Gorilladrums
@Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
- Comment on Everyone is so close to grasping your unique vision! 4 days ago:
Once you go further left than social democracy, the left becomes a complete joke, especially the “MUH REVOLOOSHUN” types.
There will never come a time when purity testing is not an integral part of the far left because that’s just how authoritarianism works. They’ll always be rigid and inflexible ideologically, and they’ll always look to gatekeep and exclude. Because they’re incapable of being pragmatic, adaptable, or unifying, they’ll never organize enough to do anything. In the few times in history where that did happen, the movements always ended up imploding from within.
As far as I’m concerned, the modern far left will always be an online phenomenon that will only make little splashes here and there. Therefore, anybody who is concerned about their crappy ideologies has nothing to worry about.
- Comment on LG Update Installs Unremovable Microsoft Copilot on Smart TVs, Ignites Backlash 1 week ago:
I need someone to explain to me what situation could possibly arise that would require me to use Copilot on my fucking TV?
- Comment on Why do you hate AI? 1 week ago:
Go right ahead
- Comment on Why do you hate AI? 1 week ago:
I don’t hate AI, LLMs are incredibly powerful tools that have an incredibly wide range of uses. The technology itself is something that’s very exciting and promising.
What I do hate is how they’re being used by large corporations. A small handful of big tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, OpenAI, etc) decided to take this technology and pursue it in the greediest ways possible:
- They took open source code, built on top of it, and closed it off so they could sell it
- They scrapped all the data on the internet without consent and used it to train their models
- They made their models generate stuff based on copyrighted works without permission or giving credit. thus basically stealing the content
- But that wasn’t enough for them so they decided to train their models on every interaction you have with their LLM services, so all your private conversations are stored and recycled even if they’re private
- They use the data from the conversations that you’ve had with the chatbots to build customer profiles about you that they sell to advertisers so they could send you hoards of personalized ads
- They started integrating their LLMs into their other products as much as they could so they could artificially increase their stock prices
- They aggressively campaign for other companies to buy and integrate their models so both parties could artificially increase their stock prices
- In order to meet their artificially induced demand, they sucking the life out of the electricity grid, which is screwing over everybody else
- They’re also taking over the hardware industry and killing off consumer electronics since its more profitable for manufacturers to sell AI companies than to consumers
- They’re openly bribing, lobbying, and campaigning governments to give them grants, tax breaks, and keep regulations at a minimum so they could do whatever they want and have society pay for the privilege
- They’re using these LLMs to cut as many jobs as possible so they could penny pinch just a little more, hence the massive waves of recent layoffs recently. This is being done even if the LLM replacement is far worse in performance than humans.
- All of this is being done with zero regard to the environmental damage caused by them with their monstrous data centers and electricity consumption
- All of this is being done with zero regard to the harmful impacts caused to people and society. These LLMs frequently lie and spread misinformation, they feed into delusions and bad habits of mentally unwell people, and they’re causing great damage to schools since students could use these models to easily cheat and nothing can be done about it
When put all of this together, then it’s easy to understand why people hate AI. This is what people oppose, and rightfully so. These corporations created a massive bubble and put our economy at risk of a major recession, they’re destabilizing our infrastructure, destroying our environment, they’re corrupting our government, they’re forcing tens of thousands of people into dire financial situations by laying them off, they’re eroding our privacy and rights, and they’re harming our mental health… and for what? I’ll tell you, all of this is done so a few greedy billionaires could squeeze a few more dollars so they could buy their 5th yacht, 9th private jet, or 7th McMansion. Fuck them all.
- Comment on Game designed to save dying Aboriginal language wins global awards 3 weeks ago:
Languages are like tools, if people don’t see utility in them, they won’t use them. The only people who would go out of their way to learn and use a specific tool are experts and enthusiasts, and there aren’t enough of those around to keep a language alive. If much bigger languages like Yiddish, Romani, Bavarian, Assyrian, etc are classified as critically endangered languages and struggling to survive then these smaller languages simply have no future. I think efforts like are good at preserving the language, and there’s definitely value in that, but I ultimately think that this a doomed language.
- Comment on Tell us the truth Donny. 5 weeks ago:
Trump has been in politics for a decade now, and he already served a term as president. Not only that, but he has done just about every reprehensible thing you could possibly think of. I think we’ve officially reached a point where Trump’s base is truly a cult in the most literal sense.
Anybody who is capable of independent thought, whether they are leftist, progressive, liberal, centrist, conservative, far right, or even MAGA has already jumped off the bandwagon at some point or another in the past decade. The only people left in his base are the most purified loyalists and the slimiest opportunists. These two groups will never, ever turn on Trump no matter what happens. Even if Jesus himself came down from heaven and told them Trump was a bad guy, they will turn against Jesus and stand by Trump.
The point is that the idea that this scandal is doing anything at all to push his hardcore supporters away from him in November, 2025 is pure fiction. Trump could give his under aged trans lover a satanic themed abortion on live television, and his loyalist cult will not care whatsoever.
- Comment on A place for conservatives 5 weeks ago:
It feels like TMZ made a Twitter clone.
This is the most accurate description of Threads I’ve ever seen
- Comment on A place for conservatives 5 weeks ago:
It’s bad even for social media standards.
- Comment on A place for conservatives 5 weeks ago:
Why would anybody use Threads? I made an account on there just to see what it’s about and it was so shitty that I ended up deleting a couple of hours later. Most of the content is just ragebait, political misinformation, and businesses/influencers trying to shill something. For every 10 posts you might get 1 or 2 that doesn’t fall in these categories. It’s just bad, and not in a good way.
- Comment on The Big Short Guy Just Bet $1 Billion That the AI Bubble Pops 1 month ago:
Again, what are you even talking about? Literally everything you listed China is doing much worse in, not to mention other major issues like a demographic crises on top of everything else.
- Comment on The Big Short Guy Just Bet $1 Billion That the AI Bubble Pops 1 month ago:
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the technology itself. It really is exciting stuff that has a lot of useful applications. The issue has always been that the growth and development is driven by greed rather than realizing potential. With no government accountability or regulation and with the populace ignorant and apathetic, a bubble was bound to be the outcome
- Comment on The Big Short Guy Just Bet $1 Billion That the AI Bubble Pops 1 month ago:
I don’t see a future with big AI modrls like Meta AI, chatGPT, or Copilot going away those and others like them are used by people. But things like Meta’s new all AI app or things of that nature as well as the tens of thousands of the empty startup AI companies are what’s going to disappear. They’re products that nobody wants or uses, and they’re only there to inflate stock valuations. That’s where the bubble lies. The tech is here to stay, but only in cases where it’s actually used.
- Comment on The Big Short Guy Just Bet $1 Billion That the AI Bubble Pops 1 month ago:
Although I do think that there’s a big AI bubble, the reality is that Pandora’s box has already been opened, and it’s not closing back up. The technology is here to stay and it will continue to be integrated into everyday life bubble or no bubble.
- Comment on The Big Short Guy Just Bet $1 Billion That the AI Bubble Pops 1 month ago:
Something based on imaginary stocks, grift, de-industrialization, ghost jobs and falsified labor statistics, likely mixed with a debased dollar, just doesn’t bode well.
This is literally describes China, what are you even talking about?
- Comment on She is making a GREAT point 1 month ago:
It’s not rocket science, it’s much easier to prevent one egg from being fertilized than to stop a hoard sperm from fertilizing…
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
These concepts are all interlinked. The idea of social mobility is that people change their socioeconomic status over time. This includes their work and housing. It’s baffling how you’re actually dense enough to quote an example from the study that I linked that echoes exactly the point that I’ve been barking at all this time, as some sort of win for you. My god, you’re slow.
This example is there to clearly demonstrate how rent control worsens the housing crises by creating conditions that fuck over people in need. In this very example, the elderly lady’s socioeconomic status has changed. She’s no longer raising a family and she’s most likely retired. She’s all alone in a big unit that she doesn’t need, she’s literally only there because she wants to cling on to the controlled rent. But by doing so, she’s clogging up the unit from households that are still large and need that extra space. This is bad for her because downgrading to a smaller unit would better suit her needs but she feels the need to stay in the larger unit even though it’s unnecessary, and it’s also bad because there’s a large household out there that either doesn’t have a house at all or lives in a house that doesn’t suit their needs.
This has nothing to do with evictions, and everything to do with how rent control creates conditions that stifle housing opportunities for everybody. Mobility is an integral part of any functional economy because people and society aren’t static, they’re dynamic. Situations and circumstances constantly change, and there needs to be a system that’s able to provide people with options that allows them to adapt to their current needs.
If your level of education is quoting something that you clearly didn’t understand with such confidence then you’re a lost cause. As evidenced by you ignoring everything else that I stated in my previous comment, again, it’s clear at this point that you’re ignorant, an idiot, or a bad faith actor… if not all of the above. Since you have no interest in being honest or accurate, there’s no point in me continuing wasting time on you any further. You will forever continue to lie, deny, and cry. Therefore, this will be my last reply to you.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
Good thing nobody is talking about Reganomics
- Comment on More than 1,200 games journalists have left the media in the last two years | VGC 1 month ago:
There was a brief period of time on the internet between the late 2000s and early 2010s where gaming journalism was genuinely decent because it was driven by passionate people who were trying to appeal to the gaming communities they were apart of. They were there to provide the community with good info and honest opinions first, and any money made was just a bonus. At some point, these priorities flipped, and internet journalism became job and then it became an industry that’s soulless, faceless, and driven by endless greed.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
just refused to address those points!
You’re just projecting because you’re full of shit. I did respond to your points, all of them, and in great detail too. But you chose to ignore them entirely because you’re simply incapable of responding to ANY of the points that I made. You still haven’t responded to how I dismantled your blatant misinformation of about the Soviet housing model or why public housing on a societal scale hasn’t worked. You ignore my responses, and then you have gall to pretend that I didn’t respond to your original claims? Get outta here with that bullshit.
If you had even a shred of honesty, which I’m 100% sure you don’t, you would go back to my previous comments, and reply to the points that I made properly. Instead of throwing out some brain dead insult like “bootlicker” or giving some lazy excuse like “do your own research”, how about stop trying to deflect and distract and actually prove me wrong? It should be easy, right? Then go ahead and do it. But you won’t, and I’m fully confident in that.
I explicitly said rent control is a band-aid and I gave solutions to literally every “problem” you brought up in the study such as higher rent for uncontrolled units (control them all)
lower mobility (that’s a good thing meaning people get evicted less),
I think you might actually be ignorant enough to not know what this means. Social mobility doesn’t eviction, it means people being able to change their socioeconomic status over time. If there was no social mobility then people in poverty will literally never be able to get out of it. How can you possibly talk about a concept you don’t even understand?
Half of your original claim was that it does nothing to solve rent prices, and your own source claims that you’re wrong on that, and you have the ballz to be here questioning my sourcing abilities lmao
You provided a single paper, that doesn’t claim what you said it did (because you clearly didn’t read it), gave me a source dumb that you got from chatGPT when you explicitly refused to provide sources when I debunked your narrative about the Soviet housing model, and you’re still actively avoiding telling me what claims you want sourced after I told that you that I’m more than happy to provide sources. It sounds like you’re afraid that you’ll look small if I started sourcing my claims because you know you have nothing.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
Probably fertilizer tbh, but capitalism always likes to steal the glory from technological progress
What are you even on about? Modern synthetic fertilizer, which is what’s responsible for the dramatic increase in food production, is quite literally a product of capitalist innovation in 19th and 20th century Western Europe and North America. Just about every single major development was researched, developed, replicated, applied, and mass produced in capitalist societies.
claims to be freedom although nearly everyone is poor and forced to work for slave wages.
This is nonsensical ideological drivel. Reality is actually quite different. Capitalism has brought up the global standards of living to such a degree that extreme poverty is now almost eliminated. We went from having around 90% of the global population living in extreme poverty just 200 years ago to around 10% now. That is a massive shift. What caused it? Capitalism. Want examples? Look at what happened in China after they adopted capitalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s or Western Europe after WWII or Japan after WWII or South Korea after the Korean war or Singapore and Hong Kong post British control. Just about every country that has adopted capitalism has seen their standard of living improve.
Then capitalists point to the most authoritarian countries in history and say, see socialism sucks.
Can you point to any Marxist state that did not end up being authoritarian? Because history seems to show there’s a pretty strong correlation between the two.
Funny how capitalists always ignore the good socialist societies that are highly regulated free markets with strong workers and consumer protection laws and fairly high taxes and strong welfare states
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about because socialist societies, by definition, do NOT have free markets whatsoever, they don’t have taxes, they don’t consumer protection laws, and they don’t welfare programs. These are exclusively capitalist concepts. Socialism is, again, by definition, a centrally planned economy where the “public” (read: government) own all the means of production. Since they control all the resources, revenue, and production, they don’t need to tax, provide protection laws, have free markets, or provide welfare programs… they just directly allocate the resources. If you think Norway or Denmark are socialist then you’re not qualified enough for this discussion, because these are capitalist societies through and through.
they ignore all the terrible capitalist societies all over the world.
Nobody is ignoring bad societies, but what we’re looking at here is trends among economic systems, and the data is crystal clear that capitalist societies fair far better than their socialist counterparts. This implies that one system is better than the other, and it is based on the results.
It’s a miracle that a capitalist economy isn’t a miserable shit hole
but that requires self awareness and actually researching and educating yourself, not listening to some dick in a 15,000 dollar suit, from a corporate funded think tank thats only job is to push capitalist propaganda, or distract people from realizing socialism is better.
This is just arrogance that comes from ignorance, which is the worst kind of all. You think way too highly of yourself. Do you honestly think you know better than the tens of thousands of economists all over the world who specialize in this field? Do you think you’re bullshit research of lazily scrolling through propaganda on Lemmy or Youtube is more valid than the field of economics vast amounts wisdom, research, and knowledge that been accumulating for decades, if not centuries? Get real. Just because you listen to some sleazebag propagandist and shills who push the shitty ideology of socialism, doesn’t mean you can project that on to everybody else who doesn’t buy into the same nonsense you bought into.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
Capitalism is not a static system. It’s incredible power comes from the competition between different forces vying to get an advantage over the others. Workers, the government, businesses, investors are all competing to get what’s best for them. Regulations have to be fought for and protected by every generation. So things like education and participating in civic responsibilities are crucial. It’s similar to democracy, keeping capitalism well regulated is like keeping a democratic society free, it’s something that has to always be actively sought after. That’s how it’s meant to work.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
Colonialism is not a product of capitalism or vice versa. If anything, capitalist principles are what led to the end of colonialism after WWII. Free trade and global integration is what ended the era of colonialism. This of course not mentioning that Marxist countries like the Soviet Union had colonies.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
Which is a product of capitalist innovation
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
The only thing your source says is “Some are seasonal homes, some are undergoing renovations, and others are simply being held as investments.” it does not provide a number or a link.
This was your exact statement. You said the article didn’t provide a link to specific numbers or the original study, so I went backed and looked, and it was linked right at the beginning. I went and looked at the study and found out that they didn’t have specific info for renovations, the article just listed it as just one example for vacancies. So out of courtesy, I went out of my way to provide you a source for the info you specifically asked for.
But you’re not worth any courtesy or effort. Like what the fuck is your problem? This was meant to be a lighthearted discussion, why are you acting like you got log jammed up your ass? Like holy shit do you sound like an absolutely insufferable douche. But you know what, you’re absolutely right, this conversation is not worth continuing. You’re not worth my time, so piss off asshole.
- Comment on More than 1,200 games journalists have left the media in the last two years | VGC 1 month ago:
Back in like 2012, a gaming journalist would write an honest review of a game they tried or they would give an update on the industry or they would share interesting tips and info about certain games and franchises. The sites would clean, maybe a couple of ads here and there, but the overall atmosphere is driven by genuine passion.
Today, you don’t get any of that. Instead you get an advertisement masquerading as an article. The reviews aren’t authentic, the updates are basically a part of marketing campaigns, and the info they give is to push readers to buy something. The sites are all completely cluttered with ads, a lot of the articles are just AI slop, and the industry is driven by greed. Why would anybody go there anymore? Might as well just go see a youtube review or get the game and try it out yourself.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
I literally provided a source lmfao
You specifically said that it was empirically proven that labor is the only source of value in the economy, and the paper you provided wasn’t a study with empirically evidence, but a response paper that didn’t make this claim to begin with.
you can go through the references of the paper I sent such as the Zacchariah multi-country study.
I’m not going to do that. That’s not how providing sources work. If you want to provide a source, then you cite specific sources that support specific claims, and have to quote or point out specific parts of those sources that are relevant to the conversation. What you’re doing here is just lazy, it’s the equivalent of some MAGA boomer going “do your own research”.
If neoliberal economists had any sort of empirical proof showing otherwise, they’d be more than happy to share it, but there are no studies in the academia providing this. Please search them for me if you will.
No, they wouldn’t. Academia doesn’t work like Lemmy. There’s no team “Marxists” vs team “neoliberals” like you seem to think. Academics are not going to endlessly go back and forth arguing about politics because that’s a waste of their time. They have job duties to fulfill, and they will only ever respond to a paper if it either advances their career or is a defense of their work. No serious academic will ever respond to this paper outside of the original authors because they have to defend their reputation. The lack of responses is not an indication that team Marxism won the argument. That’s a debate bro mindset, not a professional academic mindset.
As for references for why you’re wrong, you can go through Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union”, Robert B Allen’s “Farm to Factory”, Pat Sloan’s “Soviet Democracy” or Alec Nove’s “economic history of the USSR” (paraphrasing the title of the last one because I read it long ago). You can go through my comment history and find references to all of those books if you want
Yeah… no, that’s not how this works. What you’re doing here is just source dumping. Spamming a bunch of random article titles means absolutely nothing. It doesn’t make you right or look smart, it just shows that for a way out while saving face… which is fine, if you can’t handle this discussion then you’re free to end it, but at least have the honesty to do so directly.
In the off chance that I’m wrong, which I highly doubt, and you actually want to provide sources then you’re going to have to do what I mentioned earlier AND you also have to explain how any of these sources are relevant to the discussion, as in you have to actually explain which claims you’re using the source to support or disprove. Then, and only then, can we actually start talking about credibility of your sources, the merits of their content, and how the shifts the discussion.
However, if you’re not planning to do that and you’re just willing to insulting shit like asking me to go look through your comment history or go through your source dump without any having any connections to this discussion, then you have nothing of value to say and this conversation is not worth continuing any further.
but I have nothing to prove to you.
That’s literally the whole point of this discussion. Keep in mind, you replied to me, you started this discussion. You chose to state your views. If you can’t defend your claims against such mild criticism that then that means you’re simply incapable of defending your beliefs.
I gave you a summary paper collecting references several studies on labour theory of value
But it doesn’t support what you claimed it did…
When you actually bring up sources to the conversation you may change my mind and make me do the effort, but you won’t do that I bet.
I’m not you, name me the claims you want sourced and I will gladly provide you relevant sources.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
You, on the other hand, are very dumb, because if you continue reading that very sentence and the one after it:
…it also results in a number of undesired effects, including, among others, higher rents for uncontrolled units, lower mobility and reduced residential construction. These unintended effects counteract the desired effect, thus, diminishing the net benefit of rent control.
This directly supports my claim.
- Comment on Moon talk 1 month ago:
We’ll regulated capitalism is unironically the greatest human innovation. I’m glad the world is not as brain dead as Lemmy on this.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
Okay, so we agree that there is a problem then.
The source of the disagreement isn’t that there isn’t a problem, but what the source of the problem is and how we should go about addressing it.
You mean vacation homes. People who own multiple properties so that can sit vacant the majority of the year.
Only 4.6% of the housing stock in the US are second homes (source). Even if they were all available, that’s not enough to make a dent in the housing market. Not to mention that most of these homes are in states like Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia where the housing crises is not the worse because houses there are cheaper than elsewhere and the demand is lower than elsewhere.
it does not provide a number or a link.
It does provide a link to a study actually, check again.
2 houses undergoing renovations counts as “some”.
Different source, but the number of vacant houses held by investors is around 880,000 or 63% of vacant houses in the country (source). There’s no data for renovations specifically, but a portion of this figure would fall under that category.
That’s exactly the fucking problem. Yes.
It’s a factor, but there’s still not enough vacant units held by investors to meet demand. We have an actual housing shortage.
So we agree that the majority of rental properties are owned by a landlord that is making life objectively worse for people?
No, we don’t. I agree that some landlords are slum lords and they’re bad, and I also agree that a lot of corporate landlords aren’t great, but landlords are like any other other service providers, there’s good and bad.
Then we should do something about that instead of clutching pearls about the 1% of houses owned by “mom and pop landlord”
This is just false. Small rental properties are defined as buildings that have 1-4 units, they make up 46% of the rental market in the US, and over 70% are own by private individuals, and around 70% are managed by the same owners (source). That’s a pretty significant portion.
I have family members who are exactly the type of people you are talking about. They own a rental property and take care of it and their renters. If suddenly they couldn’t do that anymore they would be fine. The property is not their livelihood, it’s an investment.
Speak for yourself. You can’t make sweeping generalizations or conclusions off of your anecdotes. I know a few people who own duplex and triplexes, and they would literally be homeless if they did not have their tenants helping them out. You’re oversimplifying things to fuel a narrative you subscribe to rather than looking at things through an objective lens.
Property can be affordable or be an investment, not both. I’m arguing that it should be affordable (being a basic requirement for survival and all). People using it as an investment can go invest somewhere else.
Property can be both because there are different types of property. When it comes to housing specifically, if we want average homes to become more affordable and remove the investment aspect of them then we have to build new houses. We have to build so many new houses that not only do we fill up the inventory shortage and meet demand, but go far beyond that to the point where we turn the housing market into a buyer’s market forcing sellers and developers to compete. That’s how we can get a plentiful supply, that’s genuinely affordable for middle class and working class people.
There’s a reason rent seeking behavior is a derogatory term.
This term is defining certain behaviors that are unethical, harmful, and immoral. The actual concept of renting itself is fine. You’re paying a fee to a get a service, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 1 month ago:
But it is true, and it has been empirically proven time and time again
Source: Dude, trust me
Just for reference, you can check Paul Cockshott’s 2014 paper.
I know that you just linked the very first link on google that appeals to your confirmation bias, because based on the content of this paper, you 100% did not read it.
First of all, this is not a study. It’s a response paper by 3 Marxist academics to another study that they disagreed with. Second of all, at no point in this response do they ever make the claim that labor is the only source of value in an economy. They just argue that it is a significant factor of value, which was supposedly not factored in the study they’re critiquing. So you saying that they argued that “labour is the only source of value” is just you making things up. Third of all, nobody ever responds to response papers except for the authors of the original study being critiqued, and that only ever happens on occasion. So this is not the smoking gun you think it is.
Everything you said about the Soviet Union is simply false. I’ll come up with the references later, busy now, but you’re just making stuff up.
You won’t provide anything, ever, because you have nothing. You’re just straight up factually wrong on this.
I’m actually not gonna bother giving you references because you’re just a blatant anticommunist making stuff up
…and there it is! You tried googling for anything to confirm your biases, but you couldn’t find anything because you’re wrong. Instead of being honest and admitting that you’re wrong, you did what all Marxists do and made up the lamest excuse imaginable as to why you can’t provide sources for your own claims. You can’t even defend what you say. This is just sad dude.
I’m not going to change the mind of someone who doesn’t listen to facts.
Your grand rebuttal is just you saying that I’m wrong without even providing any substance, you’re not able to provide sources because there’s nothing that supports what you say, and you can’t even elaborate on your own opinions. Yeah, I’m totally the one who doesn’t listen to facts, get real.
Go on licking your landlord’s boots (or leeching off your tenants if you’re lucky).
Look, Bart just did the thing! When a Marxist is called out on their bullshit and they’re clearly proven to be wrong, they can’t be honest and admit they’re wrong, that’s would be acting in good faith and that’s just against the core of the ideology. Therefore, you have to come up with any lame ass pejorative or insult to shut down the conversation without addressing anything. That way you get to feel like a pseudo intellectual without actually accepting your ignorance. Classic Marxism.