She's gonna come out as a commie if she hasn't isn't she? I watched her SA in physics video a long time ago, her Feinmann one, and now seeing this one. Really good stuff, and she's perfect at describing physics and adjacent stuff in a way which really shows the roots of problems.
This is the correct position. On the longer and larger scale, IP is the much more powerful regressive aspect. OpenAI is damaging to the environment, but some other company is gonna find some shitty way to do the damaging stuff they're doing regardless of the method of profiting off it. The positive effects of damaging copyright are way larger than the slight shift which OpenAIs failure would have
Thanks seems exactly what I meant. Avoided looking at anything else posted by the chuds o7
What have you read that made you come to these conclusions? It sounds like you read the encyclopedia entries for these ideas and that's your basis. Also pulling lots of 'debate-bro' tactics, which I don't appreciate and is influencing the way I'm trying this interaction
Defining materialism as 'nothing immaterial exists or has any impact on us as material beings' is fine and correct. But the way you discuss them takes that definition and applies it In a straw-man. 'nothing immaterial' doesn't mean that consciousness is simple electric and chemicals. That's my point. Complexity and emergence are still material and part of a materialist philosophy once the dislectic is accepted as the relation between and within material
I'm not replying to the rest. Not worth our time
Radio war nerd referenced some video of an HTS guy getting thrown to the ground once he named the US as an enemy during a speech. I couldn't find that. Anyone know the video?
Sorry this is getting very long and I don't have the time at the moment, but I think a major point of disagreement is misunderstanding. I'm not claiming profits increased with women's emancipation on a "day before"vs. "day after" basis, like comparing profits doesn't probably show an increase. But it is a huge increase relative to the other option given when women (and supporters) would've taken even more drastic action. (no increase in absolute terms is necessary for a relative higher profit compared to a theoretical future) Compared to revolution, the choice that the bourgeoisie made as more profitable. And the form of the concession lent itself easily to continued profits in the future (when compared to the option of women's emancipation and not proletarianizing the work that they were doing).
Edit much later after PM's: my disagreement is with the definitions given by Stanford Encyclopedia, because they lack dialectics. I also disageee that disagreements about idealism and materialism are mostly linguistic (I strongly disagree with that).
My position, based on Engels. You gotta add Dialectics: material things can combine in such ways that are not singularly traceable to the material basic components, but instead rely on emergent components when they interact. Consciousness as we understand it IS material but is not understood through vulgar materialism which says that it can be broken down into electric signals/chemicals to be understood entirely. This is the way. Dialectics of Nature.
Nothing "idealist" exists, but things not understood in their complete totality do, and emergence is real. But emergence is material, not Magic. Trying to make a definition of "materialism" which says human consciousness is simple cells, chemicals, and electric is a straw man of good materialist analyses. These definitions are all based in a non-dialectical framework and that's why they run into the same issues that Plekhanov ran into.
Are you insinuating that Wittgenstein's position of linguistic disagreements is applicable to differences of idealism and materialism?
Can you explain it? Is it lyrics or something?
Of course women's rights are concession due to pressures from women and workers. But they are given in a way to maximize profitabilty and minimize impact on the social structure. So it was never about giving women freedoms but giving the minimum possible to prevent negative consequences to bourgeois interests.
Your last paragraph is something I cannot agree to. "Profit interest" is in destroying all women? In what world? In an entirely immediate sense, maybe, but in no realistic sense. Bourgeois interests are also in stability for their class. That doesn't occur without women. And winning wars like WW2 is also beneficial to stability.
It's unfortunate, but women didn't just 'earn' their freedoms successfully in the West. They got concessions because the Bourgeoisie found it possible to give concessions to prevent revolution or social unrest by doing minimalist changes
I must say I simplified a process of multiple steps into one to clarify a particular dialectical movement. This happened in several stages over several generations. Pushing women to work as proles and pushing other women to do social reproduction for the production women, this is still an ongoing process.
So you're correct, I simplified without making that clear. The women calculators and weavers were earlier stages of this process and the results of those stages.
Women also historically did productive work, of course, in all stages. It's the expansion/shifting within capitalism in the world war eras and post-ww2 eras that I'm specifying
Khamenei is wrong about women in general, as a fairly obvious religious mysogynist, but entirely correct that the west gave in to women's rights activists only around the time that their labor was needed due to war and "women's work" was also partially proletarianized instead of just entirely unpaid social reproduction. The one presented the solution tot the other for the ruling class.
It can be confusing, no shame in asking.
Is what you describe not just a cause of decreasing velocity? Why does that mean it's no longer relevant to the discussion of the tendency to the rate of profit to fall?
I think that velocity is mostly irrelevant or at least has no causal relationship with the TRPTF. Because it's just the organic composition of capital which changes, because less money switches hands through labour purchase and more for fixed capital. Hoarding is more likely, but that's secondary.
But there could be other interactions I'm not thinking of, so I'd be curious what made you want to ask first?
Can you elaborate how these two need further explanation together? I'm familiar enough with both concepts, but not sure what your question is
Thanks! That was a very nice description and a cool take on pronouns. Hope you enjoy your stay here at Hexbear!
Glad that got handled for you! Our admins are really good when it comes to this, the best.
If you don't mind, I've never encountered these pronouns and would want to hear your explanation for how to use them to address you!
Id also enjoy reading about the why/how for your pronouns, but I won't pry for that info. If you are the type to happily share such info, though, feel free!
DM me a link. I've seen none of this. Will update this comment and my other once I see it.
So there definitely was at least a thread stating that people should allow syrians to be happy about the end of a poorly-run and torture-happy government. I will nuance with the fact that this seems more in the grouping of "well Assad legitimately deserved this shit, and so people should be allowed to be happy about that part (but the other consequences are going to overrule that)." With the last part being implicit. Not a position I agree with, because I want to believe people can understand such consequences and see the whole picture, but I get it from someone close to the situation.
What? I read the news mega well and haven't seen it. Can you link a comment? I don't immediately disbelieve you, but have seen nothing personally of the sort. Things like "well I hope the people who love him are right about him, but it's doubtful" has been more the vibe.
If you watch anything, watch Dunkey's gaming difficulty videos. I don't watch a lot of youtube, but those are genuinely great videos. I think back on some lines often, actually, when talking to friends about games and my favorites from the 90's/2000's.
But people who like him are cringe often, yeah.
Why do you hope it falls into another civil war? I hope it does somehow magically end up like the left-coms are imagining, and the coalition stays, becomes anti-Israeli, and defends Golan Heights.
But I'm fairly sure that won't happen. The coming civil war will be devastating to the people and the region
Just a lot of "you're a billionaire because you exploit workers, not because you're smart"
The word exploit used constantly next to "workers", just makes me think: she's read some theory theory that she takes seriously.