• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • Caveat that I have not played the games, but taking the series at face value they are highly US-centric like most Hollywood productions. It makes no sense arguing on the basis of the series alone what they are going with in this regard, since all the action takes place in the US it is pretty much the scope of the universe, just like in many Americans minds. I tried to make a disjoint point, that was based on how I would interpret it with complete disregard to whatever is canon to the story as a whole, taking what is presented in the first season of the series at face value.

    To put this into context with Star Trek, I also find it really boring and non-immersive whenever they hold 21st century America in special consideration. It is just such an obvious way to make a comparison to current state of affairs in one particular country, placating preferences of current pop culture, which is redundant anyway since all science fiction is a universal critique of the current state of affairs anywhere simply by showing a future alternative. A hypothetical sudden end to US hegemony is actually a valid way to make the current US affairs leading up to it special with respect to the future development of mankind, and not just a boring move for views.





  • I would just like to digress by pointing out that I found your discussion interesting and that .world defederating .ml would kill potential future ones like it. It also seems to me that rejecting ML impulses, say by disassociating the .ml and .world users, would not contribute to organising society in a way that would allow for the revolution you speak of.

    MLs do not go away by ignoring them. One of their main tenets, which they are to be admired for, is precisely their obstinancy to making themselves heard. If I understood you correctly as a proponent of a solution that is yet to be evolved, why reject the input of MLs? I am personally curious about learning more about anarchism, that is if the theory is not so weak it would but all be destroyed by the breath of a ML.






  • Yup! Also one has to mind the order in which one rolls the dice. Since 10 and 5 could be either 05 or 50. As a bonus, if you roll them in order of “tens” to “ones”, getting 10 on the first dice has added suspense since the latter dice determines if it is going to count as a low roll of 0X (by rolling 1-9 on the next dice X) or if it is going to be a max roll of 100 (by rolling another 10).





  • Urist@lemmy.mltoFediverse@lemmy.worldare people still all riled up about beehaw?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    DPKR isn’t a dictatorship though. Kim alone holds less power in his country than Biden for instance. Also he was elected. DPKR have some sort of direct democracy that most western world doesn’t even dream about.

    So I want to start off with recognizing that western media love to blow up American propaganda about how “batshit crazy” Kim Jong-un is. In reality I think development of nukes is to some degree quite sensible as a defensive measurement for DPRK, especially given their stated goal to develop socialism without external involvement.

    Formally DPRK looks quite democratic with power derived from the working people’s assembly. However, I do not see how formalism really matters if it does not conform with praxis. Having officials elected for life from the same bloodline is to me a big red flag in this regard. The same with things like the assembly only being actually assembled for a few days of the year and statisics regarding voter participation and such.




  • I can sympathize with why you would think this. I am also not saying you are wrong per se, but I want you to know that many leftists with seemingly strange opinions have spent much time analyzing and considering the stuff they are vocal about. That does not mean they are automatically right, but it could mean that to understand their positions fully, in order to do things like evaluate bad or good faith discussions, more effort is required than usual. Hence I think you might be in danger of mischaracterizing those you think you disagree with. Ultimately, that might contribute to you having stances that could disagree with your values.

    As a personal example, one thing that I had to spend a lot of time thinking about was the concepts of violence and authoritarianism. I have deep aversion for both, but also a clearer idea of what they actually are than I had before, with the consequence of some different stances on a range of issues.