Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Talkin’ about a Revolution

drb.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 307 posts

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#131

Post by econ »

grumpy-de-sre wrote: post #117
rongrobert wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't agree with any of this. This is a difficult time compared to what? The black plague? WW1? This is the easiest time ever to be alive. I would say on a 200 year time line though, the way the black plague broke the power of the Catholic Church, the internet has broke democracy. The idea democracy is ascendant is pretty delusional IMO. This professor is still living in the unipolar moment that has passed.

The great news is we can break the internet if needed. It will be torn down and chopped up into moderated walled gardens, it's inevitable. Algorithmic rage bait and echo chambers are incompatible with a functioning society.

I'm optimistic, if you release enough bots into that ecosystem it is unlikely to survive. It is one of those things where effort is rewarded but also a condition for the game to function. YouTube is already full of videos that seem to have a single line prompt. Those can't generate enough rage to sustain the formula.

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#133

Post by alabastervlog »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #44
DeathArrow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conjecture isn't Hegel is single-handedly responsible for the fall of civilisation. After all I don't have a reason to think he intended that, nor do I think civilisation will necasarily fall. Most villains of the thought, ideologues and philosophers are basing their operas on Hegel's. All I am saying Hegel established a framework which eased the works of some scum.

You might enjoy Rick Roderick's "Masters of Suspicion" where he talks about the influence (and perceived influence) of Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and some other individuals credited with "changing the world". "You notice I haven’t given an analysis of the Enlightenment but of modernity, of modernisation, of the advance of capital, because four pedants don’t make an age. And two or three weird philosophers don’t give birt…

This is likely a use of "pedant" in the more precise pre-vulgarization sense, probably, with a stronger suggestion of "school teacherly" or "insularly academic" than "nit-picking know-it-all". Might help readers follow it.

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#134

Post by dudefeliciano »

lynx97 wrote: post #7
belter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the genocide contributed to bringing Trump to power Only because folks who refused to vote for Kamala said they could not stand her support of Israel policies :-) Like poor voters in the Midwest, you can always count on a certain electorate, to vote against their own interests and what they care about...

As if Israel was the only reason to not vote for Harris. I dont remember much of her "platform" that actually would be in my interest. Make-believe-minority-politics isn't for the masses.

to be honest i only remember the supposed $20000 subsidy for first homebuyers, but how was the alternative in your interest, and is it working out as expected?

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#135

Post by dudefeliciano »

damnitbuilds wrote: post #127
mardifoufs wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Democrats have been historically seen as the party that cared the most about Muslim interests in the US. Just like it is the party that traditionally gets the most support from the black community for example. Again, this complete disregard for Muslim life could've been expected from Bush or whatever. But even he wouldn't have let Israel go this far without some sort of faint condemnation or call for restraints.…

Supporting Muslim interests and also supporting women's rights and gay rights. No conflict of interests there.

you could replace muslim with any other religion and that statement would still hold true

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#136

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fransje26 wrote: post #71
graemep wrote: post #19

The world gets both better and worse. it is something that I regularly get voted down for saying here, but IMO the west is unduly pessimist because it had a golden age from winning the cold war until the late 2000s, took an overly optimistic view of the future and the inevitability of progress (remember "the end of history") and cannot cope with things going back to normal. Things get better, sometimes they get worse…

> and cannot cope with things going back to normal. I would argue that we worked our way to the post cold-war golden age, and then destroyed it with greed, which led to financial pain, which led to political nonsense, which led to the rubbish we are in right now. So the period we are in right now is not the "back to normal" phase, but an actual decrease of human evolution. Not dissimilar to things that happened in th…

"People do not change that much morally."

Greed is part of what humans are. It's part of what destroys societies. Building a society that can survive human nature long term is an unsolved problem.

You sound like you expected that, after the end of the Cold War, we had a perfect society, and then we fell from a state of grace and ruined it. No, after the end of the Cold War, the pressure was removed that had been keeping us from acting on our worst impulses. Turns out that many of us were worse than we expected.

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#137

Post by alabastervlog »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #32
lynx97 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left pretty much falls into the same trap all around the world. Its almost funny to watch when a leftist realises that immigrants are right-leaning. The typical reaction is to fall back to elitism and claim those immigrants must be stupid somehow.

Not stupid, just lacking class consciousness

Class consciousness is entirely too intellectual and nerdy to ever be popular, you'll never convince someone swayed by bumper stickers to read and thoughtfully consider your 500-word ultra-concise argument for it.

"Vibes" and populism drive voter behavior. Cheap populist messages will always resonate at least as well as even an ultra-simplified "it's all of us versus the owners of capital". Us vs. Them is what populism is, but getting the right Them according to class consciousness is really hard (and it'll constantly be at risk of someone subverting it to something else, probably "the Jews and other child-sacrificing Evil Cultists in their sway" because it's usually that for some stupid fucking reason).

Even Bernie had to settle for the shitty and inaccurate "the 1%" to get even a little traction with class consciousness on a mass scale.

Right now outright conspiratorial thinkers are ascendant and doing the usual thing of being some of the elites (the capitalists) we should all be against, while painting everything as the fault of other elites (how are they differently elite? Well, follow their stupid threads of "evidence" and you always end up at blood libel, truly, it's so consistent that it's boring)

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#138

Post by camgunz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #80
davedx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People do not change all that much morally This is debatable. In fact, the US culture war is absolutely about what American "morality" should be. It's what a lot of the Project 2025 Manifesto is about: "The document spans a wide range of policy areas, but when it comes to culture, family, and morality, it emphasizes a return to traditional values, a rollback of progressive social policies, and an assertive use of f…

> There's a reason it's called a Culture War and not a Culture Mild Disagreement. Culture war at this point is more than a decade old. It did not start with Project 2025. It started on the Internet. Also, GP said people do not change all that much morally. That much is true. Organizations change fast. Societies change slower. The acted on rules are a combination of three, but it's important to be aware of the distinc…

Eh I remember the culture wars from the 90s [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#:~:text=1991%E2%80...

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#139

Post by davedx »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #80
davedx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People do not change all that much morally This is debatable. In fact, the US culture war is absolutely about what American "morality" should be. It's what a lot of the Project 2025 Manifesto is about: "The document spans a wide range of policy areas, but when it comes to culture, family, and morality, it emphasizes a return to traditional values, a rollback of progressive social policies, and an assertive use of f…

> There's a reason it's called a Culture War and not a Culture Mild Disagreement. Culture war at this point is more than a decade old. It did not start with Project 2025. It started on the Internet. Also, GP said people do not change all that much morally. That much is true. Organizations change fast. Societies change slower. The acted on rules are a combination of three, but it's important to be aware of the distinc…

I'm not sure that makes sense to me; how do society's moral rules change (slowly) but peoples' moral rules don't/change little? I mean I can think of some isolated examples like pirating video content, but generally a society's moral rules reflect its constituents; where else do those rules come from, if not its people?

Re: Talkin’ about a Revolution

#140

Post by krapp »

mardifoufs wrote: post #110
modo_mario wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A supposed ally of the community?

Yes, Democrats have been historically seen as the party that cared the most about Muslim interests in the US. Just like it is the party that traditionally gets the most support from the black community for example. Again, this complete disregard for Muslim life could've been expected from Bush or whatever. But even he wouldn't have let Israel go this far without some sort of faint condemnation or call for restraints.…

> I guess it showed how Ukrainian lives seemed to be worth much more for his administration, whereas the lives of Gaza civilians wasn't even worth a stern condemnation.

Biden is a self-described Zionist, so his politics in that regard are crystal clear.

Post reply on HN