Peter Thiel’s bestie going mask off

You know some csa shithead talked like that.

What a definitive neckbeard good LORD.

They were more numerous and loud when they were largely irrelevant.

But the times were nice, yes.

But - I've looked for Urbit and it's interesting. It's very close to what I'd consider useful.

IMHO a p2p system of the future should work as one user group being one democratically controlled system (like OS with its resources and entities) with computation and storage distributed between member nodes. The reason I'm not too interested in that idea is that it's about global Internet and global availability. Today delay-tolerant offline-enabled applications seem more historically relevant.

No idea. I do think billionaires are a serious problem and shouldn't be allowed. Dont care how many business they start. They have the power to buy elections and play games with our entire world so fuck em.

Start looking up techno feudalism

Him and thiel ...they want to end the United States and break it into company run states with no rules

Yeah, why can't they just be a weirdo freak (celebratory) like the rest of us anarchists?

Then they decide to get makeovers or permanent eyeliner like that's supposed to make up for all the other weird shit?

Useful idiots. There needs to be somebody who stands in front of the crowd and takes the blame. That person must be weird enough that people don't keep following once the support is removed.

Fascists have no subatance, no interiority.

I think you have to go several levels of racism deep to even understand it. Like the (censored) phrase "I don't hate black people; I hate N-----s" has to make enough sense you understand the "distinction" being made. Then you translate that distinction and apply it to some sort of "good billionaire" and you sort of get his claim.

I think?

I certainly could have missed his point, if any; I'm not sure it was worth catching.

He was a cartoon villain even to the people who love him now before 2015. Then he was mean to the people they hated, and dignified their basest impulses. After that, they'd follow him to the gates of hell.

Same, I find it genuinely shocking and very different from 10 years ago.

Trump was literally depicted as a villain on Sesame Street in the 80s btw.

I'm pretty sure he also was the inspiration for more than one Captain Planet villain.

Teehee just kidding about my proposal to turn humans into petroleum... unless?

What an unfortunate collection of words to read on a Friday like today

These dumb motherfuckers really think they are above it all and invincible. My only consolation is that I know they view having to "share" their existence with all us plebs as a literal and continual hell. May they all rot and fester in it.

If these are the people in power's friends than they aren't far from this train of thought. People who think so lowly of others do not deserve this kind of power. People who think this lowly of others and would actually try to enact it should probably be the subject of mass riots. Reading that shit made my blood boil. These are the powerful and affluent.

Unbelievable that anyone printed this in either online or offline form of text. A humane alternative to genocide, cause no one would really like the biodiesel solution.

Good to see that democracy actually seems to be the foe for these people. Let's try and keep it that way...

At some point I loved the kind of jokes based in his ideologies, about bioreactors and such.

And - the emotion behind this kind of thought is very important. It's not worse for anarchist and humanist thought than it is for the fascist kind.

Thought experiments are necessary. In the "good old times" such thought experiments as quoted here were normal for many sci-fi series.

The technologies (many of them) to make this are here. What would you do to find the least inhuman way they'll be used? Not doing anything is not an option - someone will use them to their ideology's advantage.

My idea at some point was that if we can't prevent surveillance and miniaturization and automation to the degree it's a failed endeavor to try to preserve privacy and security against those, then we should at least create a panopticon society, so that those Yarvin's "delegates" were as visible for the rest of us as the rest of us for them. Suppose the "nothing to hide" norm is here - and we are already losing against it, just silently. What can we do to avoid such a hellish and degenerate end of history as he describes?

It's a bit like with nukes, you can't (well, 50 years ago you couldn't) reasonably well protect against another's nuke, but you can balance it with your own.

From Meriam-Webster's entry on the word

Did the definition of n----r change?

There is a widespread belief that the original meaning of n----r, as defined in dictionaries, was "an ignorant person," and a related belief that current dictionary definitions describing its use as a hateful, racist epithet are a recent change. We do not know the source of those beliefs, but they are not accurate. The word was first included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1864, at which time it was defined as a synonym of Negro, with a note indicating that it was used "in derision or depreciation." There has never been a definition like "an ignorant person" for this word in any subsequent dictionary published by this company. Nor do we know of such a definition in any earlier dictionary.

There's been an attempt among white racists over the years to try and redeem the hard-r N-word. They'll say that it originally meant just an ignorant or foolish person in general, not only black people specifically. But this is a historical fiction. It's always been used as a slur against black people. It was originally a complete synonym for "negro." If you asked Yarvin, and he didn't just admit outright to being a flaming racist, he would likely justify it by making a claim like this. He would claim that he's saying these billionaires are just corrupt and foolish. He would say that it's OK to use the word, as he's not referring to black people, just ignorant and lazy people in general. He would say he's using the non-racist definition of the n-word. But again, this is a historical fiction.

Sometimes racists will cite words like "niggardly", meaning cheap or stingy, as an example of how the n-word could be used in ways not applying just to black people. Niggardly is a word that sounds like the n-word but actually does have a non-racist history. They'll try to link niggardly to the hard-r n-word. But what they ignore is that the word niggardly has a completely different etymological root. Niggardly shares roots with words like niggling, tracing back to the 13th century nig, meaning simply a stingy person. The n-word however, as Meriam-Webster notes, derives directly from the Spanish negro.. Racists will connect the n-word to words like niggardly, niggling, etc., citing their real history as non-racist words, and say that the n-word can also be used non-offensively because of this. But there is no common etymological root between the hard-r n-word and similar sounding words that do actually have a non-racist history.

Of course, it's all ultimately a moot point. In polite society today, most people understandably avoid using any word that remotely sounds like the n-word. See controversies around the word niggardly. And really, there's little reason to use words like niggardly, even if one could argue that they're technically not racist. They just sound way too similar, and there's plenty of other perfectly valid words to use in their place. And ultimately, someone could just as easily be hurt or offended by words that sound similar to the n-word even if they're technically not directly related. The words are best avoided, as they just end up hurting people for no good reason, even if some etymologist might argue they're not directly related.

It's the kind of thing where you have to join the KKK and uncritically accept everything you're told for 20 years and then maybe you'll be able to fathom it. They will of course mistake that for complex philosophy rather than a steaming pile of horse shit.

It's a racist asshole thing. You wouldn't understand.

Probably throwing back his long hair with a head movement, while challenging the prof with what he thinks is an unassailable argument. Mistaking the stunned silence that follows for a win.

🤢🤮

Maybe you'll find my take on it interesting: https://lemmy.world/post/33807544/18577415

En masse, as soon as we can.

So does Peter Theil, Zuck, and Elon.

They need to be asset forfeitured entirely, even of clothes, and anyone who helps them, even by giving them water, should be asset forfeitured too. Let them wander outside naked, drinking from puddles and scrounging for food (not through trash though, that's illegal, not allowed just like they don't allow it for poor people who are starving today). Have guards around them to prevent anyone from giving them anything. They don't like people and society, then they can live without it.

Right, and he's so comfortable with this language. He's well into living on another planet where phrases like this are common place among his group.

Of course he meant Nerdier billionaires! Silicon Valley must go!

What he "means" to the extent this isn't just a shock value post meant to allow him to get a lot of responses before moving the goalposts & also to get a lot of nazis to like him more, is that:

1. The epithet he used is a racist one used to describe how people (usually black people, but not exclusively) who come from a poor background act once they get some money - often on flashy displays of wealth, but not often on investments/ensuring their wealth grows and lasts into the future. Not that this is actually true, but that's the idea.
2. he is saying American billionaires fit that epithet because of how they spend their money. He calls them N*s because of how they spend money, not because they are black - he is not under the illusion that most billionaires are black.
3. he's saying they spend their money in foolish ways. He would prefer they spend their money abolishing the neoliberal state and replacing it with a neo-feudal monarchical system that makes all these billionaires literal feudal lords with fiefdoms. For him, this is the end-goal of wealth and the ideal societal state.
4. also, he thinks that he is an intellectual and that his tweet is a serious philosophical argument.

Devoid of all meaning except for being unmistakably racist. And not the mild, everyday kind either.

edit: there's already two sibling comments with almost opposite interpretations. Fuck that shit, I don't need to understand the finer (?) points to know that Yarvin & Thiel are horrible people who have way too much influence. And I bet half the time Yarvin doesn't even understand it himself, he just needs to keep the controversy boiling.

Nobody knows what it means but it’s provocative. It gets the people going

He’s a pseudo intellectual that gets high on his own farts, like Nick Land.

What I’m understanding here is he’s trying to take advantage of anti billionaire sentiment - that it’s obvious even to alt right weirdos that wealth inequality is fucking everyone but the rich over. He’s a monarchist, he doesn’t have a problem with billionaires, but he wants to play populist. He’s using racist forum troll slang to signal to others that they don’t have to hide anymore (would Twitter have even taken the post down if he typed the full word out? certainly can’t say ‘cis’), and is hinting at some wealth redistribution through confiscation from Black people (think about how much was looted from folks during things like the Tulsa Race Riot in the 20’s - that and similar riots were often ways to forcibly redistribute wealth to poor whites…)

Removed by Moderator — Modlog

Racist slur.