Lmao, you typed this still, why are you trying to talk to me?
Oh, I just realized you are referring to my calling liberals fascists and not when I call “socialists” liberals. Oh boy, wait 'till you learn about liberalism.
See, this is how you stop someone from talkin to you dummy: blocked.
Some were people who grew up in former Soviet states where simplified versions of socialist writing in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries were taught and they focused more heavily on the political structure of the communist state rather than the relationality and philosophical underpinnings of Marxism and socialism; structuralist and postmodern ideas didn’t even seem to factor in.
It’s true though, there has been a very intentional effort among liberals to appropriate socialist and communist ideas into their rhetoric as they have feminist, queer, and African American theory under neoliberalism. I’ve had classes where I have to explain what “liberal” means because it’s pretty much assumed it’s going to be heard the same as “progressive,” which has also been deprived of meaning but over a much longer period of time. Euros are the same though, and on Lemmy especially since it’s a bit more distributed among American and European users for a bunch of reasons. You see it on other platforms, but on here there’s so many Europeans who straight up think they’re altruistic socialists but presume everyone else agrees that colonialism is over and Europe is reformed (corporations and international law is what isn’t colonialism apparently btw, lol)
Liberalism is exceptional at appropriation because it has emerged over centuries of EuroAmerican imperialism and settler-colonialism, its main purpose is to steal.
For the joke, yes. But, also because I’m curious if you have a real critique besides “stinky and mean to me,” as I genuinely don’t have experience with that community, but have ran into a lot of uncritical “socialists” on fediverse stuff in general.
Another funny thing here is you’ve done a lot of stuff that I don’t think you realize is telling of liberal thought, the infantalization is another big one, but you’ve hit almost everything. If your next comment is something about trans women, think we got a full row.
Removed by mod
I don’t think it’s helpful to construct liberals as ignorant in the same way a child is. It is an uncritical and harmful way to think, but children can’t understand what genocide is because they haven’t lived long enough and do not know enough about the world, adults differ in that it is a choice to remain ignorant or to not change in response to knowledge.
There’s a special kind of malice that comes from truly knowing you’re wrong but do not care to learn better; not because they can’t, but because it is inconvenient.
Are you a liberal?
Yes, I don’t get why so many of you appear to not understand that these problems coexist with the reality that people have been using it anyway. As I alluded to above when I said that a psychotherapist would be required to actually learn to practice those strategies and expressed my disagreement with AI therapists on a treatment basis in multiple instances, there is no replacing a human therapist or any reasonable basis to even call AI therapists “therapists.”
As I said, again multiple times, since people use it anyway and prefer it to nothing or a bad therapist, we have to take its merits seriously and identify why. Reality does not care that you find it dumb and icky, I would love it if everything I know is dumb and icky was simply not a problem because I found it dumb and icky.
All of these people are clearly not just stupid, which is what you and the person I responded to seem to think, which is just foolish. No, everyone else is not just dumber than you. There is clearly a material reason why people use these things and why some even say they want to. How many people do you know who do not go to therapy because they can’t afford it, or because they’ve been traumatized by it, or because they could get fucking institutionalized for it. Have you thought about, perhaps, the people as people?
I swear to god, some of you see a long comment from someone you don’t like the sound of and you just make up whatever it says based on the shit you imagine people who disagree with you say. And they say reading levels are down, pshaw.
Well, I’m sure someone who uses “clanker” wouldn’t need therapy anyway.
Seriously though, I doubt the health implications or claims about the efficacy of AI therapists, but we can’t just ignore the fact that there are people who use it, which means there’s something about it that makes it accessible or preferable to a human therapist.
If you’ve ever had to get a psychotherapist, you know that it is prohibitively expensive for a large number of people, and that a human therapist may not actually be capable of treating you because of personal incompatibility; which often results in retraumatization in patients who are seeking therapy for particularly traumatic or sensitive issues. Since much of the value in therapy is learning management strategies that, while not standard, are often consistent across different practitioners, they do not necessarily need to come from a therapist to learn what they are (even if the practice of them does need one).
I think if there is a need for it, that need is a consequence of the deeply dysfunctional, exploitative, and isolating system we live under, and I don’t think I’d ever accept it as a genuine alternative to human therapists. But, we can’t dismiss it out of hand if there are people who say it is useful for them and when we can’t maintain a system that can guarantee them access to treatment.
You’re telling me that you believe you are not vulnerable to validation? Right before using the word “corrupted” uncritically in a way that suggests there is a universal and normative “real life?”
What if someone who you respected the authority of, like a prominent scholar or filmmaker, said your obviously incorrect stance on things was correct? You’d trust me, Online Internet Bastard, when I tell you that you are wrong?
AI has been sold as something exceptionally capable of mimicking human knowledge, and its existence is compatible with liberal notions of “objectivity” in that it is quite literally not a human being. Most men subscribe to this authority, and are also statistically bereft of emotional intelligence or management skills. You ever try telling a man what they want to hear? I’ve never ever met one who doesn’t just eat it up.
OK lib.
If had a nickel for every time I had a person with a passing interest in Marxism mansplain the world to me. This is a starting point, materialism is not exclusively how socialists and anarchists criticize or understand capitalism.
You seem to think this is contradictory, which should spur you to question something more fundamental instead of assuming others are just dumber than you. “Coordination” would require a conspiratorial level of organizing between groups that, while maintaining common interests, distorts the reality of this system to the point of incomprehensibility. If your way of thinking finds it impossible to analyze the interaction between people – individual actors – and the system they are positioned in – as in their class interests – then you will find this system incomprehensible. This is so because, guess what, there are individual actors who are not powerlessly making decisions in accordance with their positionality.
In order to do that, you must start understanding these things as relational. There are class interests motivating these policies, those class interests are not the sole mover of these actions. To suggest as much would do what you are trying to do right now, which is universalise human action. I wonder if you’ve thought about power dynamics in indigenous nations under settler-colonialism, and what it would mean to only interpret their navigation of this system with the frameworks that originate from Europe with the goal of understanding European ways of organizing. How do you understand conflicting interests within shared classes even under the same material conditions?
Getting fuckin tired of people on here presuming they’re all-knowing; many of these interactions happen to occur in discussions on Europe, go figure. Won’t be responding to anything else from you unless it is actually serious.
Strange, I didn’t realize there was any non-liberal, anti-capitalist states within the EU.
I think you’ve misunderstood the point, what I’m saying is that these sorts of policies are an inevitable consequence of liberalism because it requires an oppressive level of population control to function. The internet is a threat to that control, and therefore liberal states have responded predictably and consistently by moving to create as many vectors of restriction and punishment as they can. The UK is not part of the EU, Canada (which has been pushing for this for half a decade now) isn’t, Australia isn’t, but they are all capitalist and imperialist liberal states.
I don’t know how contrived the mechanisms have to be before people just accept that these ideological forces do not need specific mechanisms to exist. Tech firms did not produce liberalism and capitalism, as they did not exist when these ways of organizing emerged. Everything you described here are consequences of this system and the means by which it reproduces itself, they are not the system itself. Yeah, they organize, they do so because they have a common interest which is capital, and the imperatives of profit and infinite growth historically manifest consistently in formal and informal mechanisms of control like this.
Class warfare doesn’t apply here any better than it does to the informal consequences of neoliberal individualism which is both intentionally reinforced in media and culturally through its subscription by middle-class property owners. It may look coordinated, but that term distorts how these systems of power function and reproduce by creating the narrative that there is a select group of people responsible for this outcome, even while individual actions are taken to realise it.
It’s not “coordinated” any more than every action in service of capital is. These policies and values coincide because all of these liberal states share common imperatives. The internet is a problem for liberals; it is impossible to fully control without diminishing its use for industry, anti-capitalism has flourished online even with the overwhelming corporate promotion of fascism and liberalism, and the international nature of the medium has made imperialism more visible to the metropole than ever.
They correctly identify that the internet is a threat to their security, and they are moving to secure it and punish as many people as they can to discourage its use for disruptive purposes.
Liberals. It’s systemic like it has always been. As cathartic as it is to remember the French Revolution, it’s not like it worked and ended stratification and imperialism. Liberalism will always seek as much control as possible, and the internet has proven to be a huge fucking problem exactly because it is so impossible to control.
Removed by mod
I think you’re underestimating how much of a problem liberal states are in their use of soft power. I don’t doubt that most Linux users and devs would resist, I’m saying that it would definitely be a threat for liberal states to dedicate resources to influencing norms and access. They don’t need to “win” as in complete and utter domination of every aspect of development for Linux to have a massive and negative effect. Think about how much more labour the US state has at is disposal than the entirety of the Linux community; how much more resources it has that could be dedicated to the privileging of projects that do comply.
Yes, how to resist is certainly important to consider, but there’s no way to design that resistance if you ignore the tools at their disposal. Look at how big Zorin got from just a timely marketing campaign or the fact that corporate- and enterprise-oriented revenue models are already deeply influential on the landscape even without state promotion.
Oh, no it wouldnt be like “we’re mandating this through legislation,” because that is typically really hard to defend. They’re more likely to simply provide subsidies or some sort of financial benefit to larger, more compliant entities.
Yes, almost like that’s why there’s a bubble despite the obvious disparity between both states’ ability to maintain an adequate infrastructure for this technology. US companies are looting with the full expectation that the cost of the economic fallout will be shifted to taxpayers. They’re getting as much value out of this before China inevitably becomes dominant even in the US sphere of influence as the US simply will never be able to compete after decades of neoliberal politics and the erosion of public works.