[–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think that the emergy costs for cooking brown rice are negligible given that you should be bringing your rice to a simmer and then immediately dropping the heat down to the lowest setting. With an electric rice cooker this is even more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    That comment kicked off something in my brain that's been nagging at me since these videos first started dropping. The series is now wildly popular on YouTube, with some videos garnering over two million views.

    The issues that I have with it are manifold because it makes claims that it absolutely cannot back up about the psychology, motivations, and actions of the alt-right but the reason why I particularly dislike it is because it casts such a broad net in its definition of "the alt-right" that it can include anyone from the most ardent antifascist activist to the middle of the road mom and pop who holds some lukewarm bigoted opinions due to their upbringing and/or watching too much Fox News all the way to the circa-fascists who align with white nationalist groups etc. but who don't directly identify with overt fascism.

    The attitudes and patterns of behaviour described in the video series are likewise just as broad to the point of being functionally useless.

    You can literally look to what the Playbook videos describe as alt-right behaviours and the majority of them can be seen across the political spectrum, given the right conditions and a large enough sample size.

    What this means, in effect, is that it relies upon assumptions and the biases of the target audience to create their own understanding of what the alt-right looks like without any real historical or theoretical underpinning, and of course there's no materialist analysis of the alt-right either (which is also why I take issue with Umberto Eco's work on fascism - it's completely lacking in a materialist basis in favour of cultural and psychological critique which is loose enough that you can apply it far beyond the scope of real fascism.)

    The upshot of this is that, when the lessons from the Playbook are applied, virtually everyone outside of your political in-group can be miscast as being part of the alt-right or that they are somehow taking their cues from the alt-right.

    The issue then is that, by doing so, you have expanded your own definition of the alt-right to include so many groups that the term becomes functionally useless, you risk alienating people who you disagree with, and the aggregate effect will eventually be that the alt-right becomes a term that no longer signifies anything meaningful but it becomes a label that gets thrown around haphazardly based on "vibes".

    If you happen to watch the playlist, or at least the introduction video and a couple of the most popular videos, try using summarising what the Playbook describes as the definition or the behaviours of the alt-right in a way that actually meets the criteria of the alt-right to reasonable exclusion of other groups. It's really hard to do this while sticking to the content without drawing upon other ideas in order to flesh out the description. When the series first came out I personally was keen on hearing more because I wanted to see where it would go but I quickly lost any hope in it because every episode was just vapid and the takeaway lessons from it were downright sloppy and I gave up on it.

    It's just really disappointing that a channel which apparently has so much reach that could do so much good instead just reaffirmed people's existing biases and failed to grasp what the alt-right really is or how it functions because it ends up working in the same way as a limited hangout - there's enough in there that is right so as to be compelling but it's so clouded and murky as to be borderline disinfo in effect.

    /rant

    [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I'm not the person who you responded to.

    I'm talking about the targeting of ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the eastern part of Ukraine (the Donbas region.)

    There has been attacks against these people going on since 2014. Thousands upon thousands have died and more have been wounded in this low-grade civil war that became the prelude to the war between Russia and Ukraine.

    Here's a western article filtered through western intelligence describing the situation with some glaring oversights, namely that there has been ultranationalist paramilitary forces operating in the Donbas (Azov, Right Sector, C14, National Militia, OUN et al.) with tacit approval from the Ukrainian government since 2014 and that civilian targets have been routinely been used by the military and the paramilitary groups.

    Here's a short article written by a former USAID officer (!) published by The Atlantic Council (!!) that describes the problem with far-right militias in Ukraine, just so there's no accusations of bias from me in this discussion.

    They've literally been targeting civilians who are of the "wrong" ethnicity for nearly a decade now. If that doesn't count as an attempted genocide, I don't know what would.

    Also that's some cheap framing of the discussion btw. Fascism isn't "don't play defence". I take it that you have gotten your picture of fascism from a particular, well-known YouTube series. If so, that series is critically flawed and it does a bad job of defining fascism and how it functions. But that's a different discussion altogether.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I tried to read this article but I teared up too much and I couldn't see to be able to keep on reading.

    If Yoko Ono were still alive she'd write an song with an odious, racially-charged comparison between Hillary and black people and everyone around the world would come together every year on November 9th to listen to this song and to mourn our collective loss.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    This isn't a colloquialism. This is a basic definition used within political science.

    If you're going to talk politics on a serious level then using the terminology of political science matters and, if that's too much of a stretch, then at least avoid colloquial terms which contradict the terms used in political science.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    If you want information about Tibet, let me know.

    I am a westerner who was raised Tibetan Buddhist so I'm pretty familiar with Tibetan history and... it's really not the country which gets painted as this peaceful utopia free from political intrigue or human rights abuses that was all about enacting and embodying compassion.

    There's contemporary examples of this, and perhaps the most obvious example is the Karmapa controversy (try figuring that little doozy on your own without being steeped in Tibetan history lol) which often overlooks significant issues such as the struggle over who would hold the seat of Rumtek monastery in Sikkim and lay claim to the considerable amount held in trust for the Karmapa (which featured a wealthy patron, at one point, stationing a small private military to prevent one of the Karmapas from entering the monastery) along with suspicious death of Jamgon Kongtrol Rinpoche and his delegation in a car accident when he was instructed to "test the brakes" on a newly serviced car (BMW? Mercedes? I forget...) or the historical significance of the then-Dalai Lama outlawing the recognition of the Tai Situpa lineage (and liquidating his monastic holdings and forcibly converting the Kagyu monks under his tutelage to the Gelug school) and the current Dalai Lama lifting this centuries-long ban and the implications this would have on the recognition of the current Karmapa(s).

    Then there's historical examples of this, like the famous example of the politically-influential polymath Lungshar, whose son was considered for being a reincarnation of the next Karmapa (this process of recognising reincarnations, strangely enough, tended to exclusively occur to children within wealthy and politically influential families such as Lungshar's) who was sent as part of a delegation to Europe by the British who were courting Tibet at the time as they sought to expand their colonial holdings from India up into Tibet. Lungshar was smitten by western political systems and he sought to bring about reforms to democratise the Tibetan theocracy.

    Unfortunately for Lungshar, his son died under suspicious circumstances around the time that his agenda for political reforms was running into direct opposition by the conservative political powerbrokers in Tibet (monks/lamas and aristocrats) and, in a surprising turn of events, Lungshar was "discovered" to have been practising black magic (they found a piece of paper with someone's name on it inside his shoe which was considered black magic - this name happened to be of the aristocrat Timon who held high offices in the Tibetan theocracy and who happened to be a conservative and the main figure who openly opposed Lungshar's reform agenda. How they knew to check Lungshar's shoes is a matter for speculation...) and so, as punishment, Lungshar had his eyes gouged out on Timon's order and Lungshar lost his political influence and the movement supporting the liberalisation of the Tibetan theocracy was effectively extinguished by this act.

    There's this extremely romanticised, idyllic notion that westerners tend to have about Tibet (and the fact that Avatar: The Last Airbender is something treasured by westerners rather than being looked at with a skeptical eye for all of its overt orientalism, to me, speaks volumes about just how canonised this notion is) but history paints a markedly different picture than the one we tend to have.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    Bro, this war is totally different to every other war, bro!

    Trust me, bro! I know we got duped into supporting:

    The Korean War

    The Vietnam War

    The war in Iraq

    The other war in Iraq

    The war in Afghanistan

    The war in the Philippines

    The war in Guatemala

    The war on Cuba

    The war in Laos

    The war in Cambodia

    The war in Somalia

    The war in Yemen

    The war in Libya

    The war in Grenada

    The war in Yugoslavia

    ...but this time it's an existential threat!! Trust me, bro!

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    For what it's worth, this photo isn't staged or from a movie. This was back before the Roman salute was popularised by the fascists.

    Although it took until the US was halfway through WWII before they decided to abandon its usage so, yeah...

    You can read more about it here. Tbh I liked it better when the US was mask-off about its nationalism.

    view more: next ›