jonnyone

Media (and corresponding manipulation) could be created specifically for teaching purposes, aiming to keep the material as apolitical as possible while still retaining the techniques of manipulation.

Maybe interested in science, but disliked scientism?

Those Yahoo Groups could be a trove of niche, otherwise uncollected information, especially with regard to vintage or specialty electronics. Removing them was a huge loss.

Many episodes with COVID discussion are still up. The ones taken down feature comedians and (non-COVID related) controversial figures. I'm not sure these removals are related to the controversy.

broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed.

A statement many people appeal to that nobody can substantiate.

I think they're a great way to tell which two minute "how to remove [x] from your computer" video actually works.

I haven't watched in a while, what "quack pseudoscience" has he entertained recently?

Sure, Genealogy of Morals is probably all wrong

All wrong according to what exactly?

The affected sites that I use are now working. Check again.

Wonder if the name is a Deleuze/Guattari nod.

I should be clear that I agree with the sentiment of the Burning Man saying as it applies to Burning Man and events like Burning Man, I was just nitpicking the language of the curator. I happen to be part of a group that sometimes hosts events and it does feel like a faux pas when somebody asks if they can 'just watch.'

But I think it goes to show the weakness of the analogy with social media, because participation and observation are very much different things on the internet than in person. I think that's a net benefit, because people can observe (and learn) without intruding in most cases.

I still really prefer a world where we can be heads up, aware of each other, aware of the world about us, casually participatory with each other as we go about. It's such a waste of personage, of society, when people keep to themselves, wrap themselves in their tight knit world, shut themselves off to the world:

It seems you have taken Wittgenstein's old phrase "the limits of language are the limits of my world" and substituted "language" with "social media." You are already aware of the people who don't participate, they do exist and participate in your world, you just want them to behave differently than they do. You want them to post more photos, engage more on social media. I've never seen anyone be so blunt about this who didn't run a social media company or work for one themselves.

I don't like people being more guarded and filtered than they would like to be, but I appreciate that there is more to a person than what they post online. The hiddenness of people can sometimes add to the intrigue of getting to know them.

Online provides a forum for people to get the sort of attention we might like. "Look what I can do!" or "Look at me!" Still, one of my gripes about social media is that there are so many people who lurk.

There's a lot to learn from lurking. My mother watches Tik Tok videos and doesn't post herself, but cooks more now than ever based on the ideas she sees on there. You can learn about a cultural trend, a social cause, a musician, a resource, etc. There are lurkers with agendas, sure, but many are just bored and don't take pictures of everything.

Message boards like this offer even more to learn. Many people repeat what's already been said. The lurker respects this or has nothing to say and moves on.

I don't like that Burning Man curator's quote calling their saying a form of "inclusivity" when it doesn't include the lurker. It also suggests that "being present" is necessarily not being observant, but doing things that are supposed to be done at their festival, which I don't agree with. That said, I'm sure a space like that would actively become less of what its meant to be if there were tons of people just spectating. They should own the exclusivity that they want.

It's very odd to me. I've seen people directly telling leadership that we are overworked, that schedules are impossible, that we need to work on group morale, etc - and it very obviously meant nothing to the leaders. You could almost see the words washing over them and leaving nothing behind and indeed, nothing ever came from complaints or feedback like that (so far as I could tell). And yet, if a NYT reporter writes a single article, instant and dramatic reaction.

This shouldn't really surprise you. Mass media are essentially the arbiters of morality. Whether what they publish is factually true or not, the perception will change accordingly. Your "leaders" and co-workers don't have that kind of power.

Fair point re: considering Marx's time of writing.

The distinctive, defining element of the bourgeois property system is marketable property in means of production to which rented wage labor is applied, and it is principally that particular feature that Marx targets for elimination and replacement with control of the means of production by labor when he talks about elimination of bourgeois property.

This at least points me in a direction of interest (Marx doesn't mention feudal property much in the Manifesto, but briefly reading about the historical relationship to property has piqued an interest. Surely other writings of his explore the concept more, and maybe even Hegel writes about it).

Marx in the manifesto:

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

This also clears the focus a bit for me, even if I still don't have a solid position yet. I'm glad I poked the bear a little.

Where does Marx argue for this?

It depends on what you mean by "raised", but after calling for the abolition of the family in the Manifesto (in whatever sense that the family under capitalism is bourgeois I guess) he says that children will be educated "on a communal basis" and will not be dependent upon their parents (since private property would be abolished). [0]

Secondly, I do not see how our current understanding of "personal ownership" escapes being "bourgeois private property". It seems disingenuous to keep implying that there would not be many radical shifts in how "personal property" would be understood under Marx's ideal communist system compared to how its understood now.

[0]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Man... (p.52)

If you do a surface level reading of text, you're going to get a surface level understanding of it.

I'd take this comment more seriously if you cited Marx in a primary text making this distinction, and not some secondary Wikipedia defense. Note that none of the citations in your copy/paste are from Marx himself.

Also, in the definitions given above, personal property could very well be private property, in cases where it was not "gained in a socially fair manner", which seems like a highly subjective criteria.

edit: for those who are silently downvoting, keep in mind that the poster I'm responding to criticized my 'surface level' reading of a primary text (which I readily admit to) and then, rather than presenting a more thorough understanding of the text, copy/pastes a vague summary of an argument, which fails to even properly make the distinction he wants to prove.

even the Manifesto

From the manifesto:

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."[0]

Ctrl + Fing for 'private property' brings up a lot more. I haven't actually read this thing, but I wanted to check because I was curious what the manifesto actually did say.

Here's the German of the last sentence in case you think it's a bad translation:

"In diesem Sinn können die Kommunisten ihre Theorie in dem einen Ausdruck: Aufhebung des Privateigentums, zusammenfassen."

[0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Man... (p.22)

No, not necessarily. You can be psychologically influenced by a society imbued with religious moral undertones to the point where you unwittingly want to "prove yourself" to "some omnipotent other." I think it's fairly common, actually.

Work is not replacing church. In the Middle Ages, there was farm work performed by peasants. As far as 100 days off, if we take 52 weekends a year, we're a little over that same amount for those who don't work weekends (which is the majority of single job holders). Broadcast media replaced the church as a moral arbiter and now we are sort of in a phase where some are attempting to rebuild that church of television with the internet.

I kind of see all documentaries this way. All documentaries rely so much on manipulation to drive a narrative that it's difficult to classify it as anything other than art. They can still be informative for sure, but I will never watch a documentary and think I've done any kind of research.

I don't think that's a problem with psychedelic drugs so much as people fitting their experiences into pre-existing molds that only prospered because of their illegality (so the experiential dialogue around the drugs is biased towards the small set that take them, which generationally reify the lore).

I think it's especially worse with psychedelics because the experiences tend to be hard to articulate into language so people take those experiences and relate them to their ideas of God or extra-dimensional beings or the hippie culture we're often taught prospered in the 60s.

That looks like a great follow, thanks.

Speaking of Twitter, their "trending" section introduces yet another level of possible editorializing/bias. They have started to try and summarize trending topics in a digestible way, but this introduces the perceived authority of their interpretation. I haven't seen anything particularly egregious on their part, but it's definitely something to be aware of.

Modern actors aren't as willing to sacrifice their health for muscle as their historical counterparts, especially because the lean look is preferred over the muscle-bound appearance of yesteryear

While it's true that the Schwarzenegger look isn't in vogue, it's a bit of a myth to think that steroid usage would lead to that look in any short amount of time.

There are many steroid "stacks" (meaning some kind of testosterone ester with other steroids on top) that are designed for the lean, dry look that many movie stars have reached in recent years. I don't doubt that some stars work for it naturally, but I do believe many have used them in the short term.

I also don't think it's incredibly risky to your health in the short term, depending of course on the steroid.

It mostly boils down to people pumping themselves full of steroids up until a week or so before the competition so they test clean.

The most common "base" of a steroid cycle is testosterone. If you stopped injecting testosterone a week before a competition, you would still show unusually high levels of testosterone in your blood (even if you were using a shorter ester). But as others have pointed out, they don't test for steroids in most BB competitions.

My personal suspicion is that pro BBers who use steroids but deny it do so to protect product endorsements they have.

Good to have a term for what usually happens when people try to freestyle rap.

defy reason once again.

Nothing I've read about this hints that reason was ever defied. If anything reason was used cunningly.

Is there room for the argument that Robinhood should have seen this coming days, possibly weeks beforehand, and been raising capital preemptively?

In addition, DTCC raised collateral for specifics stocks from 2-3% to 100%, is there not room for investigation why aside from "volatility"?

Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then?

I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.

Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.