• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

    The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

    Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

    I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

    That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.



  • It is weird that your comment was removed.

    it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

    Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

    Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.






  • Most of his argument comes from direct quotes of actual political philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and, Adam Smith. These aren’t just random scholars, these are people who are fundamental to the development of liberalism as a political ideology. Some guy on the internet who clearly has never engaged with that history of work isn’t going to change the actual meaning of the word either.

    Look, I’m not citing a YouTube video because it’s the end all be all of sources. You should absolutely consider other perspectives. I’m citing it because it’s easy to understand and it’s clear you’re having a hard time understanding what people are talking about. I say again, you can still make up your own opinion but please inform yourself before you get into an argument of what liberalism is.

    It doesn’t just mean “freedom”. I assure you if you have any conservative friends in “real life” they would disagree with the notion that liberalism just means freedom. There are probably even some Lincoln Project conservatives who would disagree with that.

    I personally think that there are some aspects to liberalism that can lead society closer to being more free but there are other aspects to liberalism that work against that end. But almost everyone who has a basic understanding beyond a dictionary definition would agree that there’s more to it than just being a synonym for freedom.


  • You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?

    Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.



  • The reason why subsidies in the US lead to corruption and subsidies in China lead to innovation has nothing to do with how long the industries have been subsidized.

    The US subsidizes industries to bailout corporate executives that made bad decisions.

    China subsidizes workers who innovate towards ends that we know we need to be working towards as a species. Such as building electric vehicles to address climate change.

    Even if the economy worked how you’re suggesting addressing climate change would be a worthy investment. It’s an end that has been obvious that we should be investing in for decades. The US refuses to do it because it would take power out of the hands of the corporate executives who they are busy bailing out.

    Well, where do you think the money for subsidies comes from? Taxes.

    This is logically incoherent. Money doesn’t exist in nature my dude.

    Take out a physical dollar and look at it… what does it say on it? If you do this you will find it says it’s a note from the federal reserve.

    Every US dollar in existence was originally spent into the economy by the federal reserve which is managed by the US government. That is a matter of fact. To suggest money comes from taxes is incoherent. Taxes are how the government destroys money not how it creates money.

    Now maybe to control inflation we should take money out of the economy through taxes. Especially in places where money is being mismanaged… if we do, the aforementioned corporate executives seem to be at the top of the list of places where large amounts of money is being mismanaged. Given that in the context of the automotive industry China is managing their wealth better than the US.


  • Yeah, I’m not sure I agree that YouTube wants their platform to shrink. Even if you don’t watch ads you are still giving them your data which they can monetize.

    Personally I would be willing to pay for YouTube premium but not under the current terms. 1. If I’m paying for the service they should no longer collect and sell my data. 2. Allow me to have a YouTube-only account not connected to other Google services and 3. The current pricing is a bit high.

    They can offer these terms or I’ll continue to use them logged out with Adblock. Or they can continue to enshitify and eventually their platform will start to shrink which will make the data they sell to advertisers less valuable.


  • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.workstoMemes@lemmy.mlGet rich quick
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I own a 1080ti and there was recently a massive update to Allan Wake 2 that made it more playable on pascal GPUs. Digital foundry did a video on it: http://youtu.be/t-3PkRbeO8A

    I don’t know of any current game that can’t run at least 1080p30fps on 1080ti. But of course my knowledge is not exhaustive.

    I wouldn’t expect every “next-gen” game to get the same treatment as Alan Wake 2 going forward. But we’re 4 years into the generation and there has probably been less than 10 games that were built to take full advantage of modern console hardware. My 1080ti has got a few more good years in it.


  • I don’t know of any specific laws against them enshitifying adblockers. But there are things like the GDPR and in the EU big tech corporations are under constant scrutiny by regulators. Making them a lot less likely to do these kinds of shitty things in general. I assume that’s why she/he’s asking. Perhaps pressure from regulators has caused them to reframe from engaging in this same behavior in the EU? Out of caution?

    Edit: I use the modified version of the Youtube app on iOS (uYou) and the skipping behavior happened to me and it reminded me to respond to your comment. I’m pretty sure they’re breaking adblockers on purpose.