wow i forgot how deeply unsatisfying interacting with most people on here is relative to interacting on Website League with people, especially with the 300 character limit here vs my delightful 50,000 character limit over there

a Noam Chomsky quote that seems apt with respect to microblogging: “You must meet the condition of concision [...] You gotta say things between two commercials [on TV] or in 600 words. And that’s a very important fact. The beauty of concision is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts.”

well the problem here would be that the line doesn't *have* to go down forever for the crisis to happen, right? it just has to stall at a place below 1.8 (which is the case in most of the developed world right now) for a demographic crisis to become statistically inevitable even with immigration

the issue with the pro-natalism conversation is that we have many examples of countries with pro-child policies and generous welfare sates and *literally* none of these as far as i'm aware have substantially improved birth rates to where we won't eventually have a demographic crisis

i'm not going to commit to saying that socialism wouldn't have its own problem with spam, but it seems bad that within capitalism spam presents a huge value proposition because it's so cheap to produce that you only need to capture like 1 in every 10,000 people's attention to make spamming worth it

being an online artist in the age of platform capitalism is so cool because nobody running a platform gives a fuck what happens to you (even if you're why the platform has so many users) and your feedback on how to to be accommodated is basically never listened to. also you can't monetize shit

coyotes are everywhere

pretty much nobody in legacy media has given any indication through their actions that this kind of unquestioning stenography would be a red line for them, so i'm looking forward to literally nothing in this space being reliable for the next 3 years unless it's leaked by a whistleblower

it might be slightly worse for socialists if this guy gets deposed because he's so unlikable and such a good foil, but really any pro-democracy person should want this fucking moron out of here after presiding over (and in some cases causing) several of the worst years in history for the state party

it's going to be really hard to build socialism out of organized labor—or to even organize a real mass-strike—in the US when significant pluralities of labor have completely given up on even liberal economic policy to act as an anti-woke, pro-racism, pro-fascism labor aristocracy

if the Democratic Party nominee in 2028 is somehow Gavin Newsom i'm now pretty confident that (1) i would vote third-party and (2) this would be a definitive death sentence for the country

it's not even satisfying to be like "everyone was warned this was going to happen" because what catharsis can you possibly derive from that right now. we blew up our country for literally no reason, lmao

Americans live under a government attempting fascist consolidation that has removed freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and if you think this is fear mongering or exaggeration at this point you're insane

conservatism, particularly in its American form, is incompatible with any society worth living in and the sooner we realize this and begin to treat these people as corrosive monsters who must be converted from their evil beliefs or crushed into nonexistence so they cannot harm us the better

i'd like to thank conservatism for demonstrating the necessity of reeducation camps when Woke regains power

if Charlie Kirk's worst moments are just "standard faire MAGA Republicanism" (true) then the correct response is the annihilation of the Republican Party and all people like Charlie Kirk, not to somehow compromise with them and their violent bigotry and hatred for non-conservatives

it's so funny to see right-wingers unironically wokescolding and melting down about people being mean to Charlie Kirk and his wife after years of pretending the real triggered and emotionally sensitive people are liberals

to reiterate: if you actually want to resist fascism in any meaningful way you are—at some point—going to have to put significantly more skin and risk to your person in the game than is entailed by "the possibility of being pursued by the federal government for publicly signing up for a protest"

it is astonishing how many people on this website apparently think there is some model of political organization that actually does something and does not eventually boil down to "have a list of people on your side that could conceivably be weaponized by an authoritarian government"

it's cool that groups like this who think their job is to make the Diet Hitler party get to whisper in the ear of Chuck Schumer whenever they want but Zohran Mamdani who wins a mandate on things like "we should act as a party that stands for something" has to beg for an endorsement

i love our car-brained media so much. this "beloved" highway was so "beloved" that in a citywide referendum people voted to close it and replace it with a park (because it literally could not be used consistently by car traffic and was eventually going to fall into the sea due to erosion)

it's genuinely incredible that there's an entire block of people on here who have mindfucked themselves into believing "people who sign up for Indivisible protests" is the type of person a government is going to repress before "actual socialist organizations and their dues-paying members"

was Jerusalem Demsas always such a credulous rube, or does getting hired by the Atlantic just have the effect of turning you into one rapidly

again: this is an argument against being in or supporting any left-of-center organization that actually does anything, because virtually all of them do super public actions and/or by necessity keep "implicating" records that would constitute extremely obvious data for a hostile government to target

anarchist detected, opinion discarded. but if you actually think opsec considerations like "whether to sign up for a protest" are a serious concern you are the type of person who should also have no internet presence because it is not that hard to narrow down who you are if you post enough

people are screaming at this take but: the amount of *useful* organizing you can do without leaving a paper trail that can be subpoenaed and used as evidence against you and the people around you in a hypothetical government crackdown is basically zero

total TikTok hater cultural victory, i hope Oracle blows this up like the rest of their products anf Andreesen turns this into useless regime slop so you people can come back to a social media platform that doesn't actively scramble your your brain into soup-like ADHD-addled homogenate

it brings me no pleasure to say this but we might be at the point online where if you remember Nyan Cat you qualify for discounted service at checkout

again, if you work for the Washington Post: how can you possibly look at this and think this is a newspaper you should keep working for, or that can be fixed from the inside

have we considered the possibility that instead of doing some sort of 5D-chess Ezra Klein is instead, like most columnists, just a bit dim-witted, not especially good in combatting current right-wing sentiment, and also really easy to con by being nice to him even if you're otherwise extremely vile

a leading economic indicator that we might be cooked is when it becomes cheaper to buy frozen food than make your own in bulk and eat the time loss that requires, and it appears we've already reached that territory when the economy isn't even in total freefall yet

this is genuinely more evidence than exists for the shooter being left-wing, because *that* entire case relies on an a priori assumption that "killing Charlie Kirk" is a left-coded thing to do and that two ostensibly serious bullet casings cancel out two clearly memetic, not-serious, trolling ones

please describe the "huge amounts of evidence" pointing to the Charlie Kirk shooter being left-wing when literally everybody claiming this guy is left-wing is either a right-winger who has a reason to push that even if it's false, has demonstrably misinterpreted evidence, or has retracted it

as we all know, the left has a total monopoly on sardonic cynicism and sarcasm with relation to bad things happening in this country, and nobody from any other section of the political spectrum or who simply does not care for politics has ever talked in this manner online before

to be clear: out of the last 15 or so school shootings and mass shootings of significance in this country (not counting Charlie Kirk), *at least* 8 of them were done by people directly expressing reverence for fascism, racism, terrorism, nihilism, misanthropy, or other mass shooters, so...

like 80% of people who commit mass violence are functionally post-ideological—even if you can assign political valence to their statements and manifestos—and to the extent that you can map them on a political spectrum it is secondary to the nihilism expressed through the mass violence they do

what i take from this is: if you adhere to the Stancil theory of mass violence, the obviously far-right detrans mass shooter from not even a month ago ago is left-wing now because they included the phrase "kill Donald Trump" on one of their magazines in between the memes and anti-semitic screeds

most people who actually study this stuff and immerse themselves in it for a living believe there's strong evidence that guy was just terminally online and not left-wing, and every reputable outlet calling him left-wing so far has retracted it, but rest assured Will knows better than all of them

i don't want to hear a fucking word from American journalists about how we have "freedom of the press" when your colleagues are getting fired and purged from the media for directly quoting Charlie Kirk's hateful rhetoric

if you still pay for the Washington Post: why do you do that? and if you still work for the Washington Post: why do you do that? there is clearly nothing of value left at that publication with the move to fire someone for being honest about Charlie Kirk

what the hell is going on with Canid interbreeding and what in the name of god is a timberwolf

lil test animation to practice using procreate dreams, first time animating in like 2 years

the New York Post should be destroyed and its reporters prosecuted like modern-day Julius Streichers, because they are actively attempting to be such

if you want to play a bit fast and loose with definitions i think you could argue Charlie Kirk is the latest example of social murder in action

starting to think we should just give homeless people extremely large surpluses of firearms

there's no point in pointing out the hypocrisy because nobody with power cares, but there's something incredibly on the nose in how you'll get fired if you say Charlie Kirk dying was a net benefit because he was a hate mongerer, but you won't get fired for proposing eugenics on mentally ill people

"speech isn't violence" is one of those talking points that stupid people say to sound smart because it's invariably used by people who want to pretend that speech can be separated from its intent or rhetorical effect

"if you don't like Bluesky you can leave to other instances" is definitely what i like to hear from the top when there is no obvious, easy way to do this and Bluesky still hold a monopoly on all of the infrastructure that makes their implementation of federation useful

meanwhile, Bluesky continues to suck in all the ways its cadre of Twitter critics can't acknowledge: banning a journalist for saying "rest in piss" about Charlie Kirk is such baby shit

it's so funny how mad these guys cooking their brains on Twitter are about Bluesky. do you think they start crying in the groupchat they all clearly have about this subject every time one of them posts a dumb take on here and gets told to fuck off back to the Nazi Website