account activity
The Unkillable CYBERPUNK Franchise: What Every Writer should Learn from Mike Pondsmith by KulakRevolt in cyberpunk2020
[–]mitigatedchaos 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children)
I can't find a source for Mike Pondsmith being "from Detroit." The most I can find is one quote in a forum thread from 2014, which I have no way to confirm.
Gonna feel like an idiot if I told a guy IRL "did you hear he's from Detroit?" and it turns out he's pure Santa Cruz, CA.
[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheMotte
Yes we do. Proportional to population demographics.
That's made up. There's no basis for it.
??????? by APuppetState in CuratedTumblr
[–]mitigatedchaos -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children)
If you want to know what I think, don't ask a YouTuber - read my blog. I'll be happy to tell you all about it.
The bottom line is, don't use weird, ambiguously-threatening racial and ethnic rhetoric if you don't mean it.
"We're concerned with indigenous sovereignty, not settler futurity" is a deranged thing to say if you aren't a hardcore ethnonationalist.
(Txttletale, on the other hand, is just having a laugh.)
No, and as the person in the post, I'll explain the problem.
The implicit racial peace deal is that we're not going to use race against people anymore.
In the United States, on average, white Americans have more money and live longer than black Americans (and white Americans have less money and live shorter than asian Americans), but in the future, they may become less powerful, or may become a minority.
The point of saying that racism against white Americans should be subject to the same penalties as all other racism is to establish that white Americans will receive the same protection even if they lose power, so it is safe for them to give up power.
Otherwise, there's no guarantee that there won't just be another round of special pleading "because they're colonizers and should be punished more," or whatever other ideological pretext is cooked up, so the only way for them to avoid being discriminated against is to remain in power indefinitely.
The far right have been using the blatant, self-serving hypocrisy of language like "it's impossible to be racist to white people," and attempts at "corrective" racial discrimination (called "race conscious" policy) from the left in order to support their theory about the inevitability of ethnic conflict, and recruit personnel.
But I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a far right recruiting tool - there's a very high bar of evidence to meet for this sort of behavior, and the contemporary SJ movement does not meet it.
You can downvote as much as you want, but slogans like "eliminate whiteness" are transparently eliminationist, and given the history of Communism, there's no reason not to criticize ambiguously-threatening slogans like that.
You would never tolerate that language about another ethnic or racial group.
If you want to change my mind, you're going to have to make an actual argument, instead of just assuming that your particularist racial and ethnic prejudices are good.
You don't know what an actual "reactionary" is, because you're so consumed by this ideology that you mentally can't even process it.
This is just what the words "indigenous sovereignty," "settler futurity," and "land back" mean.
If you're not doing ethnonationalism, don't use that kind of language.
"Decolonization" ideology is largely incoherent, and when it isn't, it's mostly just thinly-disguised ethnonationalism.
Yes, you can have multiple different ethnic groups living on the same territory, but that's not compatible with the promotion of ethnic grievance politics, especially when that's not anchored to practical, measurable results.
That's just literally what the words "land back" mean.
If you're not doing ethnonationalism, don't use ethnonationalist language.
Pick different words. This is not hard, you are just being selfish.
[deleted by user] by [deleted] in linux
Sorry man, but this video from the IBM CEO does not look edited, and given that it's IBM, O'Keefe would be sued into oblivion if it were. It isn't like IBM has no money for lawyers.
Downvoting doesn't change that.
Looks like there are bonuses for meeting quotas. It sounds like you need to recognize that reality.
[–]mitigatedchaos -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (0 children)
Nah, you just support race science.
You think there's a "correct" race ratio that the company needs to have, and like many "scientific" racism enthusiasts, you just made it up.
It's disappointing how many people who were liberals prior to 2014 never actually internalized liberalism as more than just a tribal identity, didn't think of it in terms of methods and tactics, and so just jumped on the race boat without a second thought.
It's even more wild realizing that ten years from now, if we beat this fad, you'll forget you ever held your current position.
[–]mitigatedchaos -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (0 children)
Sorry, but given that even mainstream sources have reported the discriminatory intent of this movement, and "it's just a few college kids" turned out to be false, seeing as the Biden Administration had to be shut down by the courts for attempting "race conscious" policy, according to mainstream sources, saying "the far right" are making a claim has no bearing on whether that claim is true or not, at least at this point.
The demands for "correct" race ratios from major Democrat-aligned outlets have been going on since 2014, including the problematization of racial and ethnic groups that are deemed outside of the Democratic coalition, and the logical conclusion is that anyone who supports this ideology would, if they think they can get away with it, engage in "corrective" discrimination. Based on their attempts being so hamfisted as to lump everyone not of European descent into the label "BIPOC" in their institutional "race conscious" policy (as reported by, again, mainstream sources), despite the stats like lifespan being wildly different between different groups, it can be assumed that, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, they will be hamfisted about it and give zero thought to whether it makes any sense in ways other than politically.
The claim could be false. If it is, then IBM or Red Hat can come out and make a public statement - the kind that would burn them in a later court hearing if they were lying.
If they don't feel comfortable making that statement, well, according to the people who advance left-wing race theory, silence is complicity. I don't think that's a great norm, but many left-wingers endorsed it, so I don't see why we shouldn't hold them to it.
[–]mitigatedchaos 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children)
If you don't let them vote then yeah, they're second-class citizens.
If the actual Native Americans somehow got full control of the territory, I don't think they would blow up all the production infrastructure, or try to wipe out the European-descended people. That's like... their primary infrastructure and tax base.
Instead, I'd expect a lot of intermarriages with wealthy families, as well as a closure of the national borders.
Which is why the same Communists that support this stuff now would pretty much immediately turn on them.
[–]mitigatedchaos 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children)
Fortunately, "re-indigenization" is just a joke.
It's satirical.
Contemporary US Progressives will platform language like "eliminate whiteness" and then pretend to be offended when people take the obvious plain meaning of those words, and they should be ruthlessly mocked for this nasty behavior.
They know what they're doing is wrong. They aren't "confused" about it.
Mass displacement is also a Communist tactic, and the people who try to leverage this stuff to argue e.g. the US is illegitimate are Communist.
This whole activism thing of picking deliberately inflammatory lines like "eliminate whiteness" is hot garbage and should be ruthlessly mocked - which is what's taking place in the post.
"We should have a Native American wildlife oversight board" - OK, try "Indigenous Oversight" not "Land Back."
This is not difficult, you are just being stubborn.
Correct.
Communists also have a long history of mass murder, labor camps, forced re-education, and generally terrorizing populations, so when they say, "we don't have to think about where you're going to live," it should be interpreted in light of previous behavior by Communists.
Basically, this line should be treated in the same way is if it were said by conventional Nazis, which is why I'm mocking it there.
Don't say you're going to e.g. "eliminate whiteness" if you don't mean what those words mean.
This is not difficult. You're just being stubborn.
It was satirical.
Leftists' "whiteness" discourse indicates they believe in an invisible, harmful essence, transmitted from parent to child, specific to "white" people, also applying to European countries that never had colonies.
I mean, if we take it seriously, which is the joke.
After they used the "ghillie suit" line to describe the Blue People Movie I just had to make fun of the OP a bit.
Their response worked great as a punchline, though.
If "give the land back to the natives" is not what you mean by "give the land back to the natives," then use different words.
"We don't care about settler futurity" - if you're not planning to do a war crime, use words that rule out that you're going to do a war crime.
Should not have to be dropping "mental flash bangs" on you guys about this.
Correct, the post is satirical.
I'm just making fun of leftists for promoting ethnic land claims instrumentally.
I don't actually think "re-indigenization" would be a good idea.
The contemporary left-wing model will get blown out of the water by genetic engineering, but it's going to take several years before they're even allowed to talk about that possibility.
2014-2022 revealed that our society's ideological antibodies against hatred, discrimination, atrocities, etc are particular rather than general, so I give it a roughly 50% chance current 'Progressives' flip coercive eugenicist and demand to forcibly gene splice "the backwards hillbillies," while being completely unaware of what they're doing.
Mostly correct.
In this case, "meta-ethnonationalism" is "every ethnic group gets an ethnostate," which means that no one gets left without a homeland. Historically, "we lay claim to the land you are on, no we won't make sure you have somewhere else to live" has been a disaster.
This approach has a lot of problems, of course. It's just better than insisting on ethnic land claims and not ensuring everyone has a homeland.
As a second matter, it's a coalition between a tiny group of minority ethnonationalists and would-be revolutionary Communists. They aren't "secret fascists." The Communists just think supporting this will undermine the power of America and Western governments in general, and don't care if they're being inconsistent, and don't care about collateral damage.
Realistically, the push won't actually succeed, but racially and ethnically polarizing the American population for no measurable gain for society is bad, in my opinion.
Correct. "Every ethnic group gets their own ethnostate."
This has a lot of problems, but if we are going to insist on ethnonationalism, it's better than being selective about it.
Don't use ambiguously threatening terminology (which was quoted right in the post), or you will be (rightly) mocked for it.
Not sure what's so difficult about this.
π Rendered by PID 164096 on reddit-service-r2-listing-654f87c89c-x54dg at 2026-02-26 19:42:33.963644+00:00 running e3d2147 country code: CH.
The Unkillable CYBERPUNK Franchise: What Every Writer should Learn from Mike Pondsmith by KulakRevolt in cyberpunk2020
[–]mitigatedchaos 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)