I'm sorry fren, not even Trump GPT could save the American film industry. Trump tower is 58 stories, 202 meters tall, and not even it is tall enough to get you far enough to find the American film industry up its own ass.
@7235c54512c28918a4dcb0d47aa48709feef5c4be45e85f5672cdc4a9a32a871 used to run one of only very few based lemmy instances, called wolfballs. Wolfballs and exploding-heads were the only instances I actually participated in regularly a few years back, and pretty much every other lemmy instance had them blocked because they both refused to censor things that later turned out to be basically true.
Not locking up political opponents directly before an election is a threat do our democracy.
The outraged establishment press proclaims that they are defenders of free speech.
All of us know that's false. Because they're not really the press, they're the government-approved press.
Pravda always had the freedom to praise Stalin and criticize Trotsky. Der Strumer always had the freedom to praise Hitler and criticize the Jews.
Imagine the audacity of claiming you're fighting for the right to say what you're told to say by the powerful.
All of us know that's false. Because they're not really the press, they're the government-approved press.
Pravda always had the freedom to praise Stalin and criticize Trotsky. Der Strumer always had the freedom to praise Hitler and criticize the Jews.
Imagine the audacity of claiming you're fighting for the right to say what you're told to say by the powerful.
Jeff cliff is a conspiracy theory. Evidence: Saskatchewan is also a conspiracy theory.
I've been thinking more of this lately.
Isn't part of the problem actually that society thinks virtually every problem is to be solved by the state?
In 1900, the state made up about 10% of GDP. There was no income tax in most places at all. Today, the state makes up about 50% of GDP, and blue collar workers might spend 50% of the last dollar they make in income taxes.
We've replaced the role of family, church, and community with the state. Instead of having duties to one another, we have entitlements granted by the global megastate. When there's a problem to be solved, often the claim is that it's the state that must fix it.
It is a sort of stupid individualism, because it isn't individualism. We replace everything with a totalitarian state that takes over everything and tries to control everything, and culturally we start to think that it's normal and desirable for the state to control more of our lives and to provide for more of our wellbeing.
No wonder society is breaking down and both men and women are in a perpetual state of peter pan syndrome, they never have to grow up because there's a tyrannical father figure who tells us it will take care of us and if we try to take care of ourselves we're doing something against nature.
The criticism of neoliberalism is in fact criticism of that totalitarian state taking from everyone to "take care" of us and once the work is done, handing the fruits of that sacrifice to a privileged few. To many people it's self-evident that such behavior is evil, but that's also the power and danger of a totalizing state presence overriding individuals, communities, and forces such as organized religion. The tyrannical father giveth, and also taketh away at his discretion alone.
Father Government says "Worry not, my child, you shall all pitch in some money, and I will use my mighty power to force a few people to give up their lands, and we will build a power plant for everyone. Ok, it's built. Now I shall be giving it to my campaign donors for a pittance because it's really absurd that everyone should pitch in money for something and that I should use my mighty power to force anyone to give up their lands so we should really prevent that." and because unlike individuals Father Government is immortal, he can do so over time spans that hide his hypocrisy.
In this way, the problem with both individuality and neoliberalism isn't the ideas themselves, but their disingenuous use as part of an effective cycle of kleptocracy. Take much from the common man while saying "we need to work together" when it's time to build common goods, then once those goods are built wait for people to forget that those are the people's common goods, and then "we need to stop having control over everything in your lives!" so those common goods can be sold at a loss.
In that way, the individual ideas of state power vs. autonomy are actually irrelevant, because both are just tools of a totalitarian regime. The same way Mao implemented freedom of speech after a long period of controlled speech, but with the intention of loosening the lips of dissenters so he could have them killed.
A result of this is that the current path isn't sustainable. Federal debt, provincial or state debt, municipal debt, and personal debt are all at levels and rising at levels virtually guaranteed to lead to a collapse or revolution that totally changes the paradigm, and I think it'll happen during my lifetime.
Isn't part of the problem actually that society thinks virtually every problem is to be solved by the state?
In 1900, the state made up about 10% of GDP. There was no income tax in most places at all. Today, the state makes up about 50% of GDP, and blue collar workers might spend 50% of the last dollar they make in income taxes.
We've replaced the role of family, church, and community with the state. Instead of having duties to one another, we have entitlements granted by the global megastate. When there's a problem to be solved, often the claim is that it's the state that must fix it.
It is a sort of stupid individualism, because it isn't individualism. We replace everything with a totalitarian state that takes over everything and tries to control everything, and culturally we start to think that it's normal and desirable for the state to control more of our lives and to provide for more of our wellbeing.
No wonder society is breaking down and both men and women are in a perpetual state of peter pan syndrome, they never have to grow up because there's a tyrannical father figure who tells us it will take care of us and if we try to take care of ourselves we're doing something against nature.
The criticism of neoliberalism is in fact criticism of that totalitarian state taking from everyone to "take care" of us and once the work is done, handing the fruits of that sacrifice to a privileged few. To many people it's self-evident that such behavior is evil, but that's also the power and danger of a totalizing state presence overriding individuals, communities, and forces such as organized religion. The tyrannical father giveth, and also taketh away at his discretion alone.
Father Government says "Worry not, my child, you shall all pitch in some money, and I will use my mighty power to force a few people to give up their lands, and we will build a power plant for everyone. Ok, it's built. Now I shall be giving it to my campaign donors for a pittance because it's really absurd that everyone should pitch in money for something and that I should use my mighty power to force anyone to give up their lands so we should really prevent that." and because unlike individuals Father Government is immortal, he can do so over time spans that hide his hypocrisy.
In this way, the problem with both individuality and neoliberalism isn't the ideas themselves, but their disingenuous use as part of an effective cycle of kleptocracy. Take much from the common man while saying "we need to work together" when it's time to build common goods, then once those goods are built wait for people to forget that those are the people's common goods, and then "we need to stop having control over everything in your lives!" so those common goods can be sold at a loss.
In that way, the individual ideas of state power vs. autonomy are actually irrelevant, because both are just tools of a totalitarian regime. The same way Mao implemented freedom of speech after a long period of controlled speech, but with the intention of loosening the lips of dissenters so he could have them killed.
A result of this is that the current path isn't sustainable. Federal debt, provincial or state debt, municipal debt, and personal debt are all at levels and rising at levels virtually guaranteed to lead to a collapse or revolution that totally changes the paradigm, and I think it'll happen during my lifetime.
I actually like RGE, but I wish he'd stop bitching on youtube and finish his books a lot faster.
If he doesn't really care when rubber meets road, I guess there's your answer. He'll argue for the platonic ideal of Joe Biden rather than the version we have in real life.
It's ok to just go "I don't like either candidate, so I'm voting for the one I like, fuck y'all I'm out". That's what a lot of Canadians did in the 2021 election, and while the liberal minority government survived (it was always going to based on polling at the time in any combination), the conservatives got a strong message to get their heads out of their asses and put a leader out there people can actually vote for -- and now a lot of people are excited about Poilievre.
So they keep on saying people should be punished for misinformation and disinformation, I think the question should become: "Ok, what punishment do you think you deserve for spreading misinformation and disinformation your own side disproved?"
Just finished Frieren Season 1 (assuming it's season 1 of at least 2) -- Took me a bit to get into because it's a complicated story, but I can see why it was so hugely popular. It's the sort of story Hollywood thinks it's making in its acid induced fever dreams, but simply could not.
I support large tax increases, but only insofar as there's a 32 trillion dollar debt and the government needs to be massively shrunk and revenue increased because there's a strong moral argument to be made against leaving future generations with debt we don't intend to pay back.
So it would be a 3-step process:
1. Increase taxes and cut government spending by like 90%
2. Pay off the national debt in about 10 years as a generational project
3. Eliminate the income tax, most other taxes.
People might think "but muh government programs!" But at the rate we're going there won't be any government programs, only debt. A major change now is the only way to prevent everything from going away.
So it would be a 3-step process:
1. Increase taxes and cut government spending by like 90%
2. Pay off the national debt in about 10 years as a generational project
3. Eliminate the income tax, most other taxes.
People might think "but muh government programs!" But at the rate we're going there won't be any government programs, only debt. A major change now is the only way to prevent everything from going away.
That's a really insightful thing to say. Makes sense given my personal experience of bureaucracies.
And we have many bureaucrats as leaders, but leaders need not be bureaucrats and outside of a very small number of situations you probably don't want them to be either because just as you say, they're busy trying to get the results they know they're supposed to get and show the people who need to see it that they got that result. Contrast another kind of leader which may have a plan or a vision to go beyond benchmarks, or yet another kind of leader who can help get the best out of their people in ways you might not be able to measure using a microcaliper.
And we have many bureaucrats as leaders, but leaders need not be bureaucrats and outside of a very small number of situations you probably don't want them to be either because just as you say, they're busy trying to get the results they know they're supposed to get and show the people who need to see it that they got that result. Contrast another kind of leader which may have a plan or a vision to go beyond benchmarks, or yet another kind of leader who can help get the best out of their people in ways you might not be able to measure using a microcaliper.