48
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

Of course, there will be many interpretations, but what are the defining Marxist ideas on the definition?

I ask, because you see a lot of libs and liblefts calling America fascist, but then being asked how, and not being able to respond. It makes them (and us, because we always get lumped in with them) look bad. I'd like to be able to step in if I ever witness such a thing.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think it depends. In the case of this Game of Thrones example - those people commenting strike me as having an awareness that it's a character. One person even addresses his character rather than him. Though he might be taking it to be harassing, I think it's an expression of what you'd call 'heat' in pro-wrestling. It's good for business. They're recognising his character work (and the writing of the show). I don't think any of those people mean what they say harmfully. I think it's all quite tongue in cheek.

I think your other examples are just willful ignorance in the pursuit of personal catharsis. G*mers are savvy enough to know that Rose is acting for Rian Johnson, who is directing for Kathleen Kennedy, who is owned by Disney. They just want a place to displace their anger (and like you say feel powerful in relative anonymity behind a screen). They're weird nerds looking to vent misogyny in defense of their obsession with either star wars or the culture wars in general. It's pure anger and hatred. It's especially prevalent in a world where the peoples power has been reduced, and where most interactions for a lot of people happen online.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 11 points 3 days ago

Is that media literacy though? They're not reading the show's message wrong, they're completely failing to process reality.

People have known there's a separation between actor and character since the dawn of storytelling when we were still killing each other with sticks and rocks. It's like... A worse than dog-brained comprehension level - if I wear a scary mask and approach my dogs, they're not so sure, when I take the mask off they're like 'ohhh it's you!!!' - even they're able to make some sort of distinction.

Then again, perhaps it is media literacy in the sense that they don't realise an actor acts, on behalf of the writer and director, on behalf of the production company, and so on. But really? Maybe in very poor very rural countries, but anywhere with TV - people beyond a certain age know that there's an actor and a director. I'd say people have a much better understanding of that dynamic now more than ever - you only have to look at Pro Wrestling for example, where 50 years ago people would physically attack the bad guy given the opportunity because the felt it was real. Even in the late 80s and 90s people were often tricked by moments, wondering whether rival company WCW was really invading WWF. Nowadays, everyone but the kids are in on it.

I think it's willful ignorance in the pursuit of personal catharsis. G*mers are savvy enough to know that Rose is acting for Rian Johnson, who is directing for Kathleen Kennedy, who is owned by Disney. They just want a place to displace their anger (and like you say feel powerful in relative anonymity behind a screen).

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago

Adults are talking vibes

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago

one time at Amazon I spent about 2 hours packing a shipment of 10 inch dildos.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago
[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago

It's the classic 'liberals are against all wars except the current one'.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 21 points 5 days ago

he's clearly a Russian asset

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Come on... That interview was crap. Tucker doesn't have the journalistic knowledge or integrity to get anything out of Putin. He just let Putin ramble about old history as if it was a significant part of Russia's reasons for deploying in Ukraine. Denazification also isn't really a major factor in the decision to invade either, it just happens to be a viable excuse to bolster the initiative because Ukraine does have a nazi problem.

I support Russia over Ukraine, but let's not pretend Putin is anything but another two faced capitalist.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 23 points 6 days ago

lib language patterns

smuglord

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 29 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

it's always such an insane claim when people compare the two.

Germany was a race-based extermination engine.

There is nothing more that should need to be said.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 13 points 6 days ago

how about a mausoleum of the British

xi-button

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 6 points 6 days ago

Ok seriously should I invest a little stock

The grift train doesn't seem like it'll stop for a while

34

Hello folks - I've tried all.the usual spots like Anna's archive and Z library and so on to no avail. This is the book in question -

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Theater_and_Film.html?id=W7HdXRCLcoIC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

There's a copy of it on internet archive but it's only accessible to American people with impaired sight it seems.

Anyone know a way around it?

123
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

not bad

found guilty of supporting designated far right terrorists and letting their banana boats be used for drug smuggling

70
submitted 3 weeks ago by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/memes@hexbear.net
47
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

I feel like this has been a concept for a long time within imperialist studies, but I can't find it. Surely it's a thing. What would you call it?

EDIT: thanks for all the brilliant responses

25
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

Come contribute your analysis in the comments, vibes based or otherwise.

I think sometimes it depends on the topic.

Reuters is good at getting some key points and missing full state department spin, but the problem is that they have a reputation as non-biased, and that reputation means they/you do not bother to inspect their own ideology. In other mainstream media, it's easy to spot the political spin and bias if you know what you're looking for, but Reuters is much more clandestine, and possibly unintentionally so.

I imagine it to be ran by 'well meaning' liberals who have a level of journalistic integrity, that is born from 'do the right thing in the name of democracy' rather than from a serious political education.

So they thoroughly explore 'both sides' a lot, while presenting all of their information with a very 'objective' feeling register of language, in the process omitting important facts/framings that they would deem to be inducing a level of political bias.

That said, I will say they're not otherwise too worthy of my ire in comparison to other major media organisations.

Weirdly, I was researching Venezuela recently for a stageplay I'm writing, and Bloomberg gave surprisingly good coverage of events I didn't expect them to bother with. You wouldn't be able to form a meaningful analysis of venezuela based on their coverage alone, but I was still quite shocked that I found bits of their coverage to be pretty OK, and sometimes divergent from the usual state department shit that CNN or even The Guardian would put out. Very curious.

40
submitted 1 month ago by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

Blinken is number 1 spot for my least favourite guy of the year. Elon Musk in 2nd place.

On a similar note, I'm pretty sure the UK is still holding 2 billions of dollars in gold reserves from Venezuela.

35
submitted 2 months ago by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/videos@hexbear.net

What a perfect little capsule of the state of America.

107
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/memes@hexbear.net

Kim Jong Bonkers bonk

43
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

They key moronic 'US says' takeaways:

  • "US officials said that China provided more than 70% of the $900m (£723m) in machine tools – probably used to build ballistic missiles – imported in the last quarter of 2023 by Russia."

"probably" biggus-piggus

It's absurd how they link machine tools precisely to missile manufacturing and so on. Machine tools are involved in practically every industrial process involving technology these days, from kitchen wares to gym equipment to cars to semiconductors and yes, arms manufacturing. But there's no evidence to state that a significant portion of machine tools were then used in military manufacturing, rather than general goods.

  • "They also said that 90% of Russia’s microelectronics imports – used to produce missiles, tanks and aircraft – came from China last year"

Microelectronics... you mean the microelectronics used in the booming commercial tech industry. It's reckless not to clarify alongside 'used to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft', microelectronics are used in 'literally everything else' too.

The very same liberal that will say these and things and then go on to turn a blind eye or defend explicit developer-client relationships between computer manufacturers and arms manufacturers in the US

Another day, another desperate attempt by paper tigers to undermine China's industrial capacity. Good luck attempting sanctions.

57
r/truths (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 months ago by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/memes@hexbear.net
2
submitted 2 months ago by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/memes@hexbear.net
view more: next ›

MaoTheLawn

joined 3 years ago