You don’t need to run a candidate for president to gain popular support. And the candidate will never be the center of the revolution - that’s “Great Man Theory” talking.
Revolution happens through popular support of the workers. Building and growing a coalition of working class orgs is where we should be putting in our efforts.
our current outlook on science which is metaphysical.
Metaphysics, coming from the Greek words for “the things after physics,” is something that by its etymology is literally outside of science. To understand where you’re coming from, you’ll need to elaborate on how you’re defining “metaphysics” and how your conception of “science in general” is based in it.
By which I don’t mean the scientific method… but science as a whole and as itself.
There is no disentangling the scientific method from the term and our conception of “science.” It is the cornerstone of the philosophy, and is inherently dialectical by its nature: it is a process by which a falsifiable (hypo)thesis is pitted against its antitheses through experiment and observation. The synthesis is a new, revised thesis that is again pitted against its antitheses in iteration. Its fruits are a testament to power of dialectics.
As others have noted, bourgeois decision making regarding the application of science does not tend to use dialectical analysis, but that is not unique to “science,” and I’m not convinced that the decision making of the bourgeoisie is “metaphysical” in any essential way.
I’m reflecting on how much value has been extracted from me. If I had been able to keep the yearly insurance payments, I could have bought the car all over again.
Over the past 7 years I’ve paid my car’s initial worth in insurance payments, it’s great.
Capitalists, reactionaries, liberals, and fascists will cry crocodile tears for Princess Anastasia while voting to bomb brown children without a single second thought.
The propaganda aspect is especially obvious since OP’s friend invoked the nonsense emotional appeal of “would you shoot the Tsar if he were me?”
From OP’s friend’s perspective, it’s likely a sensical appeal coming from a place of valuing life, which is an excellent opportunity to force him to confront the contradiction.
I was dissapointed that the one communist didn’t brutally blow Anastasia’s brains out, but I definitely think the play … inspires violence in me.
I don’t think this is a good thing. It is true that violence becomes regrettably necessary in resistance and revolution, but it should not be something we take pleasure in, for a myriad of reasons. It leads to adventurism, it hinders our ability to grow our movement, and it puts our culture in a bad spot post-revolution towards successfully building towards communism.
And on a personal level, no, you should never, ever tell your friend that you would kill them under some hypothetical scenario. You should never let the conversation get to the point where that’s even a question being asked.
My disillusionment in Mormonism and subsequent embrace of atheism is what set me on the path that led me here.
Yeah, I read the comment. The thesis of the title isn’t supported by the article, which makes for a confusing read.
That’s not based on the article is it? The article seems to attribute growth primarily to the war economy.
Getting them to do anything other than spit up probabilistically correct information and sentences would require them to have comprehension, not just associations between strings of words.
I would argue that associations between pieces of information is the cornerstone of how you form comprehension. While I agree that the technology is somewhat overhyped, the fact that you can instruct models to perform arbitrary tasks that the model was not specifically trained to do is evidence of some level of “comprehension.”
I’ve had to limit my interactions on both here and especially Hexbear because of this toxicity. Idealistic based bickering and hatred of individuals. Constantly wishing death on groups of people instead of understanding the material reasons they act the way they do.
I found memes like “To the wall with them!” amusing enough at first; but then I realized that more often than not the meme is being used seriously.
Playing devil’s advocate - it looks like the main advancement made by SpaceX is the reusable rockets. Do you think this has a material benefit to space travel going forward?
In terms of the real economy, I would think this is beneficial.
Devil advocacy aside, I’m skeptical that reusable rockets should take priority over other possible areas of advancement; and of course, the inefficiencies and waste of the private sector should go without saying.
Do what I can to help out the local encampment calling for university divestment from Israel