Changed so many minds he managed to buy himself a trillion dollar beach house with his twitch money, what a great hero of the people

Türkiye number one!!

Fine line between being cordial and a being a grifter eh

This is partly why I worry that these kinds of "confirmations" of the decline is doing anti-imperialism a disfavor (and also becomes an easy way for ops to confuse, misdirect, redirect) -- the alternative is not going to magically be a shift to a socialist economy, that needs concerted effort. The "alternative" is more likely to be what you described.

Of course I still think that there is value in discussing these kinds of pieces, but often the comments will echo simplistic "lolz" type sentiments which will just be used to represent socialists and sympathisers as a brainless, directionless, destructrive force, at which point you might as well be an anarchist, "rationalist libertarian" or some other individualistic aesthetic self expression, bleh.

Fwiw I'm not against gloating/mocking humor when it's principled, informed, on point, and cuts deep like what I assume hexbear tries to do with its memes and shit (I'm not too familiar yet).

I often look at submissions like these (and there are many), gloating about the fall of the us empire, which is fair enough, but the articles/studies themselves are usually lamenting this fact (at the very least implicitly), and are essentially trying to drive support for maintaining it, like brainstorming solutions. I get confused, because it seems we are looking for direct confirmation of the decline of empire.. from channels of the empire? I think it's better to link to and discuss sympathetic material showing why and how the machine is failing and what we can build in its stead, not submissions linking to the machine's awareness of it and attempts to "correct" it from within the same narrow scope. The former will increase knowledge of theory etc, the latter is just a strange circlejerk. Seems like it might backfire. And is easily abused.

I've been forced to reckon with generative LLMs lately. For me, it is easy and natural to think in abstract terms when it comes to programming, and related things like setting up and structuring a database etc, but I've always hated doing the work. It has always been something I've forced myself to do in order to build something, for work or whatever. I find it repetitive and boring.

Now I'm finding that I can use code helpers built on generative LLMs to get things done so quickly, and to do things I wouldn't even attempt before. I'll be honest, I've taken some pleasure in solving a problem more cleanly than people who are much better at coding (and who enjoy it as an intellectual challenge etc). I've been able to skip their "gatekeeping" because I can just implement the solution I want by being very specific in my instructions to the chatbot, understanding every step, but having "it" do the menials tasks of working out the internal logic and syntax etc. I feel like it's given me a chance to "prove" concepts I was previously unable to set into motion due to being unwilling/unable to work out the technical details of the components.

The linguist in me is conflicted. The formalisation of language (in combination with the massive and arguabily grossly unethical data collection) that these programs are built on does not at all reflect my views on language, what it "is" (both in and out of "context") or what a fruitful and inclusive line of inquiry for linguistics as a field would/should be. But I'll be damned if chatbots aren't like having some super eager, super knowledgeable, beyond devoted sort of socially stunted helper. For controlled use (knowing exactly what you are building, and how), I find it just irresistible at the moment.

Not sure if this is me crossing to the dark side or what.

I guess since they're federated you can comment across with the same account no? Is it better conduct to comment in a given instance with an account from that instance? Edit: he he, just noticed your account is from lemmy.ml so

Also for subscribing to specifics subs.

But yeah, multiple accounts is definitely an option.

I think this is sound reasoning and mostly I tend to agree. At the same time, there is this strange inverted sense of sincerity or honesty about Western Imperialism, where it seems to need to make real its caricatures of the "Enemy" in order to substantiate its worldview and justify its actions. This often makes it hard for me to know what the play (or even the Game) is. The US Empire wants world hegemony, sure, but it also can't get too far ahead while keeping the "Enemy" image realistic. It is worth considering how much of this plays out consciously, and to which extent, and in which (controlling or not) elements of society.

Maybe "limited hangout" is the wrong term and overly implies direct strategic action, but there is this need, for the system to work, for things to be in constant conflict, this "Enemy" following you beat for beat, always threatening to surpass you.

In some way, alarming everyone to the realities of mass wholesale spying, when combined with the ability to gaslight, deflect, distort, and invert and invent blame, ends up legitimizing it as a form of necessary or reasonable action. Again, not necessarily a classical "limited hangout" but it has similar normalizing effects.

An interesting thing about Snowden is that he seems to be or have been a pretty run of the mill "US master of the world" type moron, scared of the latest muslim/chinese/russian ideological threat, willing to do anything to stop this (to his mind) legitimate threat, and then had his wordlview challenged by seeing how seeing how the sausage is made. I think he still believes in that greatness and superiority, just doesn't think it's enacted correctly. The base is still rotten.

Some peripheral arguments I've seen made wrt limited hangout are along the lines of:

• The encrypted services people flock to (like Tor and Signal) are developed by US int and may be backdoored

• Migration to these services are signs of critical thinking/politicial dissidents/criminal activity, and makes it easy to filter and target those elements of society, even if all you get from those services is metadata (contact webs/networks, times, etc)

• Having people go to these platforms and use encrypted software gives a sense of false security as the communications data is still being sent through controlled/owned/surveilled entitities, continues to create value for the Empire (data collection and just regular business), and stops true political action -- controlled op basically

• The encrypted services allows CIA etc to operate covertly more easily, same with crypto to finance operations etc

Things of this nature. It gets a bit inviolved and conspiratorial, but worth considering, if not necessarily as actual strategically implement action, but in the sense that the society shaping effects are still there, and we are clearly far away from freely associating, speaking candidly, organizing politically etc.

Even if directly fighting surveillance through using encrypted, decentralized platforms and so on (all of which I support), is positive change, it still has the potential to neutralize and redirect potential political action due to a sense of achievement and intellectual satiafaction when it can be argued that the fact that a tiny fraction of a percentage of peoplr bother with it just underscores the futility of it.

Eyes agreement nations frankly which of course has an inherent interest in portraying all its enemies as just as bad as it.

Fact is America, NATO, Eyes agreements countries spy more, more pervasively, they violate norms, business agreements, etc.

I think this is on point. It (Western imperialism) projects the truth of what it really is on others, and pretends to fight it.

Yet we have Snowden as proof of how far the US and its vassals go

Possibly limited hangout?

Late reply, didn't see.

Something to keep in mind is that a heavily externalized idea of God is a bit simpleminded. We are not owed anything.

The theist/nontheist discussion is a dualistic one. While dialectics as a method and process is sound, the idea is ultimately to unify opposites, not pick one or define yourself in opposition to one.

It's possible to take the very valid misgivings you have and turn them into questions rather than using them as conclusions.

When you look at the history of the occident, it is built on things that weren't organically grown by its people, and the Abrahamic tradition, as well as the Greek, was adapted in a strange way to try to claim it -- The actual producing tradition is foreign to it, and so you see that even foundational, culture defining output like Dante's Divine Comedy was essentially lifted from Ibn Arabi & Co. The conceptions that informed this appropriation and further developed from it can easily color your thinking and put a veil over your eyes when you are forced to live among its proponents.

Keep in mind that Islamic Theology is not as literal minded as the western approach. Basic things like God not being an external entity as such, and certainly not a man-like one, and man is not created in God's image and so on. It's subtle, as are its interpretations, because it (and its interpreters) belongs to a long tradition. Ditto for Orthodox Christianity.

Ding ding ding

What made you leave Islam? Did you find your way back?

Dystopian signage

Now in AAVE™