FugaziArchivist

Let's say someone in DC or someone long-affiliated with the federal government is suddenly wracked by guilt. They need to clear their conscience by telling the truth of what they've done, seen, or been complicit in. You're called to interview them, and they'll be 100% honest. Who would you want this person to be, and what would you ask them? Before he died, I would've said George H.W. Bush, because he was (bafflingly) at the center of so much American political malfeasance for decades. I'd want to know about the October Surprise, Iran-Contra, CIA-crack scandal, the Carlyle Group, and Saudi connections before 9/11. I mean, can you imagine how many conspiracy theories he could've affirmed (or laid to rest), saving a lot of people the mental energy in speculating? Anyway, who's someone living who'd be a goldmine?

[CW: violence/gore]. As the title suggests, is there a left case to be made against ultra-violence in video games? I'm thinking mostly about MK11 and MK1 fatalities, as opposed to less gratuitous and less hyper-realistic violence--in Dark Souls or something. Whenever this topic is brought up, other factors usually take up the oxygen in the room: People might immediately think of family-values conservatives, such as the Media Research Center, who act like wet-blankets towards entertainment. Or we think of nerdy Joe Lieberman, who showed the 1993 Sub-Zero spine fatality to Congress (lol). There was Hillary Clinton who decried the Grand Theft Auto franchise, and the host of rightwing politicians who blamed Doom for the Columbine shooting (clearly as a way to absolve gun legislation from any culpability). So this is what I mean when I say that the conversation on video-game violence has been ceded entirely to these dudes, as opposed to something left spaces can discuss without sounding like squares or censors. This came to mind after I was reading about the video game designer who developed PTSD after working on Mortal Kombat 11. His dreams became excruciatingly violent, and his day-to-day was interacting with coworkers studying medical anatomy and watching videos of slaughtered animals. That can't be good for anyone. I guess what I'm asking is: should leftists see this as harmless fun, or something problematic? And, will photo-realistic Fatalities exist in the communist future?

Maybe the solution is to stay off Twitter, but it's very disturbing to see the normalization of slurs happening in real time on there. White people saying the n-word with approval, the return of saying "gay" as a pejorative, lots of casual racism against Indian men, using the r-slur to describe something seen as stupid. I don't know whether this is a larger cultural lurch to the right, or whether it's mostly attributed to Musk's elimination of quality control and monitors on the platform.

I thought that during the 2020-2024 interim the Democrats were supposed to be building someone up for the next generation of the party. To no one's surprise, they've been doing exactly fuck-all for four years - but, for insiders who actually care about the party's future, who are they hanging their hat on? Voters' confidence in Kamala has tanked; Cuomo was maybe their man until the sexual harassment charges hit (side question: how was he able to skate on the nursing home scandal?). But anyway, who's the next empty neoliberal they'll run in future elections?

... and the whole expansion is a poison swamp?? Jk, although From Soft should just commit to the bit and troll us all.

The studio has seen the success of mainstream movies about consumer products, such as Air (Jordans), Barbie, Blackberry, Flamin' Hot Cheetos, Tetris, and the new Pop Tart one. They also figure that The Social Network took home some Oscars, so what the hell... Now they've hired you to write and direct a movie about Reddit and the average Redditor. What is the story about? Who's in it? How do you depict the cursed site?

I never watched it, but I've heard about this show both in passing and in "left spaces." Are any of these things true about it? Thanks.

--It is too on the nose with its social commentary. --The criticism it makes is obvious. --The subjects it tackles are low-hanging fruit of the digital era. --It is the stupid person's idea of a profound show. --Something about it being British led to more dunks on it. --The reason it entered left discourse in the first place is because it had potential as a critical text, but ultimately failed at it.

Anyone care to return to the early-to-mid 2010s and share memories or hot takes about the phenomenon of cyber-attack and disclosure? It was rad that WikiLeaks disclosed emails showing that the US State Department was lowering the minimum wage in Haiti. At the same time, it is telling that WikiLeaks was always more interested in targeting governments than private corporations (its alleged Bank of America leak was a big dud, for instance). What's the deal with that? Meanwhile, I also wonder what demographic composes Assange's support today. Left-libertarian? Finally, the last I heard from Anonymous was during the George Floyd protests in summer 2020 when they released a video about the MPD. I know these aren't like solid structures to build your politics on, not least of which because Anonymous grew out of 4chan, but I was wondering what to make of it all.

From about 2004-2008, it seemed like the political battle lines were being drawn around Christian fundamentalism and the (professed) moral standards of straight, white, suburban, and Republican attendees of America's mega-churches. Obviously this was largely because GW Bush was a born-again Christian, and he gave religion an even stronger national platform than usual. He even claimed to talk with God, folks. The Iraq War was his "crusade," Congress threw the brakes on everything to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case, and there was a widespread aversion to stem-cell research. Meanwhile, the anti-Bush libs fought on the culture-war terrain against religion, producing for example the book and documentary With God On Their Side (2004), the 2005 book American Theocracy, the 2006 documentary Jesus Camp, the 2008 Bill Maher movie Religiulous, etc. I remember concern at the time over Congresspeople's apocalyptic beliefs that Israel must be protected for prophetic Biblical reasons. (This has re-emerged a little bit recently because of the genocide in Gaza).

After Bush left office, it seemed like this entire terrain of the culture war evaporated. No crazy fundamentalist in office, no concern over religiosity in America. So, I was wondering what this means in hindsight. Christian religious fundamentalism had its moment, but does that mean it only rose to prominence because annoying libs, media elites, and the chattering classes talked about it with respect to Bush? As in, they were snide about it, because haha, Bush is legitimately a dumb-ass? If so, where did the 2004-2008 left enter into this debate? Clearly they're not supporting Bush, so they must've linked arms with libs to say that the Moral Majority-flavor of Christianity was bad.

But: what characterizes the left's interpretation of religion now? Have Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Cenk Uygur, and Reddit Atheists made the criticism of religion irredeemably cringe? Does the left not care about religion anymore as one of the fronts in the "war of position" against the bourgeoisie? If so, is that because things like Occupy and Sanders' democratic socialism, which were nascent and unthinkable in 2004, steered lefty concerns towards a more material direction? Or, has the left viewed religion as incidental and co-optable in the struggle towards a classless society?

That's a lot of stray questions, but I had been thinking about this for awhile and wanted to get the random thoughts down.

Some guy will post a picture of a pretty standard looking pepperoni pizza and say: "Imagine not living in new york." And then there's the whole bodega discourse, which is also funny. "For you non-new yorkers, let me explain: a bodega is not a corner store. It's a place where you can buy gatorade, toilet paper, AND eggs." Thank you sir for explaining that to a slack-jawed yokel such as myself.