Yes. This. This is exactly what I was talking about in my other comment in this thread, posted before seeing this one. I was calling it scale instead of scope, but this is spot on.

People will pick and choose how things function at one scope and pretend it applies at others. A lot of people, even good well-meaning ones, will do this and fall into this trap, but particularly shitty people will do this as a way to justify their garbage beliefs or justify hurting and demeaning others. Exactly like OP image “you don’t matter 'cause the Earth doesn’t give a shit if you’re here or not as one person. You’re a loser for thinking you matter at all.” FUCK that. You absolutely matter, just not necessarily at the scale/scope of an entire planet orbiting a star, that doesn’t invalidate or make meaningless the just as real scale/scope at which you DO matter. Their application of how things function at scale is always used in whatever way is beneficial to them at the moment or to prove whatever flawed, even sadistic point they’re trying to make. Capitalists, politicians, and of course the mass media under their control do this constantly and it infuriates me to no end.

It really is a matter of scale. Even at the scale of society as a whole, you as an individual don’t “matter” in that your presence (or lack of it) isn’t going to impact its course or functionality. It’s literally why we have to organize in order to even have any hope of achieving our aims. We certainly don’t “matter” on a global scale. However, what the person in the OP image said is entirely true. At the scale of our families and social group, and absolutely at the scale of our individual experience, each of us matters profoundly. At the scale of our individual experience, each of us is a universe unto ourselves.

It is infuriating to me when people refuse to understand that what is true at one scale may not be (and usually isn’t) true at another scale, but that this does not invalidate how true things are at any other given scale. The fact that your impact on the galaxy as a whole is so small as to be effectively insignificant does not mean that your impact on the world you live in, literally your sphere of experience and influence, is insignificant, because the truth is that it is extremely significant at that scale.

Western culture and society is pathological in how it simultaneously acts as though the only reality is what exists at the scale of the individual when it comes to blame and “rEsPoNsIbiLitY” but will utterly diminish and demean the experience of any individual that doesn’t spend their existence on this earth in service of the great evil god of capital. It’s Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society, only individual men and women and families.” Meanwhile every single one of those individual men and women (rather the ones who don’t own or control capital) are treated as nothing more than a cog in a machine, a sliver of utility to be used as such then expended and replaced as such. It’s a philosophy that cherry-picks only the convenient truths of how things work at various different given scales and applies them across the board as if they’re true at all other scales, all of course to serve the interests of the ruling class. It is a source of many of the philosophical contradictions of capitalism and the diseased society that results from it.

https://htwins.net/scale2/

I’ve loved (and since missed) your weekly rankings. Fucking hilarious content. But I’m really happy to know that the reason they’ve been put on hiatus is because you’re gonna be a papa. Not happy about the difficulty part of course, I hope that all gets worked out comrade. Anyway, congratulations! Health and happiness to you, your wife, and your soon to be introduced to this world son.

Well that’s the whole thing though, we have no idea how phenomenal consciousness really fits in a (supposedly) completely physical universe. Our current models are just mathematical descriptions of fields and particles, we have no mathematical model for “love” or the “redness of red”.

But this just isn’t true. We have an understanding of emergence, emergent properties, and emergent processes. Consciousness (including experience and qualia) are emergent properties of all that mathematical physics we understand quite well. Any time the whole “why do feel then and why am I not a philosophical zombie?” question comes up as a response to this, it’s asking a question that doesn’t have an answer. And not in the way that it’s a question that doesn’t have an answer because we haven’t discovered it yet, but a question that doesn’t actually even make sense when you consider the philosophical context.

To use another example… It’s like asking “why is there a universe?” Well, who says there even is a “why” answer to that question? If we do end up resolving the issue of how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don’t perfectly align in extreme conditions, we may well answer the question as to how there is a universe (which actually still is an unsolved problem). But again, asking “why” there is a universe is making a giant and unfounded assumption that there is a “why” or a “reason” that the universe exists when there is absolutely nothing that necessitates there being a “reason” for “why.”

The supposed hard problem of consciousness is no different. Qualia/experience is an emergent property of mathematical rules the same way that the complex and unpredictable undulation of schools of fish is an emergent property of individual fish following very simple rules of how to move relative to the fish next to them, and there being a “why” beyond that is ultimately just nonsensical. Obviously, you can give it further and separate explanations that seem to provide a “why,” like: “fish evolved to do this because those that did were more likely to reproduce, that’s why.” And that’s perfectly valid, but so too is saying “consciousness evolved this way because it was likewise beneficial to the reproduction of the systems that produced it, that’s why.” But that’s all just other angles to addressing the “how.” We have all the “how” necessary to explain consciousness, even if there are gaps here and there, just as there are gaps to every single scientific question there is. I know that may not feel satisfactory to a lot of people, but honestly, I think that’s only because of a combination of the unfortunate reductionist scientific paradigm and the resulting underappreciation for and misunderstanding of emergence as a real (scientific) phenomenon.

Same. Deeply grateful for the pushback on it, though.

Don’t know of any, but there was a similar (if shorter) list going around a few months ago, and it was pretty much debunked point by point here: https://hexbear.net/post/275117

calm down you fuckin’ weirdo. This kind of ridiculous, childish response to having your morals called into question is pretty telling, though. Time for some self crit.

I know it was deployed against Iraqis during the first Gulf War, with Hillary Clinton claiming Saddam was issuing his troops with Viagra specifically so they could [redacted] more.

I don’t doubt r**e was a claim made against Iraqis too, but it’s the absurd claim about soldiers taking babies from incubators that most sticks out in my memory when it comes to Iraq and the first Gulf War. However, Hilary Clinton talking about soldiers being given viagra was definitely about Gaddafi. Keep in mind who was in power when those respective conflicts were happening.

I don’t mean to refute that but they do have somewhat strict laws around nazi apoligia.

Yeah, about that…

https://hexbear.net/post/720421

1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

2. You: “The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh.” Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.

Alright, like I said, maybe I need to learn more about MMT, but as I’ve understood it so far, it’s a way of understanding the nuts and bolts of what’s actually going on with things like inflation, dollar hegemony, etc. It’s not contradicting Marxism at all, just delving into the ridiculous cult-religion of neoliberal economics and attempting to materially explain all those things that are taboo to classic western economists. It’s not a refutation of a Marxist concept of economy and it’s not advocating for social democracy. Do you think Michael Hudson is lying or do you think he’s confused, or is what he talks about not actual MMT?

I think all of that is a gross mischaracterization of what he’s doing. Have you watched his videos or listened to The Deprogram podcast? None of what you said is required to meet people where they are at. As I said upthread, I think it’s best to have a multitude of different approaches. But to act like going immediately from “socialism is when the government does stuff” to “Death to America” is the only correct way of introducing people to concepts and realities that they have been taught to despise and reject since they were old enough to speak, is naive at best. (Btw, they often say “Death to America” on The Deprogram, only it gets bleeped just barely enough that they won’t get instantly banned from every podcast platform.)

I don’t see the utility in convincing a bunch of people in the imperial core that they should be investing more into the long term interests of the western bourgeoisie. That they should be concerned about stabilizing capitalism and reforming it.

I completely agree. I just don’t think that the dude who runs Second Thought is doing that. That channel is among the best there is, if not the best, for getting liberals to start considering things outside of their bullshit worldview. The guy is as at least as radical as most people here, but he’s cognizant of the fact that the typical western libs aren’t capable of going from supporting “the lesser evil” blue team to calling for a protracted people’s war against the US. Pipelines are real, and JT as well as the other Deprogram boys have made an excellent opening for people to jump into it, people who would otherwise just scoff at anything that seems to resemble gommulism.

I admit I don’t know enough about MMT and am willing to learn about where I’m wrong. But from my limited understanding, MMT is narrowly just theory about how economics works without anything prescriptive to say about revolution. You can recognize that MMT explains a lot of the things that western “economists” are utterly blind to (and outright refuse to look at) and still be a dedicated Marxist/ML. Doesn’t even Michael Hudson talk a lot about MMT? Should we write him off as not worth paying attention to because of that?

I don’t know what JT’s views are on MMT, and I am skeptical it even matters. But I do know he’s not a social democrat, he’s a radical Marxist and has openly and frequently said so. If I remember right, even said so here during the last AMA.

people just get trained in Marxism right away. Why can’t we just do that and skip the cringe stage?

A multitude of strategies is a good thing. Different tactics work on different people.

We’ve been trying the succ dem slow pipeline for 200 years in the West and it hasn’t worked.

Tell that to all the people here who started their journey to radicalization because of . Also, JT doesn’t advocate for succdemery, he explicitly states it’s not socialism and actual socialism is what’s needed. The fact remains, one of the best strategies for getting people in the core to even begin questioning the water they’ve been swimming in their entire lives is to meet them where they’re at, then go from there.

I don’t know how to go about it - currently it sounds a bit like a left wing Wikipedia. In my head, I can see it more like a giant 4D map, or a big messy case file sprawling out over a desk.

Well to butt in again, I don’t know enough about it, but people here have said good things about Obsidian. This is the place I know of that shows how it might be used to build an interconnected knowledge base. I think it would be better for the kind of thing you’re describing than a wiki would. There’s no “4D map” but it does have a rotating 3D map of how different sections connect. Just a thought.

I’m not entirely sure what this means specifically, but it does sound cool.

As for leftist internet personalities, JT of Second Thought (youtube channel) and The Deprogram (podcast) fame will be doing an AMA on hexbear on the 28th, and I hope lemmygradians come participate. Lemmygrad should get Hakim to do an AMA after that, then we can have some sort of posting battle for who gets Yugopnik as a follow up.

Country of the week.

After some discussion in the last megathread about building knowledge of geopolitics, some of us thought it might be an interesting idea to have a Country of the Week - essentially, I/we choose a country and then people can come in here and chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants, related to that country. More detail in this comment.

I am actually tempted to put some feelers out for the starting of a community researching project. I think we have a varied knowledge base and if we could put our collective minds to use in mapping the history of a country/region/issue in a similar way to the Ukraine stuff.

I think this is an excellent idea and believe that @SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net has said something very similar. It was the major impetus behind the COTW thing that was started a few weeks back. It might be worth hitting him up to discuss further.

“Elevatorgate” and especially Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” letter made me step away from atheism as any organized movement.

the idea of standing with that bunch of euphoric reactionaries was unbearable by that point.

Exactly the same for me. Well, I would say I stuck with the movement a little longer, but only as part of the sliver that had no choice but to shift the focus of criticism towards our former atheist “allies,” the reactionaries and sex pests, which in turn made us the evil enemy SJWs, the fanatic feminists, the beta cucks, and the cringe white knights. While it was shocking how elevatorgate suddenly revealed this giant gaping rift in the community, and how full the entire atheist movement had been with the most disgusting of reactionaries, it was one of those things where in hindsight, all the misogyny, racism, white supremacy, etc. had been visible just beneath the surface all along, but had been easy to overlook as just a nasty patina sticking to the broader movement. Nah, turns out it was actually deeply intertwined with it.

I still think Rebecca Watson is cool (for anyone who doesn’t know but is interested, “elevatorgate” centered on her because she dared to say “guys, don’t do that” when referencing being hit on by a stranger very creepily when alone in an elevator at a convention, and was subsequently hounded, harassed, ridiculed, and derided even by the famous Dickie Dawkins). She still to this day puts out some banger videos sometimes. I will always have a soft spot for PZ Myers and his Pharyngula blog that I spent so much time on, finding community there because even then it was clear how ugly and toxic so much of reddit was. Pharyngula was like the last bastion where social justice was recognized as good and necessary, rather than demonized as something that needed to be snuffed out.

I’m also still an atheist. But that movement is dead, just as it fucking should be. Amusingly, but also sickeningly, the larger fascist-adjacent majority of it kind of morphed over time into things like Jordan Peterson’s cult, at least the parts that didn’t just fizzle out into the background noise islamaphobia and generic chuddery.

I should confess too, reading Christopher Hitchens (one of the “four horsemen”) was definitely a big stepping stone on the path towards my own radicalization. Though I wince to say it now, I did admire him back then and he wrote about being, or having been a Trotskyist, which was one of those little epiphanies that showed there were actually political positions to the left of “as left as it gets” liberal. Wanting to find out more about that is eventually what lead me to Lenin.

To be clear, I’m not saying that’s what radicalized me, though it was a small part of it. I’m mostly just commenting to respond to the New Atheist part of the discussion.