don’t forget bait another western power into joining too just to shoot their troops

I mean if you’ve been here long enough you’ve probably had to tell someone to delete something for fedposting but there is also a difference between wanting people to incite violence versus thinking decrying violent action universally is dumb, especially in the context of how it is used in cases such as Trump’s piercing: where violence directed at the state is treated as political violence but violence that the state itself regularly commits is treated as non-existent and non-political.

I don’t really talk politics into back the blue support the troops rhetoric actually has repeatedly stunlocked me when reading stuff liberals write

Nation didn’t have enough glass so needed their cities converted to it.

🗞️🐅

Hey, that’s unfair!

Historic analysis shows the deportations would be quieter and more efficient!

No I agree, my point was moreso against the internet is a direct line comment. All of those require in person interaction and intervention. It’s rhetorical in the sense that any solution requires a direct connection via in person interaction

It is literally, materially a direct line of communication to everyone

As someone who studied Information Science, this is cap. Swathes of people lack internet access or have such poor computer literacy they may as well lack access to the internet. I literally know people in both categories as well.

How will you contact the worker who works 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week, with a 6-hour day most weekends then goes home, turns on cable tv for a few hours, then goes to sleep and wakes up to repeat the cycle?

What about the workers that do use the internet but in an extremely limited capacity: they watch Netflix and other streaming services, and message people they know IRL on WhatsApp, that is about it. How are you going to communicate with them?

These are examples that are pulled from people I actually know, let alone some of the examples of tech illiteracy I’ve had to study. How will the internet act as a direct line to them in this case?

I’m glad you’re optimistic but that line is a certified lib moment.

Also, education alone is not organized, it doesn’t create supply lines for mass strikes (people are far less willing to strike and fight the system if it means their children starve to death), it doesn’t set up community self-defense, and it does not create a bail fund. Organizing requires education, yes, but it also requires actually being able to act in an organized capacity which requires things like logistical capacity which theory alone does not give you. If we implanted the specter of communism in everyone unhappy with the status quo today, supply lines still need building, money, and resources still need allocating, and skillsets need reviewing for divisions of labor.

You mention that material action outside of education is already done, but is that material action comprehensive enough and solidified enough to support a mass movement and the struggle it shall entail? I would say no.

They are organized in protests, they do not have widespread community gardens set up to feed people when the capitalist system shuts the spigot off.

So I will second what another Cowbee said: Join an org

What would Lenin have been able to accomplish if What Is To Be Done? could have been published online? How much more effective would the movement have been if he had a YouTube channel? What if the greatest minds across Europe at the time could have hopped on a video call to discuss strategy?

This if anything, is proof of the need for organization beyond just education. These are all propaganda and organization use of the internet as a tool. But also, if it is that simple the revolution should have already occurred as all of these have modern equivalence. What Is To Be Done is published online, and all parts of the movement have YouTube channels. Modern organizations do use video calls to discuss strategy. The revolution has yet to occur.

I am not saying the internet is not an indispensable tool: I was exposed to theory via it. But more must be done outside of it, there are still people to be reached who lack internet access, unless you want capital to be able to cut off resources for the movement you need secondary structures built up outside established systems.

I will say though, despite disagreeing on a lot of the points, I do generally agree with the fact that we are at a fulcrum point where education is one of the foremost things that need to be done to capture the rising class consciousness and discontent.

I mean, can’t reading still have the exact same problem?

I was listening to them say Iran was blindly hitting cities as updates show Israel bombing their capital city.

See, I haven’t seen that since I was a kid and have no clue what it is supposed to be satirizing.

I’m listening to the UN Web as I endure illness and the US decided to outright threaten Iran during the speech.

Though it is funny how predictable almost every country is in responses.

Oh, I fully believe the point of satire is catharsis. I was more playing with the idea presented here:

If you’re too subtle, the satirical aspect is lost on the target audience that you’re making fun of

If that is a requirement for good satire, you’re likely not seeing it outside of clownish representations as just about anything short will likely have support from the group in question. i.e. Starship Troopers as you mentioned or the earlier seasons of The Boys.

I do think you can do a form of clownish representation that is compelling as well narratively, but you likely have to start from that point as well as have an extremely strong pen.

good satire makes the thing it satirized unpalatable to the people it lampoons with shame. it scorns them such that they would not want it shared or seen.

I have never seen good satire.

But what if you actually make a satirical mockumentary about Azov that’s outrageously nazi, to an absurd degree. Well then, you might just end up being liked by the nazis who are also fans of Azov, so did you really do satire, or did you just do a nazi film?

I mean, depends on the portrayal. outrageously Nazi to an absurd degree may be satire but absurdity by itself is not in itself necessary satirical. When I said clownish I wasn’t necessarily meaning merely outlandish either but more so the satirical work almost needs to portray the subject of its ridicule in a way a clown portrays themself. Not necessarily just outlandish but with universally understood cultural references that indicate intentional stupidity.

If someone does stupid stuff dressed normally, we may assume mistakes, incompetence etc. If they do the same dress as a clown, there tends to be an assumption of intent due to the clown dress being a thematic explanation. From my understanding, the boys moved to this type of storytelling in season 4 and it made a bunch of people realize it was making fun of them.

There is also the route of outright statements after every bit where you explain you are portraying something you ridicule.

In essence, I think if your concern is a group you’re portraying needs to be ridiculed in a way where they don’t embrace it via your work you need something along the lines of Garth Marenghi’s philosophy.

From what I have observed, a lot of people saw her as a reclamation of boy-crazed sexuality; thus a sense of betrayal has been formed.

but see almost anything but outright clownish representation ends up as too subtle unless something else about the work makes it so inapproachable that the only people who bother to consume it are able to pick up on it.

The AI nerds tend to be pretty insufferable however a lack of respect towards IP laws is something I can get behind.

: WHO WILL SERVE MY COFFEE IF WE DON’T HAVE EXPLOITED IMMIGRANTS AS A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS

No see, it will all go away if you just for the correct type of fascism!