FanonFan [comrade/them, any]

  • 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: September 10th, 2023
  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What are some pod casts worth checking out and why?
    0·
    3 months ago

    Kinda depends on what you’re looking for. Going through my podcast app:

    Dimension 20 is a bunch of CollegeHumor actors doing DND campaigns. I don’t play DND but have enjoyed this so far.

    The Dollop is a couple comedians riffing about strange people and events from history. More entertaining than educational but you might expand your knowledge a bit as long as you don’t put too much weight in their research.

    Blowback is a history podcast that goes over major historical events that people probably know of but not much about. The production quality is amazing and the research is really good. It’s like listening to a well-made documentary. Plus they got Jon Benjamin as a guest actor for season 1.

    Welcome to Nightvale is a surrealist horror/comedy with a fun vibe. Lots of memorable one-liners.

    My Dad Wrote a Porno is pretty funny, although I felt like the bit sort of wore out after a few episodes and stopped listening. Seems to have an audience and still be going so maybe it picks up.

    Citations needed is a solid critique of news narratives.

    Monday Morning podcast is okay if you want to hear Bill burr rant to himself for a while. He’s been doing it for like 13 years so there’s probably gold in there, but I think he’s better when he has someone to riff with. Only listened to a handful of episodes though.

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoUnited States | News & Politics@lemmy.ml•The state of US political discourse
    0·
    3 months ago

    The weird jab is only working against the fash because they’re obsessed with aesthetics. And now thet it’s being overused by people who are similarly hollow, it’s gonna lose its impact very soon.

    You’re not getting a serious answer because everyone here is irony poisoned as a defence mechanism from watching liberal electoral politics fail over and over again while continuously being gaslit by Dems. Most of us voted for Obama because we believed his progressive rhetoric. Then we watched him bail out banks and continue bloody imperialism and torture, failing to fulfill most of his promises despite at times controlling all three branches. We’re living in the world of Obama’s cynicism, or backing up further, of (Bill) Clinton’s rightward shift into Republican politics with a Democrat mask.

    Most of us backed Sanders then watched him get ratfucked twice. A lot of us still voted for (Hilary) Clinton because we believed she might be marginally better than Trump, and we watched her lose the electoral college despite winning the popular vote. A lot of us voted for Biden for the same reason, then watched as he continued Trump’s policies and funded genocide.

    At each step more and more people started realizing bourgeois electoralism is a sham and turned to reading theory and organizing. So we really don’t care who you vote for. If you actually care about anything more than aesthetics, read some theory and join an org.

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•Capitalism: A Short Story
    5·
    7 months ago

    To me it makes me think of the intellectualization of revolutionary theory to the degree that it’s no longer revolutionary, merely a means by which academics can advance their careers. I get that impression with a lot of western Marxian/critical theory from the last few decades tbh (although that doesn’t mean the works don’t contain interesting ideas).

    A quote from Marx that I like:

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

    Yet some academics remain content to idly interpret while benefitting from the spoils of imperialism and colonialism.

    Oooorrr it’s just a comic by an anti-communist trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy so they don’t have to engage with the ideas lmao

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•USA-Israel relations explained
    4·
    8 months ago

    It’s a signifier for a politico-economic concept, so yes. Third world is a similar signifier that also doesn’t really align with its original nor intuitive meanings. Semiotics is weird like that.

    Either one can be used to signify countries from which resources and labor are extracted by the Global North or something along those lines. Do they find themselves richer or poorer due to global trade?

    For example, Australia, in this context, wouldn’t be considered global south despite being in the southern hemisphere. Unless it was harshly colonized and became a resource trough for the USA and Europe, then its politico-economic position would change even though it obviously didn’t change geographically.

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Do you believe the that you have a soul?
    0·
    8 months ago

    The key to the thought experiment is perspective: we make everything identical materially to try to isolate a conceptual difference. We make the two clones identical in every way, and from nearly all perspectives they are identical (but distinct) entities. The sole difference in this scenario is the perspective of the clones, who have two distinct consciousnesses. Looking at your clone, you don’t see yourself, you see someone who looks like you. Because when we distill it to its pure essence, the one thing that is uniquely you is your perspective, your present conscious experience. You are looking through your eyes, thinking your thoughts, as is this entity materially identical to you. But it’s not seeing and thinking as you, thus it is something different.

    There’s something that ties your pure essence to its material composition, such that even a molecularly identical entity wouldn’t have your consciousness (just an identical consciousness, removed from your own).

    We can explore the bounds of this experiment by tweaking variables: you teleport a la star Trek, whereby your old body is disintegrated and a new identical one is immediately constructed. Or maybe you upload your consciousness when you die, so the list of variables that in theory comprise you are preserved. But in all cases, the essence that is you, your continuity of perspective, doesn’t transfer over. When you die, everything goes black, and that’s it. It’s only from external perspectives that “you” continue. But the you that is you, you as you experience yourself, is gone.

  • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Do you believe the that you have a soul?
    0·
    8 months ago

    I think (on a subrational level) that there’s some essence of personhood or consciousness that seems to transcend its material fabric, becoming more than the sum of its parts. “Transcend” is too strong a word, since by all appearances there’s no static being that isn’t still largely a result of and dependent on its makeup; as the foundation deteriorates so does the consciousness that results from it. That spectrum of functionality seems to undermine the possibility of a true soul that exists independent of its body.

    But the word certainly signifies an actual thing, I think. Take a thought experiment: if we were to somehow make an exact replica of you, down to the molecular level, it would from all perspectives except your own be you. But the essence of what is you to yourself, your continuity of perspective, would (probably) not inhabit that new body, it would still inhabit your current one. The Star Trek / Prestige problem of conscious continuity suggests there’s something there, at least conceptually.

    The fact that there’s still a lot about physics / the universe / consciousness that science doesn’t understand leaves ample room for conjecture, for now.