Lianodel @ Lianodel @ttrpg.network

Posts

0

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's what I found funny about it. It's something that could have been resolved in an instant of people said either "Yes, it's on page whatever whatever," or "We just read it, and no, it's not there." It took longer to resolve because of how few people have read it recently, or were willing to read it now.

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance's could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

Totally understood, and I apologize for implying you might have. It was not my attention. I just meant that, even though it's something I avoid jumping to conclude, it does happen, and there's reason to believe it's the case with Rowling. She's got issues. It doesn't absolve her of anything, but there's a little pity in my condemnation.

Yeah. I know that calling bigots secretly closeted is problematic, but IIRC she has outright said that, if she were a young person today, she would question her gender identity.

JK Rowling did that not too long ago. (She didn't call it Jewish, but absolutely called it lies and propaganda that trans people and trans researchers were early targets for the Nazis and victims of the Holocaust.)

I don't say this to obsess over the Harry Potter author, but to point out that you don't have to go cherry picking to find this shit. She's a prominent person using her platform to spread bigotry and misinformation.

I am perfectly happy with how I presented myself, actually. And I think you also revealed a lot about yourself, too. If you're happy with what that is, then that's all there is to it.

I do think it's worth pointing out that the thing that really seemed to set you off was asking you the same question you asked me. I answered it easily, and you took great offense while hurling insults and misrepresenting positions I've already put down in words. Why should I get into the facts when you don't really care about the facts, or what I have to say?

If the question of whether Israel killing civilians is bad (not even unjustified, not even criminal, just bad) bothers you... maybe that's a good thing. I certainly have no problem supporting Palestine while condemning Hamas, or supporting Jews while condemning Israel. It's possible you just didn't want to voice an unpopular position, but maybe it bothers you that you can't say "yes, it's bad." If that's the case, keep pulling on that thread. I think you could use some self-reflection, especially given this last post. I'm sorry, but this was a lot of the pot calling the kettle black.

I sincerely hope you have a better tomorrow. I know you're angry and frustrated, but I hope you can find peace and understanding.

Alright.

Firstly, I think a lot of how you're framing the pro-Palestine protests is either unfair or inaccurate. That's not to say that you are being unfair or inaccurate, but the sources where you get your information might be. (I will agree that antisemitism is on the rise, and demands a response. I just see more of it from the right, even from Zionists who either want to remove diasporic Jews or support a model of an ethnostate). So, if you don't draw a distinction between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas, there's no conversation to be had, because we're not really dealing with what protestors do, say, or believe. While you compared this to MAGA, it's the exact same rhetoric used by MAGA to attack BLM, which itself mirrored the rhetoric used against the Civil Rights Movement.

But it's also not worth getting into the weeds unless we can find some common ground, so I'd like to ask you the same question again: Is it bad when Israel kills civilians?

So Hamas killing civilians is a bad thing too?

Yes, obviously. Why do you ask? Since you asked, I may as well ask, is Israel killing civilians a bad thing?

Gonna start calling out people showing support for Hamas at protests?

Sure, if you see them, kick them to the curb. Do you agree that there's a difference between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas?

It's extremely frustrating to hold the apparently controversial opinion that killing civilians is, consistently, a bad thing.

Well alright.

Up front, I want to put out that I try not to overuse "tankie" when there are more specific criticisms to make, so I'm more likely to call out campists, or accelerationists, or terminally online do-nothing poseur-revolutionaries. I don't think not voting makes someone a tankie, but it's a position that seems, subjectively, to be popular in these overlapping circles.

With that out of the way, my problem with tankies is that they tend to dismiss any criticism over the use of force. They'll quote Engels, but rather than view violence as a necessary evil in certain circumstances, it's something to be simply dismissed without a second thought, or even celebrated so long as they support the cause—and if that person is a campist, they aren't necessarily supporting a good cause.

The US has absolutely, indisputably backed uprisings across the globe, especially in the global south, but it's also just an easy accusation to throw behind any movement to justify cracking down.

On top of that, you mention that it's a fight against the ruling class, which is true... but vanguard parties are also, by definition, a ruling class. The idea is that it's a necessary evil to eventually achieve a communist future, but nonetheless, they're a ruling class, and ruling classes have vested interests in maintaining their own power. I can see the argument for it, and can't deny the success of MLM organizing tactics as used by groups like the Black Panthers. However, great revolutionaries may or may not be great leaders, or maintain the ideals of the revolution.

Speaking of US-backed uprisings, and financial oppression via the IMF and World Bank, the economic ideology underpinning a lot of this comes from the Chicago School, especially chief ghoul of the capitalist death cult, Milton Friedman. You know who invited Friedman to consult on their economy? China. They liberalized their economy, and created a class of billionaires. Are they not the ruling class, and deserve our opposition for betraying a socialist revolution? You might have an argument to make against this, but as someone who opposes "tankies," you must understand, that the way it looks is that authoritarians are simply celebrating authoritarianism, and giving up entirely on the communism side.

If you don't support violent oppression from the state without reservation, you might not be who people are talking about when they talk about tankies, it may not actually describe your position, and you may not want to throw in with the kinds of people who aren't bothered by any brutal regime so long as they have the right aesthetic.

What, in your view, makes you a tankie? And what do you think people mean when they use the term critically?

And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie's age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn't enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.

Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie's junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.

And then, four years later, it wasn't an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.

On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.

Well before covid, I knew Republicans would politicize almost anything. Covid made me realize I was wrong, because they will politicize literally anything, even a fucking virus.

Typical leftist cancel culture. You commit just one white supremacist terror attack, and all of a sudden you're a pariah!

Holtorf: That's just a story. What's more important is the policy.

The policy is the whole fucking problem! His hypocrisy is an issue because, even with a complete lack of any ability to empathize with different people in different circumstances (which I assume as a default from right-wingers), he ought to understand this situation because it did happen to him. Yet he just doesn't care. Christ, what an asshole.

Yeah, there's a gap between "basic integrity and human decency" and, far below it, "average Republican behavior." He went in between.

It might even be simpler than that. Capitalism just doesn't care past the next quarter. And when ownership is disconnected from labor or even from customer, than it's just a really rudimentary collective intelligence. The shareholders just want the line to go up, and everyone in the corporate structure is accountable to the shareholders, so they all do their part, big or little, to make that happen. It completely dispenses with personal responsibility, whether for negative externalities, direct harm, or even the future as close as months from now.

The last time Google pulled out all the stops to fight ad blockers, I had to update uBlock Origin every now and then until the whole thing passed. That's all.

So I'm not worried. But I am amused that they keep making ads more obnoxious, which pushes more people to use ad blockers. I didn't even use sponsorblock until a particularly egregious bit of native advertising. They could probably gain ground by just making ads less irritating, but they absolutely will not.

Huh. I kind of do this in between sessions. I like to read a few pages, maybe a chapter or two, from whatever rulebook, just so I'm constantly brushing up on the rules.