GarbageShootAlt2

Is it a statement on how pets are animals turned into agency-less commodities, just like meat?

You're so desperate to score points that you're now acting like I'm a fan of Zizek who wants him to lead the revolution (?) when I explicitly said that I hate him. The whole thing is just a screed of nonsense to compensate for the fact that you blatantly got Marx wrong. I wasn't bringing up dialectics to flex, I brought it up because your mistake was so basic that it was necessary to start there (and I just enjoy talking about Marxism, admittedly).

That's true, they are (and I guess I am, by extension) using it in a narrower sense than is represented in Locke, who encompasses both the red and blue team, but the Lockean sense would still distinguish between liberals and modern leftism.

I was directly quoting you and anyone can see the quoted section by going like three up this comment chain, what are you on about?

Is it really that hard to imagine that someone who loves you was hoping to see you happy instead of as a moldering corpse?

This has to be bait. You can't possibly think people think that way, right? .ml people disagree with NATO-sphere liberals about a lot of things to do with Russia, but that's not the same as being mindless Russian chauvinists.

Like, do you really think whatever meetings she had with Putin or whatever it is you blue rags gossip about would be a bigger factor than her opposing the genocide in Gaza, to say nothing of having better climate policies, better immigration policies, and so on?

"But she won't win"

Obviously, but her shaking Putin's hand won't change that. His apparent trick of buying a miniscule number of highly-targeted Facebook ads isn't gonna do much for her, so we need to accept that assumption either way.

I'm voting for PSL, not Greens, btw.

Not as many people hate Harris specifically as hated Hillary, but a lot of people (for good and bad reasons) hate the Dems and also Kamala to some extent.

I think it's funny that someone with "Locke" in their name would seemingly not distinguish between liberals and leftists.

And good Marxists should know - he wasn’t a huge fan of ideology or respecting it as causal or desirable.

He was very practical, hence concrete historical materialism.

This is what happens when you don't read Marx and just sort of assume what Marx said based on a literal interpretation of his ideological labels.

Marx was not, like liberals, laboring under the delusion that ideology is something that can simply be escaped. Paraphrasing Zizek (who I hate, but he has some good points), it is when you believe that you are free of ideology that you are most firmly under ideological control, because in such circumstances ideology is necessarily acting on you without your awareness of it. To be aware of your ideology allows you to engage with it and modify it and so on.

He also recognized, like anyone who spends a few seconds thinking about what would become sociology (it wasn't really around in his time) that ideology does cause things. His distinction is that ideology is superstructural, it was an abstract product of the concrete base that is material conditions, but the two of them exist in a dialectical relationship with each other. Any base will produce a superstructure so long as that base has people who relate to each other, and this superstructure, in essence, is ideology.

What Marx hated with respect to ideology, and this is the closest you are to being even superficially right, is the idea that was and is popular among liberals (and others, such as utopian socialists) that ideology alone is enough to transform the world, that it acts independently of material circumstances and people will just freely be moved by what is "right" in a completely absolute sense irrespective of their historical or current conditions. Again, these things have a dialectical relationship, and the superstructure cannot fly freely, unbounded by the base, any more than the base can fly freely (by human hands) when the superstructure stays in place. They will only make progress in the context of each other.

Edit: For the sake of being more complete, I will say more explicitly that the base has primacy, which is why the superstructure comes from it -- there can be no culture in out in space where no one is. It has primacy and its change -- e.g. by scientific inventions -- tends to drag the superstructure along with it, but those inventions are only created thanks to the superstructural elements of preserved and transmitted knowledge and the desire to, for example, develop production.

It's very difficult to talk about dialectics because I often want to address both sides simultaneously even though it can't really be done.

Whether the podcast is relevant or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether it is credible or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether you are justified in feeling offended over it? Nothing to do with what I said.

For my own mental health I'm going to just not take the bait which is that parenthetical. Instead, I would like to focus on how "I refuse to listen to even two minutes of this podcast because I don't like its pedigree" is not actually a go-ahead to blindly presume things about it like the conspiracy theory I initially pointed out. You can refuse to listen to it, that's fine, but that puts you in a position of lacking a lot of information for making assertions about it. What that means is that what you can do is ignore it, or say you don't want to engage with it for such and such a reason that you actually have good reason to believe and then leave it there. That's how epistemology works.

… you’re posting a podcast titled “CitationS Needed” that’s clearly trying to pass its self off as famous YouTuber Tom Scott’s “Citation Needed” (no plural

This amounts to a conspiracy theory. It's a completely different kind of format and the hosts introduce themselves up front. If it's a knock-off, it's not a very effortful one. You'd probably have an easier time saying they stole the name, because it's a very good name.

That is simply incorrect English, words have more referents than gender. Traditionally "it" is reserved for non-human things of all types, but definitely does not ever apply to a human, and calling someone an "it" without it first being requested by them is near-universally recognized as a dehumanizing insult.