WhatsTheHoldup @ WhatsTheHoldup @lemmy.ml Posts 0Comments 55Joined 1 mo. ago
National socialist is just a spin to sound nice. Nazis were in no way socialists.
I agree they were in no way socialists, but "national socialism" isn't a spin. It's what the word nazi literally means. It's a shortening of the German word Nationalsozialistische.
It doesn't make sense to me why you are trying to preserve this label, maybe you can explain and I just don't get it.
Nazism is an ideology which informs the behavior of Nazis.
Nazis are antisemetic and blame the Jews for the failures of society. When you call Trump a Nazi you might be confused as to why he loves Israel.
Nazis are Aryan Supremacists, they believe in the superiority of their racial identity. When you call Elon Musk a Nazi you might be confused as to why he's encouraging so much immigration of Indians via the H1-B visa.
The much more general term fascist avoids the ideology directly tied to Nazism (antisemitism, Aryan supremacy). The new fascism is built on anti-wokeness and rich people supremacy and is a distinct form of fascism separate from Nazism.
It has a bunch of technofeudalist angles like forcing AI in places it doesn't belong, complete surveillance, cryptocurrencies, etc that need a new label to accurately describe.
Technofeudalism is the term I think is more descriptive, albeit less provocative.
Ah but I'll simply ask ChatGPT to generate me a job.
Personally I haven't gotten any jobs this way but that doesn't mean employers aren't cooked
They are 👍
it's just a sign that the people who did it have no idea what they are doing.
We're in no shortage of those signs
I can't even imagine translating something like "chat, am I cooked?" to my grandma.
"Hey folks, am I in trouble?"
The terrifying part is without the platform he'd be our mental health care.
As someone brand new to Lemmy I'm now learning a lot of horrible new info on myself based on arbitrarily signing up for a random instance.
I didn't realize I was supposed to psychically know about lemmy lore before ever using it.
There really isn't any. It's just a huge nitpick. is commonly used for multiplication, especially in online contexts in order to avoid confusing multiplication with the letter x when wider symbols aren't available.
the way i see it, "folks" can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn't call nobles or people of other high status "folks".
But you'd call nobles or high status people "chat"?
“worth anything” were the words I used. I didn’t say LLMs weren’t new, but right now they’re just untrustworthy and people keep using them as huge crutches so they don’t need to actually learn how to do the most basic elements of their jobs
It's a tool. I can respect that to you the tool doesn't seem helpful, but there are many people who are skilled at their jobs but also have to write a lot of boilerplate maybe for unit testing, maybe for writing REST endpoints, but there will be a task where the LLM outpaces you and you just refuse to use it to find out. There's a for what and when to use it, and in those situations you unfortunately are already outpaced.
You're certainly right it shouldn't be used as a crutch for every type of work, but you're wrong that not ever using it is more efficient than using it contextually.
You will be left behind. Laughing at juniors who over rely in it is putting your guard down. Juniors become seniors with time and experience.
Also what a wild example to use colonized native Americans with the US and all its failures in quality of life(the pretty propaganda does not make the senseless poverty go away), education, and human rights. “Look, AI is like a giant shit hole and you’re just not keeping up!”
Why's that wild? I chose it for that exact reason.
AI means that you and I have to be more efficient or we will be left behind.
Being more productive doesn't benefit you or me in any way, except not losing our jobs. Our bosses are just sucking more money out of us.
But AI has landed and is colonizing us. Plugging your ears and refusing to engage with it isn't a historically successful response.
If you don't want to use AI going forward, then we need to organize to ban it. We can't individually just insist "I'm more productive without it!" because expertise is difficult for non experts doing the hiring to sus out, but productivity is easy to track via metric.
It's a shit world out here, why do you think I'm disagreeing?
Fuck that, anything “AI” worth anything is just algorithms we already had that were rebranded to take advantage of stupid people.
While what you describe does happen (and are the worst of the worst examples of shitty unnecessary bullshit) LLMs are not algorithms we already had.
Things like ChatGPT/Copilot are novel tech. You might not like them, and they can hallucinate answers, but it is new.
My life is going just fine without its nonsense, thanks.
The theory is that you will be left behind, not that your life is missing anything.
Picture the native Americans before colonialism. Their lives were going just fine, but then a money addicted hyper "efficient" type of culture appeared and they weren't able to raise armies and build weapons at the rate necessary to keep their way of life.
If you + LLM can do your job more efficiently than you alone then by supply/demand your value as an employee is going down by refusing to adapt, and your salary will reflect your comparatively lower output than your peers.
So, first off, any content made to change your mind is propaganda. Doesn't matter how true or false it is, doesn't matter if it's cherry-picking info, doesn't matter if it doesn't make any claims at all
This is the second time this has been stated. I don't know why we're going backwards, I haven't challenged the definition of propaganda.
doesn't matter if it's paid for by a state or a religious group or a single individual
Exactly. Under this law all these scenarios would be banned.
That's the conversation we're having, how to ban it.
A poster that just says "hang in there" or "just give up" can be used as propaganda if you post it all over the place to raise or lower morale. It's not making any claims, it's not pushing a certain brand, it's just trying to change what you think about. That's propaganda.
The law wouldn't target things that "can be used" for propaganda, they'd target things that are used for propaganda.
If some individual wants to go around and spend his own money putting up "Hang in there" posters, that's fine.
If they want to pay someone to hang up posters for them, that's when they'd run into issues.
If a public space or place of business wants to put up a sign, you might make exceptions for things like emergency evacuations and informational material, but anything with "intent to advertise a brand or product" would certainly be banned.
"Hang in there" might end up being allowed or not in a workplace depending on how strict you'd like to get.
Second, this whole thing assumes no one ever wants to see an advertisement.
You want to know your favorite band is playing downtown. You want to know that the roofing company across town that does good work even exists. You want to know about whatever new silly product was made that aligns with your hobbies. In order to have an honest conversation, we need to agree that not all advertising is unwanted.
Its weird you're acting like I'm dishonest. This is a pretty simple concept.
Unwanted advertisement are unwanted.
The companies are still allowed to create materials, and you're allowed to view it. They just aren't allowed to pay people to shove it in your face when you're trying to watch TV or read the news.
Of course there's value in knowing about products and deals, but if company's are the ones paying for them then the companies with the most money get seen and heard the most.
That's a problem because throwing money at ads can compensate for a sub par product. Keeping advertisements independent from the companies selling them is better for consumers as it leads to less biased info.
If you want to buy a catalog of local events, that's fine people can make those "advertisements" and sell them. It would be illegal for the people operating them to have connections or take money from the companies, and these aren't explicitly ads but genuine reviews basically.
You can print a list of bands and distribute it, you just can't advertise the band in some unrelated product.
Would PSAs be banned? Those are nothing if not propaganda.
Exceptions could be made for anything if we want.
What do you think? Would you ban PSAs? I might not.
How about billboards advertising a religious group?
100% banned. No billboards allowed.
What if I buy a magazine because it does a great job at making me aware of products I actually do often want to buy?
Still exists. The magazine just can't take money to artificially promote shitty brands who pay them so the magazine is higher quality.
(That's obviously slightly naive, we're crashing the entire magazine industry by passing this law, it's too disruptive in the short term to the economy we've set up)
As a small business owner, how do I make customers aware that I exist?
You wouldn't have to. Word of mouth and the community curated lists would talk about you if you're worth talking about.
If no one can advertise then consumers are still gonna need to find the products they need and consumers will learn how to look for local businesses and the community will learn how to spotlight hidden gems.
Or maybe that's too much effort and we all just go to walmart and you go out of business. Hopefully not, but i don't fully know tbh, it's untested.
Where is that line? We've invented so many things that amplify our speech wider than what we could do "on our own". A megaphone reaches more people than if I yell. A 10ft sign in my yard reaches more people than a tshirt. A social media account with 1 million followers reaches people than 1000 followers reaches more than 10 followers. Should I be able to make a flyer? Should I be able to use a printing press to copy that flyer? Should i be able to nail copes of that flyer all over the door of the catholic church and start a Reformation? Where is the line?
Yep, you should be able to do all of that (except the social media one possibly depending on context) because they're all actions of a single individual and no money is being spent of the distribution of the material.
(You can pay a printer to print the flyers but not hand out essentially).
If you want to rent a plane and drop them from the sky go ahead but you can't do that as a business or to make money in any way.
In summary, this is a very hard problem, but...I think the solution could be solved democratically.
I agree, it would take a lot of trial and error but we could eventually figure it out.
We won't because money is too powerful, but we could.
Ex. If you poll the people, and they say "I see too many McDonalds ads" then the people (i.e. govt) should penalize McDonalds proportionally. If we poll again, and the penalty doesn't result in people reporting seeing fewer unwanted McDonalds ads, then increase the penalty. When the penalty is high enough, it won't be worth it for McDonalds to run so many aggressive ads, and they'll have to reduce advertising in order for the people to report fewer unwanted ads in order for the penalty to drop. That's the only possible implementation I see as actually working.
I honestly don't like that idea. We're not seeing less ads, we're just seeing more diverse ads.
Genuinely consider the implications of the fact that advertisements are effective.
Think of the most irritating, scummy, clickbait, insidious advertisement you've ever seen, and then consider that it objectively made the company more money than not running it.
Realize that your small business is directly losing customers because you aren't able to compete with the marketing budgets of megacorporations.
Its not fair for your company and thus us as consumers they get to pay to hold the megaphone longer than you do and don't compete by the quality of their products/service. It's a bad problem.
That'd be great, but the "how" is a much harder question.
As with the implementation of any obvious law, of course.
What counts as advertising? Because there's a reason Google, Meta, etc. have their fingers in so many different industries: every single thing that gets attention could be leveraged for advertising, even the act of suppressing mentions of competitors.
Sure, maybe that's an interesting question.
After all television commercials and magazine inserts and pop up ads and billboards are gone we can start debating the nuance of where exactly the line is drawn.
Should I be able to say "X product has been great, I recommend it!" Only if I'm not being paid, you say?
Correct!
How could you possibly know?
You would have to report that income on your taxes and if you ever get audited and that was a substantial amount of your income they will find out and go after the major players who are profiting off it illegally at tax time.
Think about gambling or alcohol. How do we know you aren't selling unlicensed alcohol or running an unlicensed casino? We still have laws despite the uncertainty.
As discussed in the article, "propaganda" is illegal. So any discussion about how terrible trump is would also be illegal.
I feel like you're confused about the difference between speech and propaganda. Discussion about Trump isn't propaganda.
I know we currently do not, but it is possible to treat an individual and a business/corporation differently.
It is possible to hold an organizations speech to different standards than an individual.
The discussion of outlawing propaganda doesn't have to have anything to do with your individual ability to express your opinion up until the point you try to organize and artificially broadcast that speech wider than you could on your own.
How would you suggest they do that. White light near equally activates our 3 cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
White light near equally activates all 12 shrimp cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
Which spectrum of color is left out of white light that wouldn't light up a cone associated with it?
I thought zionism was a belief that Israel should exist.
No, Zionism is the belief that all of the land should belong exclusively to Jews and that assimilation of other cultures is impossible.
If you believe in a 2 state solution then you are anti zionist because you think Palestinians have a right to what Zionists consider exclusively Jewish land.
therefore I've always taken anyone who says,"I'm not antisemetic, I just think Israel shouldn't exist is a closet antisemite at best.
If someone says Israel shouldn't you're right to hear that as suspect.
But that's not anti zionism.
Like a smug dork saying,"I'm not Republican, I'm Libertarian!"
Not sure I get the point. If the Republican votes for Donald Trump and the Libertarian votes for Gary Johnson that seems like an important distinction.
Those aren't semantics.
I can say that I really think the current Israeli gov't should be exiled on St. Helena and not allowed to leave or communicate forever, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-zionist.
That means you're anti-zionist.
Do you believe the current borders should expand in Israel's favor to take more land, or remain where they are so Palestine keeps the land it currently has by international treaty.
One answer is Zionist, the other is anti Zionist.
People who are anti-zionist seem to only have a selective and limited knowledge of a few thousand years of the history of the area.
With respect, you don't even know what Zionism is and are basing your response from a dictionary entry.
Do you have thousands of years of history of knowledge?
If so, instead of the dictionary, how would Theodor Hertzl define Zionism?
It was Argentina
Why can Democrats only offer candy bars for dinner when we need fresh fruits, vegetables, and actual healthy foods?
Corporate interests in politics. You and me donating to our favored candidates is nothing compared to the big money and lobbyists mega corporations are throwing around.
Democrats can't offer fresh fruit because the chocolate lobby is funding the chocolafe democrat in the fruit democrats district.
The Democrats either don't know the right way to govern, or they know but they don't care. Do either of those options sound like a party that anyone should vote for?
It's not any one party's fault. It's a systemic issue. People who don't actually represent voters are being given disproportionately amount of money to run campaigns because they represent businesses.
That being said I don't know if we should be looking at party as a whole but also who the candidates are.
If we pushed more progressive candidates like AOC who do call out Israel and show up to primaries we can steer the party to a more reasonable direction while realizing the 2 party system is broken and needs fixing.
I dont see how disengaging entirely from electoralism helps.
I did not vote Democrat in 2024 because the Democrats are not entitled to my vote by pretending to be less awful than the other team. I did not vote Democrat anywhere on the ticket because I refuse to be complicit in genocide. That is the hard moral line I am taking. There is no excuse for genocide.
You got to keep your "moral line" but if it was at the cost of worse material conditions in Gaza and means Gazans got more bombs and their aid and rights watch groups defunded then I'm not sure I agree that was worth it.
Your suggestion that the material conditions of Gaza under Kamala would have been equally bad doesn't feel very convincing.
And that's not even mentioning the genocide in Ukraine. Biden was at least on the right side of that, Trump is certainly not.
We "caused it"? We "allowed Trump to win"?
I only brought that up because it seemed at that time you were trying to accuse me of not doing enough by asking how many protests I go to.
I'm saying that if you chose not to vote against fascism, it's unfair to blame the people who did for not protesting now that it's way more dangerous and they might be abducted, tortured and deported for doing so.
Had Kamala won there would be much less fear of protesting against her government.
You guys didn't cause it per se, but you still can't seem to agree that a fascist is worse than a neoliberal and I just don't get what's not obvious about that.
Show me 3 examples
No
There ya go. Then I will continue to insist that the abduction and systematic targeting of students and academics on grounds of "wokeness" wasn't happening under Biden.
I don't think that's true. Half of his kids have disowned him. He has a trans child he says was "killed by wokeness" who hates his guts.
Democrats lost all on their own by pretending the economy was fine despite everyone clearly noticing it was not, and continuing to double down on supporting a deeply unpopular genocide. There are by far not enough 'tankies' in the US to sway an election like that. If we had that kind of power we'd be pushing our own party instead. 90 million people didn't vote in 2024, what are a couple thousand at most terminally online leftists compared to that?
Yes they did, and they're to blame for terrible messaging and gatekeeping democracy to force Kamala as the candidate without voter input.
The Democrats dropped a candy bar on the ground and Trump shit on the floor. They then asked what I wanted for dinner.
While I blame the democrats for dropping the candy on the ground, I blame voters for not voting against poo.
90 million people didn't vote in 2024, what are a couple thousand at most terminally online leftists compared to that?
OP threw out tankie as a bad faith term and we just kept using it
I assume when we say 'tankies' we're using the term as OP originally did, ie anyone who abstained from voting for Kamala because they don't support genocide?
Those are the people I'm talking about, not terminally online people.
The genocide was already bad under Democrats. No, we didn't forget that Genocide Joe sent Israel hundreds of shipments of weapons and supported them full-heartedly in their slaughter of the Palestinian people.
Yes. Joe was sending weapons to aid the genocide. That's terrible and no excuse.
In light of comparing him to Trump though, Biden tried to set up a dock to distribute aid to Gazans when Israel tried to block it and continually threatened to stop sending these weapons if Israel bombed certain regions or were undertaking operations with crazy high civilian casualties.
Trump's policy is "let them bomb" and deporting people who disagree.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Voting for Democrats would not have lead to fewer Gazan lives lost, because the Democrats don't give a fuck about Gazan lives. Biden was already giving them all the weapons they needed, and Harris made no indication she was going to change course. Harris would have enabled the genocide same as Trump.
Okay, that's a genuine argument if true.
I just am shocked you'd say that. I already demonstrated that Democrats care at least slightly more than Trump. Do you need a source for Biden providing aid and pressuring for Israel to deescalate while also funding them?
My god please take a step back and look at yourself. Examine your views and have an ounce of introspection.
I have, but I agree I should continue doing so going forward.
It is important to think hard on our values and that goes both ways.
So what protests are you going to? What are you doing to put pressure on the Dems?
So first of all, there's now the unfortunate truth that because of voters staying home it is now more dangerous to protest than it needed to be and could come at great personal risk, especially to non citizens.
That's not an excuse not to protest, but it is hypocritical of you guys to cause it to be much more risky to protest by allowing Trump to win and then try to blame others for not taking the risk.
I'm in Canada so Im not sure how to effectovely protest US politics from here.
I am boycotting American goods, and I have a recurring donation to the food bank to help bring aid to Gazans and other starving people.
In terms of Canadian politics, our government put an arms embargo on Israel so we aren't supposed to be funding them but as of 3 days ago apparently that promise is broken so going forward that's an open question.
If your point is that I could do more, you're certainly right. I'll think on that.
Leftists did not cost the Democrats the election, Democrats just suck. Harris got 68 million votes in 2024 to Biden's 81 million.
Yeah, they threw the election seemingly on purpose because transitionary president Biden who we already voted in as the lesser of two evils just to stop Trump's second term decided he would take up space and prevent new candidates from stepping forward.
It was already happening under Biden, you were just content to ignore it.
I'm not content to ignore it, it wasn't happening.
Show me 3 examples of university students having their green card revoked for attending a protest under Bidens administration and I will apologize.
I'm a lib but I want to have a dialogue that's less shit throwing and more genuine.
Just because someone is against Harris/the Democrats does not automatically mean they are in support of Trump/the Republicans.
Agreed.
This might come as a surprise to you, but we hate Trump and the GOP, too.
Not a surprise, totally know that and appreciate you guys for it.
We're just not under any illusions that the Democrats are going to fix anything.
So neither am I, but I feel frustrated because we need to be protesting and making noise on this issue.
Its frustrating because our shared goal is to end the genocide, but you guys by staying home that election sabotaged this goal for us both and made the genocide worse than before.
If you focus on the material conditions of Gaza and think "which vote is going to lead to less Gazan lives lost" voting for Kamala seemed like a no brainer.
It's only when you bring your own ego into it "well I will never support genocide" that comes across like you're willing to sacrifice Gazan lives to feel self righteous about your values.
Had many of these tankies voted Kamala instead of staying home it would be so mucy easier to form a protest and get the pressure cooking on the dems
But because they stayed home (regardless of justification you might have) we've now lost the right to protest and many university students, scientists and academics are being disappeared into the night for speaking out.
This simply would not have happened under Kamala.
You're not wrong about his smile but can't agree he's the "most" unsettling when Mr Beast exists.