• Evilphd666 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        1 month ago

        It’s called burying the lede. It should have been disclosed up front.

        Burying the lede refers to the practice of hiding the most important and relevant information within a story, often by placing it towards the end or burying it beneath less crucial details. This technique can be used intentionally to manipulate the narrative or unintentionally due to poor storytelling.

          • Evilphd666 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            3·
            1 month ago

            I did read the article. It’s copagada. Should I conclude anything else? Tightening the noose of the survailence state run by people whose life mission is to suck us dry and destory any leftist

            IMO Slate, as an org, should have disclosed it next to her name in the header [Name, Profession, Disclosure, then the yadda yadda] as in traditional practice instead of 3 paragraphs down after some exposition. They knew people don’t like cops, especially it’s intended audience, so they need a hook to get you invested first so you don’t dissmiss it outright which it should be anyways.

            She’s litterally a cop trying to “we hear you we see you” gaslight us into being comfortable a totalitarian surveillance state that historicallly has and is continued to be used against us on the left. I don’t need to go into a long ass tirade about the history - especially in American context.

            You may have a difference of opinion on that but doesn’t mean you get to throw around “Well you just didn’t read the article”. No I read it and disagreed with the way it’s presented and it’s conclusions. I wanted people to know this piece is coming from a cop and should be looked at with scrutiny or scoffed at as it should be. Or as OP posted for - dunking and scoffing.

            We’ve heard all her bullshit before “the benifets outwight the risks” maybe-later-kiddo be pragmatic. Yeah i remeber how much life SUCKS in this country post 9/11 and the damned PATRIOT Act. I have sworn off NY State, Texas, Illinois, Florida, most of California just because it is fucking creepy and fucked up. I stay in the house. Even when I do stay in the house all my electronics have backdoors and zero days. They can use my wifi to see in the house everywhere I go. They know everything I type, all the port I violate my Volcel Oath with. Every password. Everythin I say.

            I don’t want cameras everywhere tracking my every move slappped into a Skynet Minority Report precrime system. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should especially given the trajectory of how it’s been going so far with secret department and secret laws ans secret programs and “oh we would never” except after 20 years disclose “yeah we really were the whole time so we need this new security law to make the illegal unconstitutional shit we were doing legal to cover our asses”.

            Edit - oh and the State will magically turn them off, have things break, disappear, or destroyed if it has anything to do with embarssing or incriminating them. Aka Seth Rich who leaked DNC, Hillary emails guned down in one of the most survailed cities (DC) no clue to his assailant, or Jeffery Epstien under suicide watch in prison.

            I wonder why people don’t trust cops? Well if we can’t rely on people because we have fucked our reputation then we’re just going to take and do whatever and here’s how that’s a good thing and won’t make things worse. jagoff

  • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    29·
    1 month ago

    the way that china uses cameras, for example, if you run a stop sign, and a cop sees you do it, chances are, he’s not gonna pull you over, because it was caught on camera and your plate shows where you live and they know who you are, so you can just get a ticket in the mail- i have no problem with this

    i have no faith that amerikkka would be using cameras or similar technology this way. it would 100% be weaponized against our daily lives.

      • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        37·
        1 month ago

        your name, face, age, money in your bank account

        Every developed country has this info on it’s citizenry, heck most developing countries these days do to. You’re arguing basic bureaucracy is totalitarian.

        where you spend your time, where you have been to, etc.

        And most countries have some means of keeping track of this too if they suspect you’re guilty of a crime. Again, describing this as some unique “evil” makes no sense, any sort of state administration does this, you have to prove it’s frequently being deployed in a extremely malicious way before you can argue any state is more “authoritarian” or whatever than any other.

      • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        30·
        1 month ago

        what is the practical application of that information? it’s to keep society safe and functioning. in an ideal world, this wouldn’t be necessary but china has 1.3 billion people and remains one of the safest nations on earth for a reason. you don’t see police constantly brutalizing people there, because their network of cameras and identification means that unless something presents an immediate threat, they can typically just let the person do their shit and then catch them at home. you can’t drive ten miles in america without seeing someone pulled over by police for some minor traffic violation- is that freedom, was that interaction necessary? what about the odds of that interaction escalating to the citizen being murdered by police? this isn’t an issue in china because firstly the police are trained and secondly many of those interactions are entirely eliminated

        america knows all that about me too but i can still get mugged walking a mile to the gas station and i’ll still see 5 homeless people along the way and multiple cops just posted up waiting to fuck with someone

        i used to be an anarchist. idealistic thinking isn’t realistic.

          • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            38·
            1 month ago

            I’m not an Idealist, but I’d rather die than live under a dictatorship

            brother then you know what to do because your ass is living under a dictatorship of the borugeoisie

              • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                25·
                1 month ago

                You don’t want to be ruled, then you’re a libertarian. Hence the “live free or die” slogan from the American imperialists in your header image

                Call yourself a syndicalist, but no unified council of syndicates to run a group? Best of luck

              • Black_Mald_Futures [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                25·
                1 month ago

                , I just want neither a political party nor the borgeoisi rule me

                Well guess what buttercup, you’re going to have to grow the fuck up and learn how politics works because even under whatever anarcho-whateverist bullshit you dream up you’re still going to be subject to the rules of the dominant parties.

                You’re a liberal larping as an anarchist if you think anarchy means “i’m totally free from the burdens of what others want”

          • hello_hello [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            28·
            1 month ago

            here is how they treat peaceful journalists:

            No way you just linked to a CNN dipshit shoving his way through a restricted area while speaking only English. Your “journalists” don’t exist they’re Western chauvinistic propagandists. Do some self crit and explore the resources hexbear shares on modern China.

              • sweatersocialist [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                25·
                1 month ago

                now that you know what that is, consider what views you’re espousing if you are indistinguishable from them. it’s western propaganda, complete blindness to your own material reality, anarkiddie bullshit. “i’m not an idealist, but i’d rather die than live in a dictatorship”. comrade what do you think capitalism is? it doesn’t matter which supposedly superior western nation you live in, you are in a capitalist dictatorship- refer to what i said about “complete blindness to your own material reality”.

                your post literally reads like “i can go to walmart and buy a tv on credit, how can you say i’m not free?”

          • T34_69 [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            25·
            1 month ago

            here is how they treat peaceful journalists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjLt3XTY-rs Now you may say: tha

            Hahahahahaha oh fuck that was hilarious, thanks for posting. “Sirs! They are manhandling me! I say! We are in a public space and they are manhandling me!” Fuckin hilarious, I got no sympathy for CNN anglo propagandists trying to muscle their way into that space when they don’t even speak Mandarin and they’re obviously there to do a hit piece. Cry about it

            • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.netEnglish
              13·
              1 month ago

              Then why are you alive right now?

              because I will fight against capitalism, imperialism, dictators and monarchs util my last dieing breath

              also what I meant with that is that I’ll rather die than live in a dictatorship and not do anything to destroy it’s chains of opression

          • heggs_bayer [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            15·
            1 month ago

            …what if someone else (someone else as within some other member of the CCP) came to power who doesn’t like free speech, they could use this against free speech.

            They can and do. Free speech is a bad thing, especially in a nation under siege from the Great Satan. I especially want you and people with your views to have their free speech suppressed.

            Now you may say: that’s not as bad as some US police brutality, but that is because in the US these things actually get investigated and the officers that did wrong at least sometimes get what they deserve.

            Unironically believing this farquaad-point. It took over a year of protests and riots all over the Great Satan to get one (1) pig to get anything more than a slap on the wrist!

            first: they know less about you than the CCP does about a chinese citizen

            Fake news.

          • miz [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            12·
            1 month ago
            zhenli explains anarchism's reliance on idealism (cw: critical discussion of tendencies)

            […]

            Second, it ignores the actual, real distinction between Marxists and anarchists, which is centralization and decentralization, originating from differing views on historical materialism and idealism.

            Anarchists want to break up society into decentralized units, they see the centralization tendency of capitalist society as a bad thing and want to smash it and build an entirely new and different society out of a void, while Marxists see the development of capitalist society as in fact laying the foundations for socialism which it will be built on top of, i.e. it will be centralized.

            Bukharin explained this brilliantly a century ago.

            Communist society is, as such, a STATELESS society. If this is the case - and there is no doubt that it is - then what, in reality, does the distinction between anarchists and marxist communists consist of? Does the distinction, as such, vanish at least when it comes to examining the problem of the society to come and the “ultimate goal”? No, the distinction does exist; but it is to be found elsewhere; and can be defined as a distinction between production centralised under large trusts and small, decentralised production.

            …Our ideal solution to this is centralised production, methodically organised in large units and, in the final analysis, the organisation of the world economy as a whole. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a completely different type of relations of production; their ideal consists of tiny communes which by their very structure are disqualified from managing any large enterprises, but reach “agreements” with one another and link up through a network of free contracts. From an economic point of view, that sort of system of production is clearly closer to the medieval communes, rather than the mode of production destined to supplant the capitalist system. But this system is not merely a retrograde step: it is also utterly utopian. The society of the future will not be conjured out of a void, nor will it be brought by a heavenly angel. It will arise out of the old society, out of the relations created by the gigantic apparatus of finance capital.

            —Bukharin, Anarchy and Scientific Communism

            It is very important to understand that anarchists aren’t simply Marxists who want to get to statelessness faster. They are in many ways the polar opposite of Marxists, the gulf that separates Marxists from anarchists is just as large as pretty much any other ideology.

            Anarchists reject historical materialism and view history through an idealist lens, believing that all new societies are “conjured out of a void” as Bukharin put it, and thus they believe this new society can be anything they want it to be, if they can imagine it then it can be implemented.

            Marxists on the other hand, with a historical materialist analysis, see new systems as inherently being built upon new conditions brought into existence by the old system, i.e. socialism cannot be anything we want it to be but must be built upon foundations created by capitalism itself.

            Hence, Marxists see the centralization tendency of capitalism as the basis for what socialism will be built upon, while anarchists not only do not hold this view, but they view the conditions capitalism is bringing forth as a bad thing that must be entirely destroyed.

            A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer.

            —Lenin, Socialism and Anarchism

            […]

      • hello_hello [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        19·
        1 month ago

        “the Joe Biden knows everything about you, your name, face, age, money in your bank account, where you spend your time, where you have been to, etc. I don’t think you could call that good use of surveillance.”

        America’s surveillance apparatus is leagues more brutal than any Chinese system but USians don’t hear about it because it’s being field tested in the genocide of Palestine and hunting down migrants at the border. It’s also incredibly fucked, your 9 digit SSN is basically used for anything govt. related and can basically be considered your state mandated government ID from birth. So much of American data is held up in data brokers who will literally sell your personal info (enough for anyone to impersonate you) to the government or to other companies, the 3 letter agencies literally hoard petabytes of American data they gathered after 9/11 when the US basically became what the liberal imagination thinks China is.

        China has spent decades perfecting their surveillance apparatus and yet it’s not the extrajudicial murder, school shooting, prisoner capital of the world.

          • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            21·
            1 month ago

            i’d like to introduce you to a bunch of my comrades who protested the genocide of Palestinians on college campuses

            i want you to tell them they’re very free to protest in the USA and their efforts have viable effects. You might have to do it in person since some of them still can’t see through the pepper spray and can’t hear very well from their head injuries

          • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            17·
            1 month ago

            Which country do you live in?

            If it’s the US I’d suggest you focus on criticizing your own country first.

            If it’s another country the US probably has far more geopolitical influencer over your country than China does, so you’re still using your time better criticizing them.

              • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                19·
                1 month ago

                Ogey…

                Just to ask, do you believe in countries like Vietnam, Laos, or Cuba, or even Bolivia

                If you can’t, then even tho you may not a liberal, economically, or culturally, I think you are a liberal at heart, when it comes to foreign policy… aka you tow the U.S state department’s line, when it comes to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ countries

                I’m afraid because of such matters, you might get banned over this

                • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  12·
                  1 month ago

                  you might get banned over this

                  I’m new here, but I didn’t do anything wrong I think, I just stated my opinion

                  If I did something wrong please enlighten me

          • miz [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            16·
            1 month ago

            posting this here for those who might click on these links and read

            Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.

            from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

            The result of this grim state of affairs is that the oppressed classes understandably become deeply cynical about the entire notion of “politics.” Or, to put it in terms of political tendency, regardless of who they vote for at the booth, they begin to become dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians; “incompetence of government” becomes their main transcendental political truth. This becomes especially apparent when they discuss the choking and overthrow of the government of other peoples, in Venezuela and Syria and Korea. Normally, disillusionment with one’s government would lead to demands for better government, or different government, but Westerners are so ingrained with the idea that theirs is the best government, that instead they reject the very idea of good governance altogether. And so the masses learn to passively embrace the encroachment of private corporations over all aspects of the economy and indeed life in general.

            from https://redsails.org/brainwashing/

            Now consider these excerpts from the aforementioned Guardian article:

            For a reliable benchmark about the power of the party in China, you only need to listen to wealthy entrepreneurs hold forth on politics. These otherwise all-powerful CEOs go to abject lengths to praise the party. To take a few companies listed in a single article in the South China Morning Post, Richard Liu of e-commerce group JD.com predicted communism would be realised in his generation and all commercial entities would be nationalised. Xu Jiayin of Evergrande Group, one of China’s largest property developers, said that everything the company possessed was given by the party and he was proud to be the party secretary of his company. Liang Wengen of Sany Heavy Industry, which builds earthmovers, went even further, saying his life belonged to the party. [14]

            Just as the lack of dignity of American workers isn’t merely superficial, but symptomatic, the same is true of the lack of dignity of Chinese capitalists. The periodic execution of corrupt capitalists and the humiliation of Jack Ma matter. Chauvinistic “Left” intellectuals may dismiss them as performative, but Western capitalists accustomed to impunity understand the threat loud and clear. The dignity or indignity experienced by different classes testifies more to the class character of a state than musings about its leaders’ sincerity.

            from https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

            • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              10·
              1 month ago

              Don’t despair when the lib you’re talking to ignores your well thought out response. Instead, look at the people lurking and reading the thread and not commenting, and what they see. They see you provide thoughtful and insightful statements backed up with evidence, only for the lib to either ignore it entirely or just dismiss it with a handwave (and obviously not even reading it). Even if someone agrees with the lib and not you, it still isn’t a good look for their “team” to be so smugly and proudly ignorant.

                • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  6·
                  1 month ago

                  Truly, and it’s mind blowing to see people run defence for them, insisting that those that oppose them are the real demons, while claiming that they oppose the powers that be are “just as bad” despite never actually willing to commit to their own claims about what they would do if they were living in the exact situation they claim to despise.

              • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                6·
                1 month ago

                Don’t despair when the lib you’re talking to ignores your well thought out response.

                Said lib has taken to posting about those mean hexbear tankies all over the anti-communist parts of Lemmy (and also for some reason lemmy.ml’s anarchism comm). This was never about good faith discussion and all about getting in a pissing contest here then whining about it elsewhere.

                • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  6·
                  1 month ago

                  Yeah, they show up every now and then so they can whine about “censorship” or mean evilbad tankies. It’s so pathetic.

          • Pentacat [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            7·
            1 month ago

            Someone should remind him the Hong Kong protests were started to prevent the extradition of a dude who chopped up his girlfriend and put her in a suitcase. I’m not pro-law enforcement or even close, but the Hong Kong protests are a really strange thing to fixate on.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              4·
              1 month ago

              In reality it was about mix of reasons, main ones was, first, HK was choke full of various crooks who would had chance to move to slammer under Chinese law so they shat their pants, and since they were influental there they incited the petty burgie mob going hard on red scare, commies confiscating their toothbrush etc. Second main reason is because the new law was a step towards decolonisation from British colonial and financial power and this moved the really big players to support the former two levels.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.comEnglish
    15·
    1 month ago

    Think of all the Ford f-350s and speed boats on huge trailers that will be sold in your area!

    The transfer of wealth to local impoverished luxury car and boat dealers will be great for the local mega-mansion construction industry!

    Its Win Win Lose!

  • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    1 month ago

    It’s interesting how she uses the voices of people of color to try to justify this. I tried looking into her background, and it seems like she’s just white? This might be more blackwashing (idk if this is a real term) than representing what the “black community” wants. Add to that how the “black community” is not a monolith, and it really doesn’t seem very genuine.

    Also, she was charged with child endangerment. Just a fun fact I found while looking her up.

    • porcupine@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      6·
      1 month ago

      Opposing ideas without investigating and ignoring real-world problems that get in the way of sweeping solutions are hallmarks of ultraleftism.

      Recognizing the theoretical utility of empowering the investigative apparatus of a hypothetical proletarian state is a piss poor defense of empowering the actually existing settler colonial bourgeois state with tools to defend their class supremacy. I’m no scholar, but I’m pretty sure Mao’s point wasn’t that you should arm your class enemies to better fantasize about how cool it would be if those tools fell into your lap instead. Lenin is quite clear: “Today, in Britain and America, too, ‘the precondition for every real people’s revolution’ is the smashing, the destruction of the ‘ready-made state machinery’”

      the guy at the top is at minimum doing actual harm reduction

      yeah, and Joe Biden Kamala Harris is the most progressive president in history so who are you to shirk your duty to vote for him her to Save Democracy™? after all, “shut up and listen to the sensible policy solutions of qualified bourgeois experts” was famously Mao’s whole deal…

        • porcupine@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          5·
          1 month ago

          This is the accelerationism debate: do you support marginal improvements because they help people, and that’s the end goal? Or oppose them because they strengthen the existing state? I don’t think you can build a mass movement around opposing what helps right now.

          “Marginal improvements” that aim to more effectively maintain the instrument of bourgeois class rule are called “reformism”. Proletarian class politics don’t involve building a mass movement of settler cops around what helps other settler cops better enforce imperial property relations and racial hierarchy. Marxism is a doctrine of violent revolutionary class struggle. It is not a doctrine of peacefully ceding power to the bourgeois state and their front line enforcers in the hope that you’ll incite them to surrender control at some point in the future via the correct combination of campaign contributions, primary votes, and picket signs.

          If you’re saying Larry Krasner is essentially Kamala Harris I don’t believe you’ve investigated either in much detail.

          Liberals tell me that every day about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, and to give them the smallest amount of credit, at least they’re technically correct that Trump didn’t share Harris and Krasner’s career in law enforcement.

            • porcupine@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              4·
              1 month ago

              You characterized giving cops more power to do their jobs more effectively as a generally understood “marginal improvement” that “helps people”. That characterization only follows from a misunderstanding about the purpose of police under bourgeois dictatorship or a very specific view of who constitutes “people”. To be clear, there’s little to no revolutionary potential in narrow minority of the US population that the bourgeois criminal legal system exists to “help”.

                • porcupine@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  4·
                  1 month ago

                  "We are not going to build a mass movement by telling people “leftists are opposed to things that help you right now.”

                  This is the crux of the issue. The people in the United States who belong to a class that the police exist to help will always be counterrevolutionary, because the police do not exist to prevent violence. The police exist to perform violence to one class on behalf of another. This is the primary purpose of a state. A mass movement of propertied settlers whose interests the police represent is an obstacle, not a prerequisite, to proletarian revolution. Saying that we should empower US cops because some individual action might incidentally “stop a bad guy” is akin to saying that we should empower the US military because they built schools in Iraq, or a “floating aid platform” in Gaza, or “stop terrorism”. It’s not what they’re for. It’s true that many propertied Americans believe the police and military are there to help them, because the US is the imperial core and its citizens largely labor aristocrats. Socialism requires defeating those people, not persuading them. It requires organizing the subjects of imperial violence, not finding common cause with the beneficiaries of it.

                  The people in the US that require organization already understand on a deeply personal level that the police do not exist to protect them. They don’t believe this because someone convinced them of it, they understand this from experience because the US has never afforded them the luxury of misunderstanding how quickly and easily cops are will kill them.