Ideology

joined 3 years ago
[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So they intend to put all their best ships in missile range?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

What the fuck, just let them go to the airport, why???

[–] [email protected] 48 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I've really been curious how long Hexbear will last.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago

loudly slurps sherry

Oh Brisby, my good man! Please fetch me the lawn billiards so that I may best that rapscallion Master Arnold at his own game.

And should he besmirch my honor I will shoot him in a duel, yes I shall. Why have a lawn if you don't make good use of it?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 115 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (15 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They also track your computer usage.

 

A fun little tutorial I saw that converts touchscreen controls for drawing tablets back to physical keys. meow-floppy

107
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

So I was reading through @[email protected] 's comment about Estonian demographic history and felt intrigued by some of the claims, so I did a teeny tiny bit of digging to see what I could find. So here goes:

  1. The Estonian population expanded rapidly during the industrial revolution right up to the 1910s.

  2. World War 1 and the Great Depression manage to suppress population growth for the next decade.

  3. Nazi occupation of Estonia (marked RKO) coincides with WW2. The vast majority of ethnic Jews flee to the USSR, and those whl stayed behind were exterminated. The nazis and their Estonian collaborators built concentration camps. This coincides with a dip in the graph.

  4. After WW2, Estonia is back under the USSR. The first Estonian SSR was established in 1940-1941 when nazi occupation started. After some lag, the population begins climbing on the same curve it did before. The population of the country peaks in 1989.

  5. 20000 people were deported to Russia very early in the existence of the SSR

  6. The nazis aimed to remove 50% of the population on paper but only had 4yrs to do so. This means using concentration camps on ethnic Estonians for germans to take their homes/land as in palestine today.

  7. 20k is not the same as sunaurus's 20% claim, not even close. 20% does however match the proportion of modern estonians who are russian. The obvious conclusion one can gather from this comparison is that this is not dissimilar to Great Replacement propaganda. The assumption here is that ethnic Russians are taking up Estonian space, because the evidence points to massive population growth under the ussr rather than a contraction like the one that occurred with German occupation.

Immigration was highest during that huge growth period, so I'm curious where all those excess deaths and gulags occurred to have not slowed or stopped said growth. It sounds to me like this person is just intimidated by people they consider foreign.

 
 

Bottom text

 

Whenever people are like oh we need to empathize w/ incels, care about their feelings blah blah, I just think about what Lundy Bancroft said about abusers.

They need to learn empathy, and this excessive focus on their feelings is a barrier to them learning empathy.

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/iHateCogsci/status/1610409758120361984

https://sb-ex6e14yir4.b-cdn.net/media_attachments/files/109/628/430/505/308/353/original/db370a81de5f1eee.png

But this is step 1 of "offering an alternative": recognizing that it takes different skillsets/social conditions to get them well-adjusted, because for whatever reason they're starting from a different psychological basis.

I agree that to some extent the whole idea of focusing on these guys is counterproductive. But focusing on them is not the same as making sure that our movement is equipped to deal with them effectively, without having to relive this generational moment over and over again.

They feel alienated from society because it feels unlivably complex, and they happen to fit enough heuristics of the power group that they feel entitled to deal with that complexity by violently maximizing their adherence to power.

The right takes advantage of this by a) being in power already, b) being the same kind of people, and c) happy to use these guys to further their own interests. So they offer the easy, accessible, lowest-common-denominator solution of just catering to that entitlement.

Of course "Be a good person" doesn't effectively compete. But that doesn't have to be the only narrative the left offers. We need the next step, a narrative that starts with "Be a good person" and builds it into a competitively epic cognitive reward mechanism.

 

Conservatives: Beware the left's gender ideology!

The Left: Bro, you invented gender ideology.

 

Mentioned earth ovens in a post and remembered this exists. Unfortunately the guy is very into...history. But the instructions are very clear and complete, and most importantly there are no animal products in this video.

How to cook with it (CW: Brief shot of salt pork in the intro)

Process of building a big oven for the post-apocalypse commune. Don't want to be caught unprepared when the rich hoard municipal methane supplies. (CW: Ambience includes a roast for some reason, unrelated to construction)

 

A coin has it stamped upon its body that it is to serve as a means of exchange and not as an object of use. Its weight and metallic purity are guaranteed by the issuing authority so that, if by the wear and tear of circulation it has lost in weight, full replacement is provided. Its physical matter has visibly become a mere carrier of its social function.

If, then, the ‘real abstraction’ has nothing to do with the level of ‘reality’, of the effective properties, of an object, it would be wrong for that reason to conceive of it as a ‘thought-abstraction’, as a process taking place in the ‘interior’ of the thinking subject: in relation to this ‘interior’, the abstraction appertaining to the act of exchange is in an irreducible way external, decentred – or, to quote Sohn-Rethel’s concise formulation: ‘The exchange abstraction is not thought, but it has the form of thought.’

Here we have one of the possible definitions of the unconscious: the form of thought whose ontological status is not that of thought, that is to say, the form of thought external to the thought itself – in short, some Other Scene external to the thought whereby the form of the thought is already articulated in advance. The symbolic order is precisely such a formal order which supplements and/or disrupts the dual relationship of ‘external’ factual reality and ‘internal’ subjective experience; Sohn-Rethel is thus quite justified in his criticism of Althusser, who conceives abstraction as a process taking place entirely in the domain of knowledge and refuses for that reason the category of ‘real abstraction’ as the expression of an ‘epistemological confusion’. The ‘real abstraction’ is unthinkable in the frame of the fundamental Althusserian epistemological distinction between the ‘real object’ and the ‘object of knowledge’ in so far as it introduces a third element which subverts the very field of this distinction: the form of the thought previous and external to the thought – in short: the symbolic order.

:zizek-ok: We are now able to formulate precisely the ‘scandalous’ nature of Sohn-Rethel’s undertaking for philosophical reflection: he has confronted the closed circle of philosophical reflection with an external place where its form is already ‘staged’. Philosophical reflection is thus subjected to an uncanny experience similar to the one summarized by the old oriental formula ‘thou art that’: there, in the external effectivity of the exchange process, is your proper place; there is the theatre in which your truth was performed before you took cognizance of it. The confrontation with this place is unbearable because philosophy as such is defined by its blindness to this place: it cannot take it into consideration without dissolving itself, without losing its consistency.

This does not mean, on the other hand, that everyday ‘practical’ consciousness, as opposed to the philosophical-theoretical one – the consciousness of the individuals partaking in the act of exchange – is not also subjected to a complementary blindness. During the act of exchange, individuals proceed as ‘practical solipsists’, they misrecognize the socio-synthetic function of exchange: that is the level of the ‘real abstraction’ as the form of socialization of private production through the medium of the market: ‘What the commodity owners do in an exchange relation is practical solipsism – irrespective of what they think and say about it’. Such a misrecognition is the sine qua non of the effectuation of an act of exchange – if the participants were to take note of the dimension of ‘real abstraction’, the ‘effective’ act of exchange itself would no longer be possible:

Thus, in speaking of the abstractness of exchange we must be careful not to apply the term to the consciousness of the exchange agents. They are supposed to be occupied with the use of the commodities they see, but occupied in their imagination only. It is the action of exchange, and the action alone, that is abstract … the abstractness of that action cannot be noted when it happens because the consciousness of its agents is taken up with their business and with the empirical appearance of things which pertain to their use. One could say that the abstractness of their action is beyond realization by the actors because their very consciousness stands in the way. Were the abstractness to catch their minds their action would cease to be exchange and the abstraction would not arise.

:zizek: This misrecognition brings about the fissure of the consciousness into ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’: the proprietor partaking in the act of exchange proceeds as a ‘practical solipsist’: he overlooks the universal, socio-synthetic dimension of his act, reducing it to a casual encounter of atomized individuals in the market. This ‘repressed’ social dimension of his act emerges thereupon in the form of its contrary – as universal Reason turned towards the observation of nature (the network of categories of ‘pure reason’ as the conceptual frame of natural sciences).

The crucial paradox of this relationship between the social effectivity of the commodity exchange and the ‘consciousness’ of it is that – to use again a concise formulation by Sohn-Rethel – ‘this non-knowledge of the reality is part of its very essence’: the social effectivity of the exchange process is a kind of reality which is possible only on condition that the individuals partaking in it are not aware of its proper logic; that is, a kind of reality whose very ontological consistency implies a certain non-knowledge of its participants – :zizek-joy: if we come to ‘know too much’, to pierce the true functioning of social reality, this reality would dissolve itself.

:zizek-preference: This is probably the fundamental dimension of ‘ideology’: ideology is not simply a ‘false consciousness’, an illusory representation of reality, it is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as ‘ideological’ – ‘ideological’ is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence – that is, the social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals ‘do not know what they are doing’. :zizek-preference: ‘Ideological’ is not the ‘false consciousness’ of a (social) being but this being itself in so far as it is supported by ‘false consciousness’. Thus we have finally reached the dimension of the symptom, because one of its possible definitions would also be ‘a formation whose very consistency implies a certain non-knowledge on the part of the subject’: the subject can ‘enjoy his symptom’ only in so far as its logic escapes him – the measure of the success of its interpretation is precisely its dissolution. :zizek-fuck:

SOURCE: The Sublime Object of Ideology


Announcements & Information

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
❤️ Come listen to music with your fellow Hexbears in Cy.tube
💖 Come talk in the New weekly queer thread
🧡 Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread
💛 Read about a current topic in the news
⭐️ June Movie Thread ⭐️

Reminders:
💚 You can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments and discussions over upbears
💜 Sorting by new makes your comrades happy
🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can go here

‏‏‎ ‎
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

spoilerAid:
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ 💙‎ Comprehensive list of resources for those in need of an abortion -- reddit link
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎💙 Resources for Palestine
Theory:
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Foundations of Leninism
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Anarchism and Other Essays
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Mega upload with theory for many tendencies

 

A former UN worker and prominent architect, Johan van Lengen has seen firsthand the desperate need for a "greener" approach to housing in impoverished tropical climates. This comprehensive book clearly explains every aspect of this endeavor, includingdesign (siting, orientation, climate consideration), materials (sisal, cactus, bamboo, earth), and implementation. The author emphasizes throughout the book what is inexpensive and sustainable. Included are sections discussing urban planning, small-scale energy production, cleaning and storing drinking water, and dealing with septic waste, and all information is applied to three distinct tropical regions: humid areas, temporate areas, and desert climates. Hundreds of explanatory drawings by van Lengen allow even novice builders to get started."

Link to where I got the synopsis


Announcements & Information

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
❤️ Come listen to music with your fellow Hexbears in Cy.tube
💖 Come talk in the New weekly queer thread
🧡 Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread
💛 Read about a current topic in the news
⭐️ June Movie Thread ⭐️

Reminders:
💚 You can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments and discussions over upbears
💜 Sorting by new makes your comrades happy
🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can go here

‏‏‎ ‎
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

spoilerAid:
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ 💙‎ Comprehensive list of resources for those in need of an abortion -- reddit link
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎💙 Resources for Palestine
Theory:
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Foundations of Leninism
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Anarchism and Other Essays
‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎ ❤️ Mega upload with theory for many tendencies

 

:reddit-logo: thread for the libs.

Full Article Text"Andrew Who?" That's most of what the over-30 crowd said in response to the news that Andrew Tate had been banned from TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook after a spate of negative coverage and increasing concerns from parents and teachers about the TikTok star's power over his followers. For adults who don't have teenage sons, the 35-year-old kickboxer-turned-TikTok star was largely unknown, but as anyone in the high school and college age set could tell you, online he was an overnight sensation.

Across the English-speaking world, parents and teachers grew increasingly alarmed, hearing teenage boys and young men parroting Tate's woman-hating rhetoric. One teacher on Reddit last week complained about boys "saying shit like 'women are inferior to men' 'women belong in the kitchen Ms____'.," and refusing "to read an article by a female author because 'women should only be housewives.'" In the thread, multiple teachers chimed in with their own stories about the adolescent fascination with Tate. Beyond arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to drive or work outside of the home, Tate has bragged about beating a woman with a machete and praised Donald Trump for sexually assaulting women.

His popularity is directly attributable to the profit motives of social media companies. As the Guardian demonstrated, if a TikTok user was identified as a teenage male, the service shoveled Tate videos at him at a rapid pace. Until the grown-ups got involved and shut it all down, Tate was a cash cow for TikTok, garnering over 12 billion views for his videos peddling misogyny so vitriolic that one almost has to wonder if he's joking.

Tate is just the latest example of the way that far-right figures lure in young men by preying on their insecurities.

But he is very much not joking.

Police in Romania raided the British-born Tate's Romanian home in April, as part of an investigation into human trafficking. Tate had previously said he likes living in Romania because he believes law enforcement looks the other way on sexual assault allegations.

Parents, teachers, and anyone who cares about the wellbeing of young people should be worried. It's not just that Tate was spreading hateful ideas and encouraging violence against women, though that on its own is terrifying enough. It's that Tate is just the latest example of the way that far-right figures lure in young men by preying on their insecurities. Once the influencers suck in these young men, they start redirecting audience energies towards fascist organizing. Tate is just a piece of a larger puzzle that explains, for instance, how so many otherwise normal young men get wrapped up in groups like the Proud Boys and actions like storming the Capitol on January 6.

The strategy is simple. Far-right online influencers position themselves as "self-help" gurus, ready to offer advice on making money, working out, or, crucially, attracting female attention. But it's a bait-and-switch. Rather than getting good advice on money or health, audiences often are hit with pitches for cryptocurrency scams or useless-but-expensive supplements. And, even worse, rather than being offered genuine guidance on how to be more appealing to women, they're encouraged to blame women — and especially feminism — for their dating woes.

"It's certainly true that male privilege ain't delivering what it used to," Ash Sarkar writes in her piece about Tate for GQ. "Women don't have to sit around waiting to be chosen anymore," but instead are often holding out for male partners who treat them with respect and dignity.

One way for men to respond to this, which many do, is to embrace a more egalitarian worldview and become the partners women desire. But what Tate and other right-wing influencers like him offer male audiences instead is grievance, an opportunity to lash out at feminism. They often even dangle out hope of a return to a system where economic and social dependence on men forced women to settle for unsatisfying or even abusive relationships. Organizing with other anti-feminist men is held out as the answer to their problems.

This bait-and-switch is all over the right-wing influencer world.

What Tate and other right-wing influencers like him offer male audiences instead is grievance, an opportunity to lash out at feminism.

Proud Boys founder Gavin McInness built a young, male audience in large part by suggesting he had the key to landing a "tradwife," which is far-right slang for wives who stay at home and assume a submissive role. (In reality, McInnes's wife is a successful publicist.) Psychology professor-turned-right wing influencer Jordan Peterson first rose to fame as a self-help guru with his book "12 Rules for Life." But his audiences thrill to him not for banal "make your bed" advice, but for proclamations such as recommending "enforced monogamy" on women as a cure for male anxiety. Until his social media ban, Tate was operating something called Hustler University, which promised, for $49 a month, to turn his audience into rich playboys, as he presents himself to be.

But once in the door, the young male audiences aren't just hit with sexist content, but drawn into a larger world of far-right bigotry and, in many cases, anti-democratic sentiment. McInnes's Proud Boys ended up being the vanguard of the Capitol insurrection. Peterson was recently suspended from Twitter and demonetized on YouTube for saying gender transition is "Nazi medical experiment-level wrong."

Most of the coverage of Tate has focused on his misogyny, but as the group Hope Not Hate notes, they've been "monitoring Tate for years, due to his long history of extremism and his close association with major far-right figures." He's been linked with a number of far-right American and British influencers, and not just because he loves Trump. He's been photographed dining with former Infowars anchor Paul Joseph Watson, who was recently recorded ranting about how he wishes "to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth." He's also associated with Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, far-right trolls who pushed Pizzagate and similar hoaxes.

But the 17-year-old kid who starts following Tate because he's titillated by TikTok videos espousing "edgelord" opinions about women doesn't know any of this. All he knows is that this cut guy with a loud mouth is promising that, while "politically incorrect," he's offering advice and opinions that can supposedly give a leg up socially and sexually. It can be intoxicating for young men trying to navigate the confusing and scary world that is often full of rejection. Doubly so when the message they're getting is that the solution isn't to do hard, personal work to make yourself a better catch, but instead to become angry and aggrieved at women for wanting a better deal for themselves.

view more: ‹ prev next ›