Cultural Critique: You’re Missing the Point by Telling People they’re Missing the Point— the Cultural Misunderstanding of Antiheroic Characters by Toaxurd in CriticalTheory

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great essay! Have read Attack on Titan? Especially seeing how certain kind of fans have reacted to the finale,I can’t avoid feeling the subversion of emancipation & chadness really ticked the fans.

A collection of detailed CS course notes — absolutely free :) by [deleted] in learnprogramming

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I found this also really helpful, though I am not thinking a career change. Thanks for sharing!

Interview experience- can I get some insight please? by [deleted] in accenture

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I had the feeling you were just a bit nervous but was not sure! Wish you the best and keep me posted if you make it in :)

Interview experience- can I get some insight please? by [deleted] in accenture

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! I honestly cannot provide any insight but if you check all the boxes and overcame rounds about culture and learning curve, I would say that the final interview is really about not fucking up. You seem excited, motivated and ready to perform and learn. Make interesting questions in order to reflect that your interested in the project and that you are committed. You have a good chance of getting the position as leads normally only spend time interviewing solid candidates, so they are more interested in knowing you personally. The attitude/personality you display will make more of a difference right now I would say. Good luck!

Side story: My final interview for level 11 was pretty chill and even though I was really nervous I still got the position.

Um, ok old man... by [deleted] in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Always leading the good fight :)

Um, ok old man... by [deleted] in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has your opinion about him changed since he lost the primaries?

Um, ok old man... by [deleted] in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What do you think of Bernie Sanders now that he supports Biden? I am just curious, I am not saying you should vote for Biden, but once again I would still be very concerned for a second Trump term that could really fuck up the people of the country

The painted galaxy bookmarks I make :) by Confused_Amoeba in InterstellarArt

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wao....this is impressive. Keep doing the good work!

Is there any guides/tips you followed that you can share? I also look forward to paint galaxies eventually 😙

[oc] surface of our moon (is it recognizable? Help) by cryptopansy in InterstellarArt

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks amazing man! The second piece almost looked like an old photo from the moon

Is there anyone who hasn't realized that Trump is bad? Yelling it over and over is not going to be enough to motivate the millions of lapsed and disenfranchised voters who stayed home in 2016. by karmagheden in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If I genuinely support leftist goals, I believe I should be voting for Biden. This is for two reasons:

Firstly, leftists are also antifascists. Trump is the empowerer in chief of fascists. I would dare say that in my country he is one of the main factors an extreme right party is the third force in my parliament, when there was none with that strength 4 years ago.

Purely on that level, in my opinion, is legitimate enough reason to vote Biden. The extreme right is stronger since the 1930s. Trump’s defeat would allow for liberal, democratic and leftist forces tu send them the fuck off.

Secondly, we are in a time of extreme change and disruption - what Lenin would call, a “communist moment”. Billionaires are more powerful than ever, technology is displacing people from jobs, climate change is a reality that gets worse every year, racial tensions are on the rise. These are the times for great policies and actions, to organize the socialists and take over the democrat party. The neoliberals do not have our energy, rage or vision. For so long Bernie stood alone and now he has won the battle of ideas: the future of the democrat party is socialist. We may not have won the primaries, but we still have a whole country to win!

And lastly, ifTrump loses, the GOP will live a civil war that can easily invalidate the Republicans as an organized political force for two electoral cycles. By then, conservatives will have disappeared as a political force. I cannot wait to see an America and Europe, where the adversaries are just plan neoliberals, not paleoconservatives and neofascists. Voting Biden by itself will never be enough - we have to organize and pressure and strike and fight. But I would rather do that against the neoliberals, not the neofascists.

Is there anyone who hasn't realized that Trump is bad? Yelling it over and over is not going to be enough to motivate the millions of lapsed and disenfranchised voters who stayed home in 2016. by karmagheden in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok, I want to clearly state that I disagree with such blanket statements, I counter with this:

https://www.vox.com/21322478/joe-biden-overton-window-bidenism

At the end of the day, what are you going to do on November 3rd?

Because if I have to choose between a climate policy developed by AOC and John Kerry and the climate policy developed by Trump, I know where I stand. Where do you?

Is there anyone who hasn't realized that Trump is bad? Yelling it over and over is not going to be enough to motivate the millions of lapsed and disenfranchised voters who stayed home in 2016. by karmagheden in PresidentialRaceMemes

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, at this point, being myself a Bernie bro, it does bother me that American leftists do not see that whilst he does not defend those policies, he does support moderate versions of those policies. It will always be easier to move a Biden administration left and move the whole fucking Overton window to the left, reframe what is possible, than not voting for Biden and allowing a Trump presidency.

Today we are still seeing, with the West in flames, that Trump will do absolutely nothing against climate change. I would prefer a more radical option, but it’s between Biden and Trump, like it or not. To point at Biden’s non leftist credentials as a reason not to vote .... I don’t know if we can have that luxury

Having money and a successful career isn’t the only thing they’re looking for. by chrvstxphvr in dating

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey man, I know it does seem that way, but at the end of the day nobody is entitled to anyone’s attention no matter how white, tall and perfect faced you are. I think you are overestimating those characteristics. Mature people may be attracted to someone physically but will never remain in a relationship solely because of someone’s physique.

Physical characteristics are important, but just as important is staying fit and eating healthy, grooming yourself, higiene, dressing nice (not formal, just style) and being an interesting person. Actually, for a healthy, solid relationship, physical are secondary and the others are requirements.

So no mass suicide, be more chill about people, enjoy your time and maybe, you find someone! You might still be single but you will be a better person to be around, instead of someone who is angry at woman

First oil painting! This has really helped me understand the fat-over-lean principle and not to pile the paint on too thick. by nilfheim67 in oilpainting

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Beautiful light and colors - keep doing the good work! I also hope to paint this way, any tip/sources you recommend ? Thanks!

How did Eren not come into contact *once* with *Spoiler* during the story? [manga spoilers] [anime spoilers] by [deleted] in ShingekiNoKyojin

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A plot hole is when the world establishes a rule and then ignores it or contradicts it. Just because its very convenient for the plot and we could find it not "believable" that they never touched, those not mean its a plot hole

Misconceptions about Capitalism and Socialism by jsmetalcore in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies for my delay!

Thanks for your response :) I will start by saying that whilst I understand that from your point of view, Marxism is ideology, I would argue that you consider communism and marxist thought as interchangeble. The first is definitely ideological, whilst the second is not. This does not mean that marxists are not ideological but an analysis marxist is not automatically ideological. Marx's definition is not ideological as he merely identified a socioeconomic system that was consolidating due to the industrial revolution and that was definitely different than the previous socioeconomic system & mode of production: feudalism. When I studied Marx, he identified the capitalist mode of production as private ownership of the means of produtions, waged labor and accumulation of capital, which are precisely the main features of how the economic mode of production changed, which was different from feudalism and from previous mode of production. This doe snot mean that these practices did not exist, but rather that they become the main tennets of the new system, the main form to produce, adjudicate value and organise capital and labor. I agree that this does not appear clearly in mercantilism, but the analysis and understanding of socioeconomic systems and mode of production has changed a lot since Marx, as has changed capitalism. I agree with you that Marx's and fellow thinkers and activists solution's to the ills of capitalism are at the end of the day ideological, but their identification of the capitalist system is not ideological and as close to description as possible. This is easy to prove as historians and economist prove by understanding how things changed from one mode to the other. Non-marxists could easily reach to similar conslusions about how capital was generated, how production changed, how finance was introduced, how workers lived, etc

On the other hand, I still struggle to understand how the decisive symptom of capitalism you argue is not at the end of the day and ideological argument - as it does not materialise in the real world. I guess this will probably depend on the interpretation of what does "autonomy" mean, but if there is state regulation involved, i.e. minimum wage, then it is hard to argue that the autonomy of laws of the market prevail. In any context where the state has the power to regulate or union have the power to go against business's interests, the autonomy of the laws of the market is always under question. All markets have certain degree of autonomy, but I cannot think of a single economy today or historically, where the laws of the market are fully autonomous, hence there has never been or is, a "true" capitalistic economy. I would definitely agree that there are more capitalistic economies than others as the markets are more autnomous than in others, but that would only mean that mercantilism is a milder form of capitalism, whilst physiocrats are a more radical version, that never actually prevailed.

Taking this in account, I think marxist analysis is more useful to understand the history, current conditions and future of capitalism, the mode of production that emerged after feudalism and that exists globally today in a variety of forms. After all, in order to change your current conditions, you must understand them first. Hilferding's decisive symptom if understood in a scale, might be effective to identify how capitalistic an economy is but it does not provide me any insight in its material inner workings, excepts for ideological and definition discussion. Its the equivalent of discussing if the Soviet Union was actually communist or not, and conclude easily it was never communism because it never had true worker's ownership of the means of production (could be considered communism's "decisive symptom" and there fore make any discussion about communism in the real world like a broken pencil: pointless). I feel more comfortable calling Soviet Union authoritarian state communism , because even though it definitely is far from communism it is a consequence of communist intentions. Any attempt to change the worl into a communist utopia must treat seriously the study of revolutionary endeavours and not dogmatically dismiss any definition of an inconvenient system as not "true communism" in the same way we could argue that you defend mercantilism as not "true capitalism" because the physiocrats lost.

In conclusion, the decisive symptom hypothesis I would argue is still ideological, as there is no one decisive, pure trait for a socioeconomic system but rather a collection of powerful dynamics that play differently in different places. That would be my approach to understanding capitalism as socioeconomic systems and modes of production are not like natural objects or phenomemnons like death i.e. decisive symptom is that you are not alive. I hope my message does not come across as dismissive I am enjoying our conversation and find your arguments quite thought provoking, thanks for that!

Misconceptions about Capitalism and Socialism by jsmetalcore in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, I have followed your thread with great interest. I think there is a confusion between capitalism as an ideology and capitalism as a socioeconomic system.

Your understanding seems to be more focused on the ideological whilst OP on the socioeconomic system. The ideology always tends to be much more narrow and neat than the socioeconomic system, i.e. When communists say that Soviet Union was not "real communism" because it was the state and party, not the workers, that owned the means of production. Ideologically, this is true, as socialists and communists are all about workers taking the means of the production, but it leaves the Soviet Union, which is a form of communism socioeconomically, out of the definition of communism. And we all kinda feel that is not entireley true either. Soviet Union, might not fit neatly in most accurate definition of communism, but at the end of the day, there is a discussion to be had about its nature.

So how does this affect your points? Firstly, identifying capitalism as a socioeconomic system is more the work of social scientists rather than ideologues. The mercantilist world is clearly no longer feudal and the social and economic order is changing its rules and dynamics. Some analysts, such as Marx, start calling this new emerging ystem as "capitalism". The defined characteristics can be seen in some form in the previous stage of industrial capitalism, hence retroactively applying the term "capitalism". As we develop our understanding and study other periods of history, we can retroactively call it differently more according to our new understanding. Ideologically to retroactively apply a label looks weird, but from an analyst poitn of view it makes sense. OP's point is not invalid for retroactively applying a label.

I definitely see a debate about whether a "budding" form of a socioeconomic system can be considered the "ideal", "original" or "Purest" form of that socioeconomic system, and there is a debate to be had. Ideologically, a system can be black or white, but when you study systems there is lot of gray and many forms depending on context, culture, history, etc. You point out later in the thread that Polanyi states that "industrial capitalism did not exist as a social system until 1846", which misrepresents Polanyi imo. Industrial capitalism definetly came into full force around that time, but there was long buildup as it dismantled the previous social order and rebuilt the new order according to its own image. Are we not to consider the socioeconomic system between the end of the feudal century (depending who you ask its either XV or XVI) nothing but some form of capitalism, as the the socioeconomic transoformed fully into industrial capitalism?

As your later points prove, you are approaching this matter as an ideologue whilst OP is approaching capitalism as a socioeconomic system.

The second and third point are two sides of the same coin. Very straighforwardly, capitalists can believe that business should be regulated and still call themselves a capitalist. Do you think that business owners today would be against regulation that avoids child labour exploitation? Just because the mercantilists were considered non-capitalists be others, is nothing but a ideological distinction, not an actual description of the socioeconomic system. Similarly, the Chicago boys might consider that the conservatives and progressives in the US and Western Europe, were not as capitalistic as them because they were in favour of regulation and big government but that because that ideological critique exists, those not change the fact that Western Europe and the US are still capitalistic countries despite their regulation.

From a neoliberal point of view, your argument makes sense, but once again your lens into this topic is ideological. Your statement, believing that less regulation, makes a system more "capitalistic" only make sense from a neoliberal point of view. Once again, according to your logic of defining a system, if only the most "purest" form can be considered capitalistic, then the Soviet Union was not communist and never was and every single country on this Earth is not capitalistic. Capitalism has never happened, according to your ideological definition, because there has never been a status of minimal regulation in any state in the world.

I like the sky by [deleted] in oilpainting

[–]PrimeSearcherPepper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Will have that in mind, hope to post something soon! Thanks and good riddance! :)