Atlas667

The culture warriors are those who enable the culture war through framing discussions in incompatible ways.

Charlie Kirk, while pretending to be neutral, was funded by the rich to promote certain narratives and make clips owning the libs. You dont own the libs by being fair in discussions.

Same as any other "breadtube" liberal owning the conservatives.

These media figures make money and gain followers from being disingenous and unfair.

If you pretend they are unbiased researchers you have fallen. If you pretend they represent large swathes of people you have fallen.

They get normal people on their side by carefully framing certain ideas, not by being clear. They jump on your biases and take them hostage while accusing "the other side" of taking them hostage. This is done by both conservatives and liberals.

Media is not organic, it is incentivized, manipulated and controlled. You are mistaking an image of trees for the forest.

Working class politics isnt something you read about online its what YOU need and what the other workers around you need and how to realize that together. Socialism or bust, homies.

This is just kinda more culture war.

This post is assuming that acts of violence, like Charlie Kirk's assassination, are promoted and committed by large groups of people who identify, benefit or agree with parts of a specific framework (wokeism). Which is not true on principle.

You're ascribing agency and belonging to a group based on, basically, vibes. On vague agreements or conclusions, mispoken points, incomplete framings. That is the culture war. You're doing it.

And wokeism was just a corporate strategy to appear more friendly to consumers of alternate identities/perspectives. It wasn't something that came from the masses, it was something that was done to generate more money by corporations.

You're participating in the misunderstanding of large masses of people to gain an in-group identity. Sure there are crazy people who believe its ok to be violent on "both sides". We all understand that these people are crazy, those who don't are themselves crazy.

You're aiding the normalization of extremism and polarization just like some rad-lib is doing right now by calling you a fascist. We're all ignorant, we don't know everything.

The ad viewer rationale is parallel to advertiser interests and state goals. The media will try to satisfy it's advertisers editorially as well as comply with some state narratives for state favors.

Advertisers have massive leverage over what gets published in the media through pulling and pushing their ad funding.

And "Ex" NSA/CIA/FBI employees work in all branches of communications/media and many in editorial roles like "Foreign Policy Editors/Analysts", "Law Enforcement Analyst" or as consultants for editors.

It's not just "the media" who is destroying the country, it's capitalism and their profit motive.

Legal human trafficking was good for capitalism (not for the trafficked or for US workers). Good for the capitalists' economy.

This just made it a little bit harder for american capitalists. No doubt there are nationalist concerns but also national security concerns behind this decision.

This will end what is essentially legal human trafficking by medium and large corporations.

Which is clearly a good thing, but I fear it signals deteriorating relationships with other countries.

I don't understand why people can't make the logically necessary step to conclude that capitalism promotes cartels because there are profits to be made in cartels.

Capitalism always results in monopolies and cartels. This was known 100 years ago and it is still true now, just not as publicized. I wonder why...

My whole argument is that you can fulfill individual desires better through other means.

> It does, I'm certainly more comfortable in an i-Pace than most of the economy hoopties I've ubered in.

The lack of choices due to monopoly capitalism is a self fulfilling prophecy. (regular capitalism after some time is monopoly capitalism)

> Throwing individual benefit under the bus for collective benefit is rightfully a non-starter in the US.

This is a false dichotomy brought about by living in an economy controlled by finance capital. Individual benefit does not have to look like this and can be more internally and externally consistent.

Especially since this industry contains the seeds of its own destruction IN its own logic. Like I said, its more expensive than rail and to have any speed benefits it requires the majority of cars to be autonomous, which most likely will never happen. Not to mention physical safety and cyber security/privacy.

> How much would a private room cost, even if we had ubiquitous Japan-tier rail?

A private room would cost less because there are less costs involved overall. Rail/tram is cheaper and better.

-

I am, generally, arguing for medium and long distance travel tho. But in regards to short-distance specifically I think my argument still stands. I dont think it presents any greater benefit than the alternatives, of which some are definitely better. You'll see how mass use, if it even gets there, will make it just "another one". It doesn't scale.

Plus autonomous warfare dev right under our noses.

Yeah. Almost as if capitalism seeks to generate profits at the expense of the consumer especially if they have limited choices, which capitalism itself produces.

It doesn't really help consumers whose whole point is to get from point A to B in the quickest and most comfortable manner.

It doesn't help traffic, and it only will if self driving cars are already the majority, which is a convenient perspective for developers of this tech, but is not viable and not a true statement.

I don't want to be that guy, but we all know trains and trams are the better tech. Luxury trains/trams would be a banger. Private rooms with better amenities than a car, why not?

The autonomous car industry is a few things: car protectionism, oil protectionism, autonomous warfare development and gimmicks.

Nobody needs this.

This is incentivized as private enterprise developing autonomous warfare tech.

Nobody needs this. This is, in all likelihood, just private enterprise developing technologies for automated warfare.

This is a such a false dichotomy, mate.

The capitalists see PFAS policies as anti-free-trade because it imposes "artificial" limits on production. They see PFAS policies as "big govt overreach". And that if consumers don't want PFAS they should vote with their dollars to remove it. This is their pro-capitalist justification for de-regulation.

And what you're doing is you want to conflate their money making policies, such as removing PFAS protections, with the exact opposite of what it is. You're confusing it with anti-capitalist policies when it is, in fact, benefiting plastic producers and was probably recommended by plastic producers and manufacturers in the first place.

Needless to say it cannot be both. This is not maoism, THIS is capitalism.

You drank the kool-aid on anti-govt thought and now you think the government is anti-capitalist when the capitalists hold almost a total monopoly on government functions and officials and have always had, since they control most of the nations wealth and production and can employ it to serve them. The capitalists control the government outright.

To further elucidate your position: the fact is you hate free trade policies because they put you and your loved ones in danger, but you have been convinced that they are, theoretically, better for all of us. That is because in pro capitalist theory/propaganda anything that helps them is seen as benefiting the population because of two things:

1. Capitalist see themselves as part of the population (even though they are the minority). 2. They conflate the "invisible hand" metaphor with literal evolution without even giving a forethought to how these dynamics play out. Especially in a monopolized environment.

They espouse these ideas through their think tanks and media outlets because it benefits them.

They teach this double-think through total hate of govt policies because they see many govt policies as hindering them.

Think about how our broke asses can influence government. Very slim pickings.... Now think about how a billionaire can influence government. Capitalists have always controlled government.

When people en masse remember what capitalist policies do

Errr my bad, you're right.

IP*

Word interpretation is a part of "word usage".

You got it. Copyright is about defending monopolization, not just about creative rights and ensuring attribution.

Copyright is an artificial system propping up huge sections of the economy/whole industries. It's internal protectionism at best and hindering progress at worse. Nothing "free market" about it.

I'm not retreating into a wider claim. The civil rights issues were literally about "american" not meaning all of us legally.

That is my example for prior usage of the word "american" being biased. It was so biased that people willfully forgot the law and the constitution. Why does it not suffice?

Here is one more I recall:

“When I say all Americans — I mean all Americans...” President Truman when ending segregation in the army

I could keep looking up examples but I feel these are fundamental enough.

Yes african american emphasizes it, there was a need to do that. I wonder why?

Also I should add that I specifically dont give a damn about emoji color. I always leave default yellow cause i rarely use em anyways.

Like I said in the other chain:

What were civil rights issues about if not that "american" literally didn't apply to all of us on a constitutional/federal/state and cultural level?

You seem to be fixated on pointing out that ultimate neutrality has always existed when referencing the term "american" when everything proves otherwise.

And on top of that you want to say I'm biased because I'm pointing out that neutrality hasn't always existed around that term.

Chill out, dude.

Jesse Owens example is literally one example and one where they would have the obvious inclination for him to be in-group.

> (Remind me, which one of us is arguing that it's awkward and uncomfortable to emphasize someone's race?)

I don't think its awkward or uncomfortable to emphasize someones race. I'm mixed and I identify as both black and white, purposefully.

I can tell how deep you are into the culture war because you seem to be arguing right past me and with some imaginary figure of me that you have in your head.

Tell me what do you think the civil rights issues were/are about? Nah, ill tell you: That "american" didn't actually mean all of us on a constitutional/federal/state level and even cultural level.

I'm not gonna pretend I'm a sociology expert for internet points but there are many papers that show evidence of what I'm saying and they are not hard to find at all. Literally put a small amount of effort and you'll see at least 5 pop up. You can analyze their results if you want.

> Legos are Danish. It's not actually clear how the history of American racism or the applicability of the term "American" to black people prior to 1945 has any bearing on the creative intent of a Danish toy manufacturer, and if anything it's a little ethnocentric to judge it in that context.

Hilarious, dude. You totally lost the plot. I was using "american" vs "african american" bias as an analogy to explain the "yellow was universal" but that lego then decided to add brown lego figures. Yellow wasn't actually universal, yellow was white. White was then implicitly seen as universal.

The culture warrior has ended themselves.

You say its "progressive academia" but unless people are reading sociology research papers the way nearly all people come upon this is through mass media.

Is it now your theory to say that "progressive academia" controls mass media?

Or do you think its fine to say that somehow viewers themselves control mass media?

The truth is advertisers and shareholders control mass media.

Your statement also hinges on the assumption that america was united, at least on racial issues, and is now trying to be divided.

Back to the media. Your argument also uses the same rationalization as anti-DEI folks who blame a diversity-conspiracy when in reality it was just corporations (capitalism) trying to appear cool and understanding for more shareholder value. Every minority knew it was mostly a marketing gimmick by corporations (i knew).

The analogy here is that you take something the media did for money and externalize it as a social-sciences conspiracy.

The biggest mistake the masses do is thinking what the media and corporations do for money actually represents the will of the masses. That is the culture war.

The fact of the matter is that there is a racial-default bias within mass media and little plastic toy companies (lego) due to historical contexts. There's also racial tip-toeing to avoid being seen as racist due to company reputation and shareholder value. You are focused on the latter.

Non comment. Disregarded.

And so how does this relate to legos?

I was explaining reasonings for lego defaulting yellow into white.

The defaulting of "american" into white does happen frequently in news headlines by simple fact of often referring to black people as "african americans" and white people simply as "americans".

And like someone else pointed out in the thread there have also been studies who have researched this topic. I think it's a real bias people/media seems to have.

You may have a point with your retelling of the history of terms, I dont really know and I wont pretend to know. Though i sense some racial resentment in you with your statement that white people shouldn't, or weren't allowed to, have a racial self identity. But that is beside the point.

> Finally, what do you think was the internal logic of referring to black Americans as African Americans in the first place? It was to remind everyone that they are also Americans.

I don't think it was to subjugate them I think those are after effects of this country who systemically subdued other races and identified itself as white. In part that will never go away because the majority is still white. But there is a latent bias in there. And that's what I'm pointing out.

You're trying to accuse me of "crypto-anti-black racism" when I point out that we come from a racist society. Like I said before: 80 years ago+, 2-3 generations min, "americans" was meant to refer to white americans only. And that was almost 100 years AFTER slavery was abolished. The country was incredibly racist till relatively recently.

I am simply pointing out how the bias of a white nation still lives on in some way today and can be seen in the racial defaulting of little plastic figurine colors.

I'll just copy part of my other comment:

As another comment pointed out this is in part due to racial majority being defaulted into the non-specific term "american". As in: most americans are white so "americans" is thought of as refering to the biggest group of americans.

And in part due to historical subjugation of those other "americans". As in: less than 80 years ago the term "americans" was used almost exclusively to refer to white americans due to systemic racism.

It is still particularly prevalent in media headlines.

I don't know why you think I would make this up, lol.

When you need to specify what kind of lineage a person carries people will commonly say a person is "african-american" or "native-american", but never say "european-american".

As another comment pointed out this is in part due to racial majority being defaulted into the non-specific term "american". As in: most americans are white so "americans" is thought of as refering to the biggest group of americans.

And in part due to historical subjugation of those other "americans". As in: less than 80 years ago the term "americans" was used almost exclusively to refer to white americans due to systemic racism.

This context is still particularly prevalent in media headlines.

You're absolutely right. But look up the thread at what was being said.

We were talking about "yellow" being racially neutral according to lego and how that was proven wrong by lego themselves.

Same thing happened in US media (by media i mean all mediatic content).

Its the cause of racialized realities. It absolutely is the result of racist societies.

And sure, the majority being a single race is a neutral fact today. But how we got there is absolutely through a racist history.

> African American is an alternative to "black". It was not invented to make a lesser form of "American".

Man, I'm not saying its lesser. I'm talking about how its used.

I think you want to assign morality to my arguments when im being as neutral as possible.

In some widespread contexts "american" is racially defaulted to white. Full stop.

Like I said were not talking about the pure logical meaning of words were talking about how society uses them.

You're missing the point. "American" can be interpreted as racially neutral, but then why is "african-american" very common, but using "european-american" is almost non existent?. Same as "native-american".

The fact is that there already exists a racial default, I didn't make it, it simply exists due to the nuances of our society, its history and/or its media.

I didn't invent either term and I am not THE dictionary.

This is how these terms are interpreted by the world and also through simple logic. I am not the one who interprets these terms and their usage.

American society and culture is still severely segregated due to how crappily it dealt with the consequences of its racist history.

White americans are considered american and black americans are considered african americans. It is not a mutually exclusive truth, but it is the norm, and that's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about pure logic of meaning, we're talking about social usage of terms.

I dont think you understood his comment. He's right.

And not because they intentionally made yellow into white, but because they unintentionally made it so.

It's exactly the same as being an american vs being an african-american. You don't call white americans european-americans. Society (or media) assigned a racial default.

I'm gonna be a little more forward with this last argument: This is the product of mixed societies that have not dealt with racial bias and/or the consequences of racism well.

There's Detroit but theres also thousands and thousands of small towns everywhere where the main industry was coal/minerals or other resources that were outdated and left to poverty.

And the "regulation" argument is very popular but I feel it ignores the real problem for us: there is no democracy.

With the regulation argument you're basically hoping that one of the two parties full of billionaires, that we explicitely do not control, shoot themselves in the foot.

And as to adding value to the chain, that is what workers currently do, thats why they get paid. Which is what sparked this argument. The economy is not infinitely flexible, not all will be able to adapt, and according to the rules of capital the adaptation will be competitive and exclusive, so many people will be left out.

Yes, capitalism has been great, and we can do better.

Capitalism has a flaw, it only does what is profitable.

What is profitable is not one and the same with what is socially necessary or even what is good. They're more like analogous.

Like I said before capitalism is the only economic system that cannot handle more workers. If you produce for profit you cannot produce for needs. In a sense profits vs needs are made of the same stuff but dont look the same. Especially at scale.

Employing as many people as possible wouldnt be a problem if you were working for needs because, simply, more needs would be covered.

Its literally that simple. And when there is a true surplus of workers it would mean less work/more leisure.