The picture isn’t about evil hooligans, it just looks like teenage boys to me. The black mark drawn over their faces is not that they are fundamentally evil because of their gender, the background shows the influencers who are putting mysoginistic ideas, signified by a black mark, onto these boys. This is clear going by the text of the article. It isn’t even in the subtext of the picture. Youre reading that into it

Where are you even getting this? This is a deranged reading of this article.

Cite one part of this that is framing one gender as being essentially evil. It’s very clear that it is recognizing a troubling trend vs condemning a gender. You’re clearly reacting to something that isn’t in this article.

You can read Marx’s chapters on technology in Capital volume 1, and what he describes from his own time about how tech is developed and for whose benefit and specifically how it has to exploit workers in order to be useful to capital; it matches so closely with the development of AI that we are seeing.

Remember when they built a $50 billion server farm in my back yard to run a GUI IDE?

I think your attitude toward AI in the abstract is pretty good, it matches my experience in tech, but also theres something much larger going on here

Do you have projects that you personally admire? I assume you are choosing to donate to open source because you have an affinity for it. Personally I donate to political causes, particularly ones where I participate in/contribute to. Projects where I can get in the discord and talk to people, learn and really experience the practical side. I’m in a few Foss discords as well, so maybe joining some communities and getting to know people working with it, maybe learn to work with it yourself, will help and inform your decision.

It is way too common to confuse the abstractions we use to understand reality with reality itself. Like the scientists who work with this stuff are really consistent in keeping the two separated, but the moment a theory gets in the hands of a journalist or god forbid a politician, it starts wreaking havok

It isnt moral bankruptcy, it is systematic. The capitalist who produces profit stays in business, the capitalist who does not goes bankrupt. It isnt morals of individuals, the dehumanization of the poor by the rich is a symptom of a system that prioritizes profits over humanity.

Capitalism is, among other things, a system of forced competition.

I’m glad to hear you are on the right side of it. But in order to be effective we have to name the actual problems. I am above all a humanist, and certainly the capitalist class contains some vile and hateful individuals. That is more clear now than ever before. But we are not made rich or poor by our morality; our morality comes from the conditions that dictate whether we are rich or poor.

Even individualism is structural.

The distribution of productivity gains and development of new technology are intrinsically and historically connected. New technology is only developed in order to exploit workers, either to make individual something which was previously socialized, or to directly replace workers with industrial advances; and in many cases both.

Marx said it best: Machines were the weapon employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor.

This was true for the Luddites and it is true today.

I had a suspicion you weren’t advocating for capitalism. But just in case someone comes along and thinks “yeah make capitalism more efficient,” I like to underline the fact that “efficiency” has a different meaning if someone is a worker than if someone is a capitalist.

Taylorist production has been tried, yielded objectively better results than the old production methods, and they were still scrapped. Workers wouldn’t adapt to more efficient production methods without more pay, and it necessitates worker-managers to train other workers. Since the owners of the factory refuse to pay workers more, so it’s DOA.

Capitalism isn’t rational, and can not become rational. “Increasing efficiency” means firing workers, not improving production. I know you maybe aren’t arguing for more efficient capitalism, just saying it has been tried. Taylorism is the Esperanto of production. “Increasing efficiency,” to the capitalists, means firing people, not making the system more rational.

Here’s a nyt article I read back during his first term. I’m surprised this doesn’t get shared more.

Its long, but what it uncovers isnt someone who is bad at business, not really, its something else. Something more intentional.

If my memory serves, the casino was open for like 20 years. And it basically never made money. It was more like it was bled out, slowly. Trump kept using his fame and wealth to get more capital to keep it afloat, which he would then pocket. By the time it went bankrupt his name was on it but his personal money that he put in at the beginning, he’d already gotten that out of it, plus made millions and millions. The casino was paying him like 200k (cant remember if per month or per year) just to have his name up there.

Like I met a guy who was the CFO for Limited brands, Les Wexners old company. He was very rich, had a big house and all these druggy middle aged failsons, a whole fail family tbh, but looking into him he was like really good with money and number. He was a Mormon guy so he was playing straight. Still a filthy capitalist, but someone who was educated and “good at” business.

Trump is definitely not that. He’s more like somebody who is really good at legal crime. Its not about how good of a business man he is or isnt. He’s like a very wealthy, very powerful criminal. So the point was never to make money with the casino. It was about how to suck as much value as possible, technically legally, out of it for as long as possible, at which point you just cut it off having bled every penny out of it. Its not so much the casino went bankrupt, it’s more like it got butchered.

And that’s what he’s doing to the country right now. Him and everybody else who has been plotting for decades to hollow out the USA of anything of value, leaving nothing but a pitiful, nationalistic, fascist husk. That has been the plan all along and Trump is the mascot who is carrying it out, and getting mega wealthy doing it.

This study is weird.

First the definitions of liberal and socialism are suspect. “Equivalence of outcome”? What socialist believes that everyone should be the exact same? Thats the opposite of socialism that’s what dumb conservatives say it is, but thats not what it is.

Liberalism is the belief in acceptance and human rights come from private property. I know thats not how a lot of liberals consider themselves, more and more liberals are witnessing the eradication of human rights so that the capitalist class can own everything, and want to keep the human rights without the oppression and hate that comes with capitalist exploitation. But essentially the ideal liberal society is like a super-social democracy, and looking at a lot of European social democracies, the citizens dont really know or care how they get it.

Centrism is considered the most nuanced view. This is ridiculous. Being apolitical is not nuance, it is ignorance. I get a lot of people dont want to engage with politics all the time, I get it. I engage with politics all the time and I dont really want to either. Another personal preference would be that I dont want to use calendars. But not using calendars doesn’t give me a more nuanced concept of time management. I have to engage with it if I wanna get things done. If anything, people who have a deep practical knowledge of politics have a more nuanced views, even conservatives. As a leftist I have read history books written by some conservatives, and while I usually disagree with their conclusions, they can provide great and unique insights into what actually happened, from which I can make my own conclusions. On the other end, I find leftists who are politically active are extremely concerned with facts and nuance, and actively resist steering a narrative toward this or that predetermined conclusion.

Deeper understanding of actual conditions leads to better ability to affect change. Spinning every event or phenomena into polemical basis to support my own position may be a sign of intelligence itself since rhetoric is like its own skill, even talent. But regardless, this is sectarianism and sectarianism is not a viable political strategy for engaging with the masses. Most leftists will argue with you of you call them sectarian, even if they plainly are. So almost no one is going to cop to being radical for the sake of being radical, most radicals consider them selves kind of left-moderates with people to their right and left. Ironically, the people who do consider themselves radical are usually closer to a moderate position, either favoring radical-liberal blanquism and adventurism, or state bureaucracy over radical liberation.

Also IQ is racist, better ask somebody

No wonder scientists can’t crack the connection between intelligence and politics, if this is the standard research. In my experience, politics has more to do with emotion, empathy, and principles than intelligence. Intelligent people can be totally out for themselves, or committed to helping others, and usually some kind of blend since structural systems in society are concrete; and influence, resist or enable individual effort.