounts earlier in the year and it was a huge shock beause up until their point it had mainly been weirdos like Gavin McInness or Milo or anonymous right wing accounts getting banned, but they put the same blanket ban reasoning on the left wing accounts as they did the former. There's no solution to this so long as people rely on major homogenized social media sites and also simultaneously expect them to be enforce fair rules.

platforms like twitter suspend accounts for no reason so lets not even act like they adhere to their own terms of agreement, or that their terms mean anything at all

and the irony of these platforms acting woke and then pretending like reverse racism is a thing

literally just dilutes the debate about actual racism, which they claim to so clearly care about as they put up pride month and blm banners

Of course it's arbitrary - that's the point though. Do you want them to adhere to their terms or not? Companies have textual rules, and of course virtually none of them adhere to them (i.e. Zuck lying to Congress over FB). That's not the problem - the problem is that there is no mutual, collective, and universal understanding of the textual extrapolations of what's written in the site. The US-centric/post-US hegemonic form of racism that creates the vacuum under which terms like cracker exist are not universalized.
Here's the problem, I will set it out incredibly simply. The terms that exist are universalized because they cannot legally be exclusionary as an actual establishment because of the civil rights act (they cannot literally enshrine on paper "only cracker is okay, list of slurs are not") - they would immediatedly lose in court under Civil Rights Act case law. I know it sounds ridiculous - it doesn't matter, that's how the Civil Rights Act works (especially now that it's been essentially determined to apply universally to also gender/sex/etc. as well - it is a hyper-universalist law; it does "Exclude" any boundary or identity just because of the debate over what is/isn't racism/sexism/etc )
This means that they essentially are required by law to universalize all cases of harassment if they so choose to put such in their terms - which of course they will, because if they do not write its not in their terms, they become liable for the existence of harassment on the site.
Now, I understand what you're saying, that it's "not really harassment" because "reverse racism" isn't a thing - and sure, that's not my point, nor am I really arguing that. My point is where is that decided? It's certainly not decided in law or judicially, so therefore how can it be reflected in terms unless the extrapolated terms are essentially legal violations? The best they can do is align their rules to a rough puzzle-piece fittiing in line with the norms adherent under wider law. Wider law is not enshrined with exceptions, so in this case the wider context doesn't matter. The only time you could exclude this is if you were to admit the sites do not (or should not) follow their own rules, which brings back to square one: violation of the law + lawsuits out the ass. You can't win so long as there is in any way a congruent form of enshrinement of universality, because you simply cannot write a ruling/law with intrinsic favor even if the context should in theory provide such

isnt twitter sued all the time for violating their own rules though? and when does it ever actually pan out?

in terms of broader law i mean you could argue twitter violates the first amendment all the time just like allowing the publishing of "slurs" like cracker violate the civil rights act

To be clear I'm not arguing that these bans over saying cracker aren't stupid - they are incredibly dumb and undeserved and I say that as someone that doesn't like Hasan or Vaush at all.
What i'm saying is that the bans are consistent with policy on a textual level under which has usually been widely defended in some cases even by the people in question who just got banned (or defenses of the wider platform(s) themselves). There's no situation in which policy will be applied in sole bias (even if its correct bias) and not in principle, because the admission of bias would make the platform essentially in violation of law. And if you want to go back to why it's a violation of the law it opens a huge can of worms politically as to how to best handle that.

re: them being sued, yes, usually you just don't hear about the outcome though. that's typically the case with big tech companies because they share the investors as many of the same media companies, so it's not like they really want settlement situations to leak. not every case wins either, but there are cases where some people settle out of court, or simply run out of money to continue fighting the case. the problem with CRA stuff though is unlike a simple ban thing, it'd be a walk in the park in court, hence what forces them to have these encompassing rules, and then put on the illusion they follow them