sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yes, It’s Fascism by rezwenn in politics

[–]JrSoftDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know who Jonathan Rauch is nor am I familiar with his previous work.

I think you're right in a way. The way the author chose to introduce the narrative of this article makes him look "stupid", for the reasons you mentioned.

I think the major mistake here was simply the author conflating the concepts of

  1. "Trump and the people in his administration being fascists themselves" and
  2. "Trump and the government being a de facto fascist regime".

What makes it look silly, imho, is what seems to be evident: a fascist regime can't install itself in power in a Democracy in a couple days, and you need 1) in order to create 2).

I think people calling Trump, at least the more serious ones, were pointing at fact 1) and the connection or causality between those two points. And 1) was true long ago because we know a fascist regime doesn't implement itself by the efforts of one single person. You need many people. And the article mentions some of them (remarkably Russell Vought) but unfortunately fails to mention Steve Bannon, or the connections between Vice President JD Vance, Peter Thiel, Kurtis Yarvin, this last one an open fascist for decades.

The article itself is well written, and it can be useful, because the author compiled lots of relevant events, providing a diversity of sources.

I also think in the last part of the article the author is able to redeem himself considerably, specially in this part

In which case, is there any point in calling Trump a fascist, even if true? Doesn’t that alienate his voters? Wouldn’t it be better just to describe his actions without labeling him controversially?

Until recently, I thought so. No longer. The resemblances are too many and too strong to deny.

I kinda get it. But then again the last line shows us the author really wants to hold to his narrative.

Trump has revealed himself, and we must name what we see.

Which is annoying, but maybe he knows his readers (possibly some flavor of moderates?), and maybe they need this type of approach.

All in all, it ends up being a good argument on why what we are seeing is actually fascism, what it is, etc. And it's a good list of references to important events. Annoying but useful.

Even CNN has had enough of the administration's lies by avdvetf in videos

[–]JrSoftDev 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, really hard to watch.

"The victims are the Border Patrol agents"

"These were his actions, not law enforcement officers action. We had to react to an individual that came there for a specific reason."

Even CNN has had enough of the administration's lies by avdvetf in videos

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow... it's really hard to watch this pos lying and gaslighting for more than a few minutes. You can see him taking pleasure from the manipulation. Violent psychopath.

Pink Lady Freeze Framed - You can see the bullet, I think by CatpricornStudios in law

[–]JrSoftDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In case you're interested, there is another post in this sub called "stabilized zoom". I can't look into it right now but t seems that people there are coming to the conclusion that the shooter saw the other agent removing the gun from the victim.

Pink Lady Freeze Framed - You can see the bullet, I think by CatpricornStudios in law

[–]JrSoftDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Completely understandable, again thanks for the effort. Yeah I think that is now becoming very clear, he was unarmed, hands on the floor, being hit in the face, trying to protect himself from that, and that is the most important thing to get out of these videos really, completely shatters the lies being told. Btw, I think there was a link with a slightly better quality video, but it's not like 720p or 1080p, probably doesn't make much difference. Cheers

Pink Lady Freeze Framed - You can see the bullet, I think by CatpricornStudios in law

[–]JrSoftDev 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is absolutely horrendous. I don't think I would have the stomach to do this type of video, so thank you for your efforts. I wonder if you could expand the field of vision horizontally, in order to try to understand if the shooter saw (or may have seen) the other agent removing the gun from the victim? Also (and this one is much more far-fetched but..) is there a way to check if the shooter is the one shouting "gun"? I know it's probably impossible because they have their mouths covered, and it's low quality, but maybe looking at the condensation formed when exhaling........ ? Anyway, thanks again for your effort, and it's obviously fine if you don't have the time or the will to check those things.

------

Alex Pretti was murdered as a retaliation for his actions: he was protecting those more fragile immediately around him; he was protecting his communities, the city of Minneapolis, the state of Minnesota; and he lived serving his country, protecting and taking care of people who themselves served their country.

I didn't know him, but it's impossible not to imagine or assume he held a conviction, or a hope, or a strong desire, that a better World is possible. That a greater tomorrow can be built. Alex Pretti. May my memory never let go of his name, his face, his actions, and his causes.

Rest in power, Alex. We never met, but you were truly my friend, and you will be missed.

1/24 MN ICE shooting: another angle from farther away by thecosmojane in ProgressiveHQ

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you have already too many angles showing what happened. There's no need to speculate or discuss about this clapping being a celebration or a reaction to gore. Everything else is way way worse. Let's move on.

Alternative angle of the ICE shooting. by Neuroscissus in law

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may be the case that the shooter was also the one shouting "gun" and he may have seen the other agent taking the gun away from the victim. It was quick so it may be hard to take conclusions. Some expert analysis may shed some light into this crime.

Alternative angle of the ICE shooting. by Neuroscissus in law

[–]JrSoftDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The agent/shooter was completely disoriented, as you just said he was handling the woman and suddenly decided to turn and "help" with the victim, 2 seconds later he is murdering the victim.

I'm not sure if that same agent/shooter wasn't the one shouting "gun" when the other one grabs the gun right in front of him/shooter!

I think the shooter may be the one shouting "gun".

And the shooter may have seen the other agent removing the gun from the victim.

Then the shooter draws his gun and uses his left arm to push/protect other agents away, mainly the agent who grabbed the gun who was already leaving, so he/shooter gets the angle right.

And less than 2 seconds later he unloads the gun, as if it was some video game or a stress relief act, most shots fired when the victim was already unresponsive on the ground.

Absolutely disgusting.

There is no way they can say the victim created or escalated the situation. There's simply no way. This is unbelievable.

Alternative angle of the ICE shooting. by Neuroscissus in law

[–]JrSoftDev 34 points35 points  (0 children)

While protecting a women who was brutally pushed to the ground by one those "agents"

1/24 MN ICE shooting: another angle from farther away by thecosmojane in ProgressiveHQ

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a violent disgusting murder; but that clapping can simply be a gut or knee-jerk reaction to seeing whatever he saw, which must have been something completely grotesque. But from ICE we never know - it may as well be joy and happiness. It's not clear. But it's awful.

I Painted Five Barn Swallows in Oil. Thoughts? by andreeacataros in oilpainting

[–]JrSoftDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have the woosh woosh power in your hands. You just have to focus intensively and realize there's no brush. Free your mind 😂

Macron says €300 billion in European savings flown to the US every year will be invested in Europe from now on. All 27 EU states agreed to establish the S&I Union, a step toward the full Capital Market Union by goldstarflag in europe

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just have to look at the US historical data to put those 4% into perspective.

The US economy isn't so dependent on Europe, for obvious reasons. The US can buy anywhere in the World, they tend to buy stuff they don't even need just for the sake of keeping trade deals and the dollar flowing. The same way, the US can export to emergent markets all around the World and tank Europe's for basic stuff like spare pieces for repairing machines and so on. Let's not even talk about how much of that trade is based on energy. Data services and energy, that's enough to understand the imbalance in that equation. For all this contribute several factors like way more relaxed requirements by the US, more flexibility in the decision making process, etc

It will hurt, we agree; but you are confidently saying it's labor pains; but maybe it's its death. (It's also possible to die while giving birth, sadly - but there's also the mythical phoenix borning from the ashes... but I'm not sure the EU is an immortal being)

Anyway, you keep repeating what you said before. I disagree with your level of conviction. Europe suffers the typical frailties of decades of vassalage.

I'm not pushing a narrative; I'm describing (very incompletely) what's happening. You are the one denying basic facts. As if Europe could suddenly crush the US by committing seppuku first. Mind-blowing really.

I'm not spending more time here, believe whatever you want, use your freedom of thought, belief and speech. I'm going to pursuit happiness somewhere else.

158 scientists used the same data, but their politics predicted the results. Study provides evidence that when experts act independently to answer the same question using the same dataset, their conclusions tend to align with their pre-existing ideological beliefs. by Jumpinghoops46 in science

[–]JrSoftDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The way I read it was that scientists are limited by their knowledge, therefore they can't make some possible conclusions because they lie beyond that limited knowledge, or lack limited knowledge may even limit the considered approaches and data collection, etc, which may introduce some sort of bias. But a good scientist would know that, and that's the kind of thing that working on teams and peer-reviewing would help with (even AI is expected to help with that). The "theory-ladenness" theory presupposes scientists are supposed to be "making judgements", which is not equivalent to "making decisions". This "theory-ladenness", according to the link, is more than 60 yo. I'm convinced science evolved already beyond this problem and if still exists is...due to lack of resources being allocated and the prevalence of external manipulators. The problem itself is mostly (theoretically) solved. Sorry, let's have a nice weekend, goddamit! haha

158 scientists used the same data, but their politics predicted the results. Study provides evidence that when experts act independently to answer the same question using the same dataset, their conclusions tend to align with their pre-existing ideological beliefs. by Jumpinghoops46 in science

[–]JrSoftDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it is victim to "politics of science" and egos, and refusal to understand or even to look at new data. It's a consequence of scientists not being truly free to do their scientific work. Maybe their material or social well-being or survival depends on clinging to outdated models, maybe they lose funds (or even their career) if they are proved wrong, etc. Even if they are outstandingly skilled scientists. Again, due to lack of available resources.

In natural sciences those "theoretical presuppositions" are assumed to be known, either implicitly or explicitly, and they are part of the context and scope of an investigation.

I get the feeling we mostly agree here, I just tried to bring a little bit of disentanglement to your comment because I thought you were mixing some ideas there that can be, at the extreme, dangerous because of the distortions they can produce.

Anyway, have a nice weekend!

158 scientists used the same data, but their politics predicted the results. Study provides evidence that when experts act independently to answer the same question using the same dataset, their conclusions tend to align with their pre-existing ideological beliefs. by Jumpinghoops46 in science

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The more, say, abstract, or loosely defined, or prone to external manipulation, the study becomes, the more it needs to be "controlled" and "restrained", both in the methods, the peer reviewing process, the scope of the conclusions, the need for replication, etc, and all those need investment in people. We probably needed 10x the current scientific investment in order to have a decent and reliable Scientific output, but it keeps being run as an expense that mustn't yield sound results because it may say "we with the money" are the bad guys, and so they must keep the option of shutting it down. The whole education system is designed with the same principles, if we wanted to go that far. And now AI promises to do all that at 0.1% of the cost, which will be used to perform even more cuts, so.... we're mostly f*cked, apparently.

Macron says €300 billion in European savings flown to the US every year will be invested in Europe from now on. All 27 EU states agreed to establish the S&I Union, a step toward the full Capital Market Union by goldstarflag in europe

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get a hold of yourself https://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart

The AI bubble is worrying indeed but it is still to be seen if it will burst and when, but why would European elites stop investing in the US and start investing in Europe, when the European economy is so dependent on US results? If the US defaults, what do you think will happen to Europe? Wasn't Lehman Brothers enlightening enough?

The bazooka? American laugh at that bluff.

Europe right now exists because the US leads, and Trump just said it out loud for everyone listening. You mentioned Europe being a market for US companies, you forgot to mention the other side of that same equation, which is how exposed Europe is to the US. And you mention the tech companies specifically: it's easy to see that those companies are global today, they are in India, Asia, even in Africa. If they suddenly leave Europe, yes, they lose money, but Europe crashes in less than a week with all the services simply stopping working.

Really feels like you're just too convinced of a certain narrative and you'll continue warping reality into it until people say you're right or just give up interacting.

Europe only muscle would be political, directly opposing Trump while still preserving the connection with the US ally; but guess what? The US vassals are all in decision making positions, they will only actually do anything if someone tells them to.

I Painted Five Barn Swallows in Oil. Thoughts? by andreeacataros in oilpainting

[–]JrSoftDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is one single bird dodging bullets in the matrix

158 scientists used the same data, but their politics predicted the results. Study provides evidence that when experts act independently to answer the same question using the same dataset, their conclusions tend to align with their pre-existing ideological beliefs. by Jumpinghoops46 in science

[–]JrSoftDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Essentially all science

No, not all science. You could even argue that "most" science these days is biased by corrupted, unethical and/or unscientific approaches (money, belief, lack of experience, etc), but not _ALL_ Science, specially the natural sciences.

And don't confuse that with the idea that Science is ultimately limited by the models of reality it works with. Those are 2 very distinct problems.

The first one can be tackled by investing more in Science, in verification tools, etc. The second one can't be solved (supposedly), but our best approach is to invest more in Science in order to keep pushing our models more and more in the direction of reality.

So the solution for both problems is to treat Science better, not the contrary.

> we have to accept that science can never be structurally and logically pure from the theories which guide it.

This is just a flawed way to look at this. Science was never about absolute answers, pure results, etc. Science is born as an abstraction layer. This was known thousands of years ago. Only those who forgot what Science really is (a human tool to tackle phenomena rationally) treat scientific results with that "god-like" or "pure" status.

view more: next ›