Dinh AaronMk

Lets talk about JonTron and his possibly racist views.

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

@Dinh AaronMk I suppose I do prefer people being honest with their shitposting. Also on a unrelated topic, literally everything becomes a meme doesn't it? :I

@SleepingSilence

meme
mēm/Submit
noun
an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

Yes.

Music Appreciation Thread

5/10

Lets talk about JonTron and his possibly racist views.

@Vilageidiotx "I don't personally think that being against illegal immigration is an evil thing btw. I think it's a completely debatable subject that's been made stupid in the general discussion because both sides want to use it to gain political points."

Is it really debatable though? Illegal immigration means crime has already been committed. Are we arguing for crime to become okay? Because that's really about all that can be debated. The reason the other side doesn't use that word is so people don't question the whole "illegal" thing. Not to nitpick, that is sort of what I'm doing. But I just don't feel like going full course. I'm politic'd out. :P

@SleepingSilence

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk
Ironic criticisms aside. Most of your responses seems to factor on world war 2 being the literal only reason, we are powerful and well off...and then you seem to imply we somehow did something wrong in the process...I feel I don't even understand your reasoning behind that, so I can't argue to counter your point because I'm almost not even sure what your point is...same thing with how much it just seems you don't respect and acknowledge what the US troops have done for foreign aid around the world. Can't change minds when perspectives are that far apart...

@SleepingSilence

Disregarding the rest to make a point here, but to briefly address what sounds like personal moaning: if you don't like it, why do you partake? It's like what Dynamo's been saying: if you claim you don't like it, why are you here? Are you a masochist? If you are, it's OK; but just be honest about yourself there and I'll be happy to meme "Read Bookchin, luddite" or "Read Stirner, spooked man" at you all day.

But here's to the point: Because basically it boils down to our geopolitical situation after the Second World War.

We were a rising economic power prior, but we didn't really come into our own after the First World War when we were able to turn Europe into debtors of America and hold the first sway over them, when in the prior century it was often European powers banking on things in the US. And the US had to undergo the demographic and geographical growth to obtain the manpower and resource diversity to get there. Basically: America's growth isn't actually responsible to Capitalism. The Workers could have made such sweeping and absolute victories during the Labor Movement period in the post Civil War to Great Depression era that they conquered the factories in which they worked and at the least established an Anarcho-Mutualist economic model to run the factories and the farms in worker democracy in competition between each other as if in a quasi-competitive state and because Europe was so degraded and Asia such a clusterfuck that when the Second World War rolled around we would have or could have stepped in.

I am not denying America isn't a great country to live in, but the interests of the country I feel are misplaced. You could go about saying the American military marches about the world protecting freedom, but whose freedom are they defending? We weren't protecting Mexican freedom when we invaded Mexico to secure Texas, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and so much more from the Republic of Mexico. We weren't defending Cuban, Filipino, Guam, or Puerto Rican independence when we went to war with Spain and occupied all those Spanish possessions we took over (two of which are still direct territories, one of which was stolen from us by 28 plucky partisans, and the other actually went through a planned path to self-determination but was ultimately scooped up Japan for a while). We weren't defending the numerous democratic interests of central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars period. We didn't get involved in the First World War or even the Second World War because we felt we had some great moral incentive to combat imperialism; we only got involved when the 'evil' side of history attacked us first (the torpedo'ing of a passenger liner for the First World War (overlooking a history of diplomatic drift to the UK since Teddy Roosevelt), and the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan for the second). And all through the Cold War we didn't act in the direct democratic interests of the countries we defended; given we ostensibly backed people who were as big a cunts as the Soviets themselves backed.

Time and time again throughout history we either acted in the selfish interest of ourselves through nationalism or commercialism. Either it was Manifest Destiny to force the change of national allegiance of vast territory or populations, or because some fruit company said we should (looking at you United Fruit Company).

Even into the modern era with the invasions of Afghanistan on the basis we're removing an unpopular dictatorial regime who just happens to be harboring Al-Qaeda we weren't operating on the actual moral rule of defending Democracy since as Noam Chomsky openly observed: we didn't invade Uzbekistan as well because they have a government as bad as or worse than the Taliban. If we invaded Iraq to depose a dangerous dictator in the name of Democracy, why didn't we turn around and remove the Saudis as well?

If you're going to use the point that America is the world guardian of justice and democracy and that the military defends the world and these qualities then you have to stop and realize for a moment that to actually fulfill this goal we need to practically invade everyone and enact regime change on a near global scale. From Russia to Africa and from China to the Middle East. It's just not a realistic or even valid point to make, it's a propaganda claim put out to enhance our feeling of self-worth.

Don't get me wrong, I know where I am and that I was born here and I feel a lot better about that I was in comparison to somewhere like Russia. But we need to reshape ourselves, and if we need to be realistic drop the whole notion we're the police of democracy unless we want to finally act on it; irregardless of the possible geopolitical direction our new democratic regimes will go when the people elect their own leaders post dictator or monarch removal.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk I'm very tired, but I will attempt to read and respond. Be lenient. <.<

I know that was a joke, but really people that can look at America. See that it's the most powerful, richest nation, largest population, who uses it's military overseas to protect the rest of the free world. Yada yada 'Murica' yada. Just saying to make a point. (of course every system is flawed and can be corrupted. Humans exist.) And go..."Yep, Capitalism probably doesn't work as well as Socialism does." and be sincere about it...the internet would not be what it is today, without it. (yes, it may have possibly existed, but not in it's current form.)

@SleepingSilence

I think Vilage has got the rest, so:

America... most powerful

If only because after two world-wars the traditional old guards of the world police stage had been ground down into minor powers on the global or became restricted to an inactive regional stage and there were only two powers now they could turn to to resolve their concerns with their overseas Empires: The Soviet Union who would sooner dissolve their Empires and the US who would sooner get involved to attempt to preserve their Empires.

And because the USSR was effectively isolated for not being friendly to the notion of people owning capital as private property and in general hostile to capitalism, they weren't going to be invited to the party. So it was the US on the world stage from then on: because we only lost one navy base.

richest nation

Only because like above the rest of the world was badly hit by two world wars and there was no one left in Europe to run a global market. So the US stepped in and profited - especially after the second - in the reconstruction of Europe. Even the Soviet Union had to resolve physical damages to Russia, and the US was the only country left with a well-functioning material and commercial economy to supply Europe with the food and manufactured goods to set them back on their feet.

And not only that: The Japanese.

Unlike in the inter-war period when the US hoarded the world's gold supply and quite possibly forced the Depression, the US kept the wheels of capital moving and in return got a booming mid-century economy.

largest population

who uses it's military overseas to protect the rest of the free world

"PROTECT"

HE USED THE WORD

the internet would not be what it is today, without it.

Actually, it probably would have.

The key thing to consider about the internet is that the coding infrastructure behind it did not arise because it was the superior product, it did not offer the fastest or necessarily the easiest language to build the internet off of. And it certainly was not compatible with the other networks out there (see: Gopher). What it was however was: free.

Generally in capitalism anything that is free is inherently anti-capitalist because you're not making money off of it. But it wasn't just free, it was open source. Which makes even more so.

If Socialism is defined as the theory in which the workers or the community owns the means of production, then being free and open sourced and totally without royalty means that it is one of the ultimate socialist frameworks to arise from late-stage capitalism. There's no boss or leading organization telling you how to use it to maximize profits, or them owning all the rights to do with it as they will to maximize prophets.

The internet, its code being available to anyone and its backbone being so easy and publicly built upon and changed by anyone sets up a world of perfect anarchy.

Of course corporate server farms exist, but that's a whole other notion. But back in the early days when companies hadn't made the jump over when the internet began becoming more ubiquitous this wasn't the case.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

@Dynamo Frokane

Capitalism is a tried and true cohesive ideology that can do nothing but promote stability 👌

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dinh AaronMk Brought a lot of the table to discuss with that one didn't ya?

No, the theory in my opinion holds absolutely no water in my eyes. It doesn't make any sense. That was my point...I'm also completely aware of the differences, so thanks for the implication otherwise. Scientifically backed theories have been proven wrong before. So why not now?

blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-..

list25.com/25-science-facts-that-were-..

@SleepingSilence

Here's the thing: scientific theory arises out from observation of the universe and tests and experiments to prove or disprove a presently standing hypothesis. The theory is devised after the fact as a way to wrap up all evidence that arises and either proves or disproves to starting hypothesis. The over-all theme of science is to continually scrutinize standing theories, that is true and I won't deny that. But because something is a theory does not mean it should be automatically written off, especially with purely anecdotal evidence ("I'm white and my ghetto black friends like all my race jokes!" is hardly a sweeping statistical observation).

There is also the point to be made that much of what's listed in this link can be summarized as being folk myth. Either lacking the scientific tools of the present day, or not having it been explored before the wider populace can be lead to believe that of course the stars orbit Earth, or of course a penny dropped from great height can kill you because reasons. But in the case of the later any physicist could have explained to anyone the case of terminal velocity and energy potential in relation to an item's mass vs terminal energy. We only really consider it debunked because MythBusters did it, when really it's been mathematically dead since gravity.

Going further, taking your anecdotal cases to task (X thinks Y joke is funny because X is my friend) then if you would actually bother going further into it then these alternative situations arise, but don't disprove the idea because they also studied and read into those cases. His TED Talk actually goes into the detail of this.



The case being that because of the relationship between you and them neutralizes the malign aspect of telling a nigger joke and makes it benign and acceptable. As would be the case telling any other sort of joke may be considered malign or benign depending on the person you're telling it to (In a case provided in the video: A religious person would groan over a church raffling off a Hummer, a non-religious person would laugh at a church raffling off a Hummer).

So now we have to invariably come around to "PC Culture" and being in the public sphere: when you do anything in public you ultimately open your image, message, or product to a broad audience who can see or read into what you're presenting according to their personal biases. A White woman blandly and unapologetically telling an open joke about black men may not go over as well if the same joke was told by a black man. This bleeds into the realm of performance art, or any art rather. In order for something to work it HAS to be spun in some creative manner. Sure, you could make a comment about Jews, Auschwitz, and showers but simply screaming "GAS THE KIKES LOL PRAISE KEKE AND MOLOCH" is unsurprisingly not going to be taken very well unless you've taken the time to take it from the threatening sphere it otherwise exists in to subvert it with absurdity and subtlety.

You could also say, "JAIL THE NIGGERS, THEY'RE SUBSERVEANT TO THE WHITE MAN. LOL CSA IS GRAND". Or you could, you know: explore the entire master-servant relationship and subvert both sides and actually have an acceptable relatable joke for the public sphere.

But you're really not doing anything right now except exemplifying feels over reals, assuming one-of anecdotal incidents otherwise useful for examples to illustrate data. If you think the theory is flawed, then where is your theory? And "people are just over-sensitive because muh friends" is not theory, it's hypothesis.

And if theory is flawed, then let's just liquidate capitalism already.

Happy Brexit Day!

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

I didn't really want to dive back into this, but I'll touch on this VERY briefly to see if I understand this right.

According to this "theory", whether you believe it or not is up in the air. But basically it's the equivalent of Privilege Points...so a black person will automatically have more leniency in saying black jokes than a white person. Because "whites" have unfairly treated blacks in the past history. So that would also assume literally everything would be that case, that you couldn't in good taste make a good joke about stupid people unless you were actually mentally disabled in some way? Or a joke about your wife, if you're not a women. But your mother could and it would make that joke better and more sensible?

Okay, to peel that back. People have been assholes to fucking everyone. Africa STILL has slavery...their 'black'. I can guarantee there treated worse now there. So does that standard hold any water?

articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/17/world..

Just ignoring the other cases, because I think the idea that certain jokes can't be said by certain people is a ridiculous standard that WILL enable double standard shit later down the line of questioning. And it could just endlessly be picked apart...

It also, absolutely ignores case by case basis's, most of my friends lived in the ghetto...and racial humor is literally almost always used when I'm around them. So if I told them, or if they told me "The moon" joke. (who hasn't heard that joke before?) It would be inappropriate because of our skin color and DISREGARD the whole "friends for years" thing. And honestly jokes are funnier the more absurd they are...which is exactly why trying to make them stale, or with what this theory implies force people to only tell jokes, that they're "allowed to". How fucking stale would it be if everyone was limited in that way? And I'd also argue I don't even think that's how human brains work anyway...I think there is a double standard in most comedy. And it has absolutely can't be excused as "well this happened, so therefore..." because most cultures have experienced many of the same trials and tribulations. Everyone is human after all...

So, in short don't know much about the theory, but it sounds really wrong to me. But I could very much see that being believed as a valid opinion to have. And it struck a chord.

@SleepingSilence

Confusing theories with hypothesis: the post

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

That would explain Milo's career. I'm convinced the guy is just a failed comedian because his jokes are always way too on the nose, so instead of applying for TMZ, he figured out how to take being unfunny and turned it into something political.

@Vilageidiotx

>When you're so shit at being funny people thing you're serious
>When you're so shit at being funny the people who thing you're serious actually believe in what you say.

Well,you gotta make bank somewhere.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

And Starbucks. Jeez you didn't have no fun in college, did you?

@Vilageidiotx

And sometimes cars.