jwiggler

I think you've said a lot that is in line with the video, tbh. Most of your points accurately spell out why a superhero movie involving a protagonist who disrupts the status quo wouldn't work, mostly because we are living in the status quo and the general audience's main frame of reference -- that which they use to understand the story -- is that status quo is overall good, that there are inevitable bad parts that must come with the good, and that mass change is inherently bad. You even note this last point yourself.

But it doesn't change the fact that the superheros are still, for the most part, not proactively trying to ~~recognize~~ reorganize society, but keep it the same and react to its threats, which sometimes have interesting intentions of reorganization, but ultimately all end up doing an irredeemable act in the eyes of the audience so to signal that they are in fact the bad guy.

I don't think this video is really meant to be taken as "superheros should change the status quo," but more closely look at Graebers generalization and kinda jostle people out of their "the status quo is ultimately good, despite it's necessary evils," worldview. Graeber often said he's not trying to provide an answer or solution to societal organization outside of hierarchical Nation-states, but just to allow people to break out of the traditional mental framework and ask the question, what else could work?

I would recommend reading or listening to Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power. It is a compilation of several of his Q and As about his ideas about the US political and media systems. He has a whole book about the media called Manufacturing Consent, but Understanding Power will give you the lowdown.

Essentially, all mainstream US media is beholden to capitalistic (for advertising) or state (for funding) forces, so a person should always be aware that news sources are never going to print something that is against its own interest. Things like LGBTQ rights and right to abortion don't put news outlets sources of money at risk, so they're safe to print, but you'd be hard-pressed to find something that challenges, for example, the military industrial complex.

I'm not doing it much justice but that's a very very general and incomplete jist of why it's good to be skeptical of the mainstream media in general.

it's mostly political

Oh I gotcha. Interesting. I don't follow FSF or GNU or anything, do you know if they tend to be antagonistic toward nonfree devs who still try to be as free as possible? Honestly, I read the Stallman quote about FreeBSD in this thread, and a statement from GNU that acknowledges the impracticality of their philosophy, and I kinda agree with their ethical takes. Except, I also think people should be able to install nonfree software, because otherwise you have a pretty bad dilemma with the word "free."

Ultimately, if they are actively antagonistic toward those who don't share that philosophy, I think that's not great. Sure, free software according to the GNU project may be the only ethical one, but we live in a culture that promotes the exact opposite idea, so why would I be surprised and upset when an otherwise ethically acting person doesn't conform to my own ethical framework, and they go on and create nofree software. I'm still going to get a beer with that person because at the end of the day we probably have common values and how else am I going to sell them the idea free software

I'm afraid to ask this because I'm not a dev, but I have a fair amount of linux experience. Why is it that the ability to install Google Play Services on GrapheneOS makes it not FOSS/open source, while the ability to install Google Chrome (or any proprietary software, I guess) on Linux doesn't make is non-FOSS/open source?

I'm not articulating that question very well, and I'm assuming I'm missing some key component, but they seem comparable to me, as a regular user. Is it something like the level of access that GPServices has to the kernel?

Yup, it's "The Room" of music

my original comment was just meant to be a playful comment about your meme use rather than any analysis about the speech.

Like: "I agree with you, but can we talk about this thing or that?"

But honestly forget about it, next time I wont bother

Corey Feldman's Angelic 2 the Core is without a doubt the worst album I've ever listened to. It is not just mediocre or underwhelming, it is not just a "miss," it is actively and unforgettably horrible. Definitely worth checking out.

Not angry, just disturbed that there are even more lol

I'm literally agreeing with you. Not sure what you're fixing about my phrasing -- I didn't watch the speech, so yes, I am ignorant, but am willing to guess that your comment was totally correct.

I'm also saying your meme-game disturbs my meme-less brain.

But I guess according to you, I have no idea what I'm talking about so in that case...you're wrong? Idk what youre trying to say dude all I know is that just because O'Brien spoke at the RNC doesn't somehow automatically make him a Trump supporter

I'm against any authoritarian structure, China included. At the end of the day, the state is just the threat of legalized violence, an industry monopolized by the police. Communist, Capitalist, doesn't matter. It is unjust and stifles human freedom.

That has little to do with the ethics of profit, which are dubious at best.

Edit: actually it has everything to do with profit, as most profit seeking ventures are authoritarian and exploitative in nature

Hell yeah. Exo one was kinda what I had in mind, something with stupidly simple mechanics. But I am definitely intrigued by POOLS. Looks spooky. Thanks!