bearboiblake
@bearboiblake@pawb.social
- Comment on YSK: The CIA proposed a 9/11 style false flag attack on US citizens to justify invading Cuba 9 hours ago:
It would be the stupidest decision that Trump could ever make, for sure. The problem is that Trump doesn’t exactly have a history of making good strategic decisions, and he purged his administration of people who disagreed with him, and is seemingly taking advice from Benjamin Netanyahu. I really, really hope that a ground invasion of Iran doesn’t happen, it would be like Vietnam, except Iran has the 13th most powerful military in the world and has been preparing for this war for 40+ years.
- Comment on YSK: The CIA proposed a 9/11 style false flag attack on US citizens to justify invading Cuba 9 hours ago:
Well, if the US imposed a draft for an invasion of Iran right now, it would likely lead to massive civil unrest - the war is very unpopular, especially among young people. At the moment, it’s a very distant thing for Americans, being told that you’re going to go off and die in Iran for the benefit of Israel would probably be the breaking point for people.
- Comment on YSK: The CIA proposed a 9/11 style false flag attack on US citizens to justify invading Cuba 9 hours ago:
Well, we don’t really know for sure yet because it’s so recent – the US does have a ‘clone’ of Iran’s Shahed drone called the LUCAS, which Iran has claimed the US has used in false-flag attack against civilian targets in the Gulf. We won’t know for sure until the intelligence around the Iranian invasion is declassified, which probably won’t be for several decades.
Honestly, I think if this war continues to escalate, a false flag on US soil becomes more and more likely, to get support for an invasion of Iran.
- YSK: The CIA proposed a 9/11 style false flag attack on US citizens to justify invading Cubaen.wikipedia.org ↗Submitted 10 hours ago to youshouldknow@lemmy.world | 45 comments
- Comment on Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash 1 day ago:
They say that they’re gonna optimize it to run on a single GPU, but I’m extremely skeptical about how well that’ll perform. Honestly, I think this announcement is aimed more at investors than gamers, to keep the AI hype train rolling.
- Comment on Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash 1 day ago:
Yeah, DLSS 5 is a big departure in that regard. Here’s a source:
Nvidia actually used two RTX 5090s for its demos: one plays the game, the other exclusively runs the DLSS 5 technology. The use of two GPUs is required right now as DLSS 5 still has a long way to go in terms of optimisation
- Comment on Pretty much it. 1 day ago:
Yeah, I understand what you’re saying, and you’re right that authoritarian leftists are a big threat, as we saw with the USSR and China, but I gotta say, it feels quite unhelpful to say that both sides are being played - it’s quite a defeatist position and discourages people from moving away from the right, centrism and liberalism, towards more leftist positions. Social democrats/democratic socialists are a problem too, but they have no traction, whereas the far-right has a lot of traction. We need to meet people where they are and help them reach the next step on the ladder of class consciousness. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t go from being conservative to anarchist overnight, it was a long and painful journey.
- Comment on Gaysadilla 1 day ago:
It depends on your gender identity - if you’re a man, bananas are queer, but for women, they’re straight. Anything that non-binary people eat is queer. HTH!
- Comment on Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash 1 day ago:
It’s so demanding that it needs two RTX 5090 GPUs to run, I don’t think it’s really anything except AI hype to keep the bubble inflated a little longer
- Comment on Pretty much it. 1 day ago:
Could you explain how Reagan is to the left of FDR?
- Comment on Pretty much it. 1 day ago:
I literally posed my guess as a question with the idea that you could correct me if I was wrong. You are the one completely failing to communicate clearly here, even with multiple attempts from me to reconcile, and yet you’re somehow blaming me for this. Okay, whatever, thanks for wasting everyone’s time.
- Comment on Pretty much it. 1 day ago:
I understand what you mean - I’m an anarchist too. Anarchism is a far-left position, though, you realize?
The democrats / mainstream liberals in western countries absolutely do often make the mistake of accepting the right wing’s framing and arguing with them on their terms, but actual leftists are the force who try to refocus that energy back onto the class struggle.
Don’t mistake democrats/liberals for actual leftists. Most of them are still very much pro-capitalism.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
Absolutely right, violence by itself solves nothing and only creates more problems, but a completely non-violent movement is also doomed to failure because they will be violently repressed and victimized by the establishment if they show any sign of succeeding.
A successful movement must contain elements willing to escalate and threaten violence, and also elements who disavow that same violence and seek a peaceful resolution. We’ve seen this time and time again throughout history, but a few recent examples which would be familiar to most are the LGBTQ+ liberation movements which turned the tides with the Stonewall riots, and the civil rights movement, which had a whole spectrum of activists - MLK, the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
I barely know anything about the Polish anti-communist efforts, but I know for a fact that it absolutely did involve violence from both sides. Again, just because one sect is dedicated to non-violence, the larger movement requires the threat of violence to succeed long term.
Also, you kinda prove the point of this post, the Solidarity movement were dedicated anti-violence, but they were brutally repressed by the regime.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
Okay, can you give me an example of a movement which was completely non-violent, which had no violent sects or threats of violence, which resulted in a long term change?
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to communicate - violence by itself accomplishes less than nothing, but for a peaceful movement, there must be people who support that movement who are willing to use the threat of violence for that movement to succeed. For your own examples, in Ireland, Sein Fein as a political movement would not have liberated Ireland if it wasn’t for the threat of continued and escalating violence from the IRA.
Both violence and non-violence must remain on the table as options, or else the non-violent movement can be completely ignored and the activists supporting it will just be oppressed, suppressed and victimized.
For some more examples, the civil rights movement wouldn’t have succeeded without the Black Panthers, and the LGBTQ+ movement needed the Stonewall Riots.
The role of the non-violent sect of the movement is to disavow the violence of the violent sect, so by all means, continue to disavow the violence, that may be the role you choose to play, but you should recognize that unless others are willing to escalate, then your non-violent movement is doomed to failure.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
If anyone is interested, here’s a link to read The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Genderloos at the Anarchist Library.
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
Do you mean that the democrats and the republicans are both owned and controlled by the ruling elite? I’d agree with that, for sure. If that’s not what you mean, what do you mean?
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
I’m not sure what you’re asking me here, sorry, I’m a bit confused by your comment, I don’t use Twitter.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
Yes, of course, but that wide audience needs to be willing to use every tool available to effect change. Non-violent protests simply do not work if the protesters are unwilling to escalate. This is ultimately a shitpost so that nuance is intentionally excluded, but that’s the truth of it
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
Here’s the good shit you might not be ready for: Money should be abolished completely.
Money is basically a tool we use to allocate finite resources, but we can come up with a much better alternative.
To begin with, food, shelter, healthcare, water and education should all be provided to every single person of the world as a matter of priority. There is no practical reason for these things to be artificially scarce, we already have enough for everyone, but the profit motive gets in the way.
For things which are genuinely scarce, we could handle in a lot of different ways. We could centrally manage it, (which personally I wouldn’t really recommend, as that centralizes power) or we could have a series of industrial unions which are responsible for the management and distribution.
Money is a completely failed conceit of distributing our resources and labor to where they are most needed. It actively prevents the flow of resources to where they are needed. Capitalism is an evil system and it has to go.
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
Yeah I gathered that much, I mean what specifically about the comments? Which comments? Are there themes you find surprising? Or what?
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
Thank you, fixed!
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
the problem extends much further beyond trump, sadly!
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 2 days ago:
Can you explain what you mean by self-sufficiency?
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
What is it that you’re finding surprising?
- Comment on Pretty much it. 2 days ago:
Okay, so help me to understand, I asked already and you just shared a meme, it’s kind of unfair to complain about me assuming even after I asked for clarifications :(
- Comment on Pretty much it. 3 days ago:
Yep, democratic socialism is ultimately a reformist position, which serves to extend the reign of capitalism by moderating it’s worse excesses. Capitalism cannot be reformed, any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism. The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 3 days ago:
Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate that and I understand your position. Your values align closely with mine, but my #1 top value is that no one should have power over anyone else, because most humans are predisposed towards using any power they have to benefit themselves - so if you have someone even with 1% more power than others, they will use that 1% of power to their own benefit, and to grow their own power. Over time, that 1% will grow and grow until we have a situation like we have now, where the ruling class have overwhelming power over the majority.
I totally get the drive for revenge, I’m very sympathetic – I used to feel the same. What I have come to realize though, is that negative reinforcement isn’t very effective at all. We have a whole prison industrial complex which is unbelievably cruel and punishing towards those in its grip, the ultimate tool of revenge against those who have wrong society, and it is completely ineffective in reducing or preventing any crime. Cruelty against those who have wronged us just hardens hearts against our larger goal, the liberation of all living things, because it gets both “sides” stuck in an escalation trap of using escalating levels of violence against the other.
The only way we can fix our broken society is by convincing everyone that using coercive power/violence against others leads to bad outcomes. We need to be willing to use violence (and the threat of violence) because if we do not then our enemies will indeed make us victims, but it must always be the option of last resort.
- Comment on Pretty much it. 3 days ago:
Yeah I guessed as much too, but I wanted to be sure so I could tailor my response to the individual, we need to meet people where they are and help them reach the next step on the ladder to class consciousness