- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1531 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
604 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 19188
The Nazis massively invested in radio technology, from inventing new kinds of microphone to the dirt-cheap volksempfänger radio receiver to rugged valves that would survive in the back of a tank. Radio transmitters were the most heavily protected sites in Germany, and they were the most important target when a country was invaded. Radio brought the voice of Hitler into every home room in Germany. It allowed orders to be dispatched in near-real-time, facilitating the Blitzkrieg and breaking the deadlock of trench warfare. Their understanding of the power of radio gave them a huge tactical advantage, which the allies took years to catch up with. A new technology facilitated a new kind of indoctrination and a new kind of war.
Radio is mostly one-to-many - you need expensive equipment and a massive tower to transmit, but anyone can listen. It's the perfect technology for a dictator. The internet is one-to-one and many-to-many - any arsehole can start a YouTube channel or a blog or mouth off on Twitter. As a result, I think it's creating a kind of artisan demagoguery, a thousand little fiefdoms of leaders and followers. Any sufficiently determined nutter stands a good chance of building his own little audience of suckers, some of whom might be willing to fight or die for the cause.
|>>|| No. 19189
>as long as they are an acceptable target according to your own subscribed ideology.
The Nazis called it gesundes volksempfinden or the healthy will of the people. In short, it's the basic principle that when a segment of the population are classed as pariahs, it becomes every upstanding citizen's mark of moral integrity to bash that group of social outcasts.
The Jews were stylised to be the cancer of the German people, and to be a good German citizen was to agree with the idea of them being an inferior ethnic and religious minority that was at the same time a serious threat to the wellbeing and the prosperity of the German people.
It's hard to find equivalents these days though. Nothing has been quite as pernicious ever again as Nazi racial ideology. But I guess when people nowadays get xenophobic in a nasty way, it's not entirely unlike that. Like, when people say foreigners should be deported because they're all criminals anyway.
|>>|| No. 19190
While I agree about the lack of empathy, I'm not sure if I'm fully sold on the implications. I guess because at the end of the day I'm always going to think it's more acceptable to hate landlords for being landlords than it is to hate black people for being black.
I'm not dogmatic about those two categories (I only really picked them because you can stop being a landlord, it's a choice and a legal category) and I'd accept that legitimating a lack of empathy is always playing with fire, but I've got some kind of lingering old modernist sense of progress. There's a lot of hate in history, and much of it was part of positive movements forward, even if the things done are rightly considered unpalatable by modern standards.
Part of the problem now is that much of our hate is basically a new form of entertainment. It's not really channelled into anything productive. Like >>19187 says, more unified by hate than some kind of goal. Though I'd note a lot of successful political alliances are united by what they're against, rather than what they're for.
|>>|| No. 19193
There's an interesting argument that the problem is in fact too much empathy, or at least an excessive reliance on empathy. When we contemplate the misdeeds of others and the suffering caused by those misdeeds, we have a natural tendency towards vengeance and recrimination. We might be better off if we cultivated a cold and detached morality based on universal principles rather than appeals to emotion.
|>>|| No. 19197
I'd argue that having or lacking empathy is an entirely separate issue to a bloody minded eye-for-an-eye mentality. I've never really believed in the "punishment fit the crime" concept of justice, which is why I often find myself empathising with the supposed bad guys in these types of discussion.
I remember doing a college ethics class where the topic was chemically castrating sex offenders. The very prospect left me feeling distressed. It's as though committing certain acts strips you of your status as a human, nobody considers why you might have turned out that way. You simply lose all right to be seen as a thinking, feeling individual.
|>>|| No. 19199
I can't speak for others, but the fallacy I tend to see at play when I feel vengeful is taking an accountant's view of the matter, as though suffering caused can be offset by causing suffering to those who caused it until the suffering sums to zero.
Generally I don't fall to this for personal reasons, or even over heinous crimes - but when it comes to big social stuff (especially in history) I often find myself taking the view that many historical figures deserved whatever horrible fate they met. The best utilitarian counterweight I can find is that it's a massive disincentive to bad people standing down voluntarily if you let the mob loose on them for past misdeeds.
|>>|| No. 19200
One of they key details in the modern ideologies is that there are no landlord targets. Class/ economic state (in my opinion the only thing that really matters in terms of privilege) doesnt matter. It is all unquantifiable concepts that really are considerably less meaningful on an individual level. Worse still I'd say by ignoring the economic mechanisms, people ignore how to fix the problems of society. What you are left with is a state where things are declared as blanket truths that are unquestionable. In short myths about villains being all powerful hiding just around the corner who never get any weaker because their power isn't actually real.
|>>|| No. 19202
Well there are landlord targets, but you are only going to attack them at your own peril. You could try throwing Molotov cocktails at Number Ten, but even if you somehow by way of a small miracle make it through the police barriers, you will probably be shot dead on the ground before one of your mollies even hits the building.
>What you are left with is a state where things are declared as blanket truths that are unquestionable.
I wouldn't say that. There is enough protest against all kinds of things that are relatively abstract. Just think of the student protests against tuition fees. It's an abstract concept, albeit one that affects some people's bank account balance in a serious way, and you had plenty of people protesting in the streets.
|>>|| No. 19209
My point is not that there are no landlord targets. In reality there are lots, But that they are largely ignored for over simplistic characteristics that really have no direct relation to power or villainy.
Student tuition fee protests are a direct reflection of naked self interest not to say there wasnt a point. But even the most apolitical of characters has an interest in things that affect them adversely.
|>>|| No. 19210
>Student tuition fee protests are a direct reflection of naked self interest
Most protests are just that. An expression of self interest. People usually only take to the streets when their own core interests are threatened. All the pretend altruism, e.g. at Fridays for Future rallies, is just feel good fluff that's added to it to make people seem less like the selfish cunts they are.
|>>|| No. 19230
It's true. Even if I was to protest about the treatment of others, it would basically only be because I'm aware that I could be next.
|>>|| No. 19231
That wasn't always the case. Sympathy strikes used to be commonplace until they were banned - lots of trade unionists were willing to walk out of work to support someone else's strike, with no guarantee that the favour would be returned. Solidarity is strategically very effective, which is why successive governments have worked hard to undermine it.
|>>|| No. 19232
There isn't anything inherently wrong with "self-interest", nor is it worth putting up such a great divide between things that benefit oneself and others. You can't help others if you're skint, burnt out and wearing a ragged bedsheet in lieu of clothes. I'm not Gordon Gecko or nowt, but this is why a ten quid minimum wage would be a fantastic thing. Socialists trying to act like everything's "for the greater good" have been mugging themselves off for ages, silly sods.
|>>|| No. 19234
Yes, but if you look at history, most revolutions weren't started because somebody felt sorry for their neighbour. Usually, people were fed up with elites because it was beginning to affect their everyday lives in a way that was no longer tolerable to them. This is what brought communist regimes in Eastern Europe down eventually, and it was also what led up to the Arab Spring.
At least that's how protests start. And then when a protest movement gains a critical mass, it also starts to attract people who have always hated the elites for one reason or another, but up until that point never thought there was anything they could do about it.
|>>|| No. 19244
People are mocking him for bringing up the idea of getting lawyers involved, but 4chan has a specific report option for content that "violates US law" and threatening langauge could be considered just that, though I'm not a Seppo lawyer so SeppoLawyerLad will have to confirm or deny.
Frankly if Warrick Davis got 4chan shut down it would be the perfect way to end that shitshow of a website, it won't happen but it'd be a laugh if it did. As for /tv/ specifically, that's what happens when you don't fucking moderate a board while carpet-baggers and neo-Nazis pour in like goals at Craven Cottage. I know I'm quite literally 193 years old at this point, but "trolling" isn't, or wasn't, just threatening to smash someone's face in with a brick, and wasn't usually directed at friendly blokes who do a bit of acting like Mr Davis. Game's gone, lads.
|>>|| No. 19245
>threatening langauge could be considered just that
Apparently "'fire!' in a crowded theater" (sic) is no longer considered good law, so unless the speaker is black and the target is a copper, it's First Amendment protected expression.
|>>|| No. 19246
>All the pretend altruism, e.g. at Fridays for Future rallies, is just feel good fluff that's added to it to make people seem less like the selfish cunts they are.
Hahah yeah all those jobless, middle class, posh spongers off the state who can only afford to take the time off to protest because they make more money than everyone else, the facts they're protesting about would only be true if they were any other class of people than the ones I just listed, the fact that they're just repeating what the experts are saying is irrelevant.
|>>|| No. 19247
Honestly I'd like to see where 4chan would've gone with stronger moderation to give the whole mess more direction. People have gotten into the mindset 'free speech vs censorship'. Imageboards are assumed to lean towards being 'free speech zones' on an otherwise increasingly censored internet.
What never enters into the discussion is moderation for content quality, the idea that people who make terrible posts should be banned because their posts are uninteresting and detrimental to discussion quality, rather than over any desire to censor a given position, or certain language. It's not an easy balance to strike because you need a consistently good moderation team and most people eventually stop being good at it, but it's a much more interesting approach because people would hopefully learn how to be better posters by trial and error.
Unrestricted posting of uninteresting nonsense is the ideology of the spambot.
|>>|| No. 19248
Is this satire or are you actually like this?
I thought the First Amendment might cover it, but surely if you're saying it directly about someone that changes matters? Wouldn't it be more like saying "I'm going to set fire to this crowded theatre"?
|>>|| No. 19249
Are you really so cynical you genuinely don't believe in empathy or altruism?
|>>|| No. 19250
I believe that real empathy and altruism are indeed rare. Only a small minority of people will take to the streets because they don't agree with deforestation in the Amazon and the effect it has on the indigenous tribes there. I would even go so far as to say that people will only do that if they have so few problems in their own lives that they have the time to think about others. You're stuck in middle class boredom with a house in the suburbs and a double income, so you're looking for other things to get in a huff about. Why not the depletion of rain forests then. Seems like a good cause.
|>>|| No. 19253
I have to apologise as I'd completely misunderstood your post and made a tit of myself as a result. Why this >>19250 anon has replied on my behalf is beyond me.
|>>|| No. 19255
The real problem with most protests nowadays is that there's nobody they can actually appeal to. If you want to stop deforestation in the Amazon, who are you protesting to? The British Government? Unilever? International Logs Ltd? (I can't even find the name of a real Amazon logging company with a cursory check.) The Brazilian Government? The UN? It's all very well to have a march saying "Don't do this", but who is the request targeted at? It isn't enough to simply show opposition.
Deforestation in the Amazon perhaps isn't the simplest example, but you can loosely contrast it with something like tuition fees where it's quite clear the government are the ones being petitioned to not do something. But even then there was a sort of shift where in the public imagination the government didn't really have the choice of not raising fees, because it was inevitable anyway due to the state of the economy and the narrow role we've set out for the state in economic management. (I'm not saying it should have a greater role, just that the bigger the role of the state, the more effective protests can be at petitioning it for change.)
|>>|| No. 19257
This is an interesting example. The problem with deforestation in the Amazon has very little to do with logging, largely because of the UN Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species. Thousands of species of trees are protected by CITES, meaning that exports in their timber are heavily controlled or banned entirely. There's very little point in illegally cutting down a load of Rosewood or Bubinga trees, because the wood is very unlikely to make it through customs.
The main driver of Amazon deforestation at the moment is clear-cutting to make way for livestock pasture. Forest just isn't economically valuable to the locals, but they can make good money from beef. It's perfectly reasonable to think that multilateral action could create an effective carrot-and-stick regime - we're going to control exports of beef from South America and require a paper trail to show where the animals were grazed, but in return we're going to offer subsidy payments to fund enforcement and to develop alternative local industries.
This approach has proved highly successful in the protection of endangered African mammals, particularly elephant and rhino species; the people who used to poach their tusks and horns are now earning salaries as wildlife rangers or safari guides instead. It wasn't easy, it took decades of lobbying and negotiation, but we've safeguarded the future of these endangered species through concerted international action.
|>>|| No. 19258
>It's all very well to have a march saying "Don't do this", but who is the request targeted at? It isn't enough to simply show opposition.
Sometimes though, public protest can cause large private corporations to stop doing something. In the end, commercial businesses can't afford to have a bad public image. It can hurt their sales and their business in general. And good companies will always keep an eye out for zeitgeist currents and shifts in public opinion about things that affect them and their products.
Take the cosmetic industry and animal experiments, for example. Animal rights activists spent years, maybe even decades protesting animal experiments and petitioning governments to at least ban the cruelest animal experiments for cosmetic products. And many companies making cosmetics today can ill afford sticking to animal experiments, because consumers have increasingly demanded to know just how exactly the cosmetics they buy were developed.
I also think all the protests against rain forest logging have had an effect. If I'm not entirely mistaken, certain types of rain forest wood are banned in the UK, and people who spend £300 on a wooden dinner table are usually educated enough to prefer wood that is responsibly sourced.
My parents still have a mahogany bench in their back garden, which probably came from a rain forest somewhere, but it was bought 40 years ago, when all of that pretty much wasn't an issue yet. It has had impressive long-term durability though. It could probably use an oil treatment, but other than that, it still looks good as new despite having been exposed to the elements for 40 years.
|>>|| No. 19259
Yes, it's a terribly sad state of affairs that the restrictions on the trade in wood are resulting in trees simply being burned or piled up to rot.
|>>|| No. 19261
It's simple economics. Rain forest as it is is dead capital to land owners if they have it on their property. You can't log it and sell the wood anymore, so how do you turn a profit on it. And eco tourism alone will just not see the kind of returns on investment that you get from raising cattle on it after you've cleared the vegetation.
There's a school of thought that it's useless to protest against the ever increasing economisation of natural resources, because in the end, that is what needs to happen in order to feed the growing global population and allow them a certain standard of living. Some go as far as saying that at the end of it somewhere in the future, there won't be a single natural resource that won't be economised and utilised for profit.
Just think of crude oil. Even if everybody will drive electric cars in the future, it's naive to think that humans will eventually just stop using oil altogether and not use it up to the last drop that can be extracted from its deposits.
|>>|| No. 19262
>the kind of returns on investment that you get from raising cattle on it after you've cleared the vegetation.
Isn't a lot of Amazon deforestation to make way for soybean farming? Fucking veggies ruining everything.
|>>|| No. 19264
I think soybeans need high-nutrient topsoil, or at least topsoil that has been fertilised on a large scale. Tropical rainforest has a very thin natural layer of that kind of soil, and underneath it, you mostly have iron oxide clay and silt that is very low in nutrients. It may sound counterintuitive given that tropical rainforests have such lush vegetation, but they also have a very high rate of nutrient turnover, which means nutrients from dead biomatter are reconsumed very quickly by other plants and don't have time to form thick humus-rich topsoil like you seen in our temperate climate.
It's one reason why the most widely seen use of land after the rainforest has been cleared off is as grassland for grazing cattle. Many types of grass have relatively low nutritional requirements but still manage to extract a lot of nutrients from soil that can then be consumed by livestock.
Also, the very thin layer of topsoil of tropical rainforests explains why once you've destroyed a section of that rainforest, it won't just grow back if you plant a few trees here and there. These ecosystems needed millions of years to grow. Unlike in our temperate forests in the UK where you just plant a few oaks or firs and thirty years on you've got a complete new forest, the best you can hope for with that approach in the Inner Tropics is that you will end up with a few isolated trees of more resilient species and some bushland.
|>>|| No. 19265
I remember a year or two ago, there was something to do with a ban on importing certain rare, endangered woods, and most of the big guitar manufacturers made a big show of switching to different woods.
A mahogany body with a Brazillian rosewood fretboard is one of the most classic and revered guitar constructions. Instead, they decided to try using some sort of weird synthetic replacement; people started to freak out that we'd seen the end of rosewood fretboards, and that you'd be stuck buying overpriced second hand instruments from back before real wood was banned. Here we are in 2019, however, and it's like those couple of years just never happened. I don't know if they use more ethically sourced wood now, or if the Donald has given Gibson a letter of marque to uproot as much of the Amazon as it likes. But it's as though that whole brief period has simply vanished into the memory hole, never to be spoken of.
I've always had a sort of contempt for the "average" environmentalist; it seems to me that they'll go on and on about how environmentally conscious they are, but it always stops as soon as it inconveniences them. With the public at large, and consumers in specific markets, this guitar incident really demonstrated that there's only a certain line people will take it up to. I'm sure a lot of guitarists are deeply concerned about the environment, but a Les Paul is made of mahogany, maple and rosewood, and that's just the end of it.
|>>|| No. 19266
> it seems to me that they'll go on and on about how environmentally conscious they are, but it always stops as soon as it inconveniences them.
Taleb was pretty on point with his 'skin in the game' concept.
|>>|| No. 19269
Exports of Brazilian rosewood have been banned outright since 1992. Other species of rosewood are still legal, but since January 2017 you need export and import permits whenever it crosses an international border. The purpose isn't really to reduce the use of rosewood, but to prevent illegal logging from sensitive forest regions. This restriction caused a supply shock in the guitar industry, because a lot of manufacturers and retailers didn't have the admin capacity to do all the paperwork and some manufacturers (looking at you, Gibson) didn't ask too many questions about where their wood came from. It also poses a significant problem for international retailers like Thomann, because the paperwork costs about £100 per shipment.
Different companies have approached the issue differently. Fender have permanently switched to pau ferro over rosewood for mid-priced instruments, but still use rosewood on some American-made guitars. Ibanez have abandoned rosewood completely, switching to ebony and pau ferro on their more expensive instruments and laurel on their budget instruments. Smaller manufacturers have mostly given up on rosewood, because they can't be bothered with the faff.
The guitar industry is really just a side-effect though - the regulations were aimed at the Chinese hongmu furniture trade, which has driven a vast increase in demand for rosewood alongside China's rather dubious attitude to environmental protection and ethical sourcing.
|>>|| No. 19279
> it seems to me that they'll go on and on about how environmentally conscious they are, but it always stops as soon as it inconveniences them.
The newest fad is now flight shaming, where you go through people's Instagram profile or Twitter feed and count the number of flights they go on each year and post about. In some countries, this has led to Green Party MPs and other environmentalists having to explain themselves for preaching small carbon footprints but going on lavish holidays to New Zealand, South Africa and East Asia themselves several times a year.
|>>|| No. 19291
The okay hand gesture being interpreted as a white supremacist symbol seems so bizarre. There was a recent incidence of it being blurred out on American TV.
|>>|| No. 19292
I think in Italy it's considered an offensive gesture when made to a woman. Something about signalling to her that way that you think she would be a good shag.
|>>|| No. 19295
I'm not sure where this tangent came from but I feel the need to point out that control of the media is just as vital for toppling or preserving a regime as indoctrination. Hence why coup d'etats make such a target of them and movements such as in the Arab Spring relied upon social media to coordinate or later for Erdoğan to survive a coup with facetime.
So...When the UN talks harsh words of the role of the media in the Rwandan genocide they also allow Kagame to grip power by controlling the media.
>it was also what led up to the Arab Spring.
Is self-immolation an act of rational self-interest?
>4chan has a specific report option for content that "violates US law" and threatening langauge could be considered just that
No, America operates
correctly differently. For it to be any kind of offence there it would have to cause Warwick some fear for immediate harm which mean words on an imageboard are not.
It wasn't so much a wind up as Pacha from Emperor's New Groove became a popular reaction image and then the mouth-breathers who write online media assumed it was a new symbol. In doing so making it one.
Same as Hillary and Pepe.
|>>|| No. 19298
I'm not explaining to you daft sods yet again why the okay symbol is an alt-right dog whistle, for fuck sake. It's supposed to be silly and mundane, but it isn't just silly and mundane, that's just a smokescreen to hide the real crap about "great replacements" and so on.
|>>|| No. 19304
Doesn't everyone use thumbs up in that sort of case, anyway?
The IATA marshalling hand signal for brake release looks exactly like you're doing a heil hitler if you're not fast enough.
|>>|| No. 19305
Also, among scuba divers, the OK signal has been a sign for things being, well, ok since time immemorial.
It also means "agreed" or "understood" in diving, like, when you gesture to your diving partner that you want to get ready to surface.
Obviously communication under water is limited unless you are using a full face mask with integrated two-way radio, so hand gestures need to be clear and unequivocal because of the obvious dangers that can arise from miscommunication when you're under 50 feet of water. Changing things up just because the OK signal has now maybe, maybe not been claimed by white supremacists could be dangerous, because it's just something that is so ingrained in scuba divers. It's something you learn in your very first lesson.
|>>|| No. 19312
Everyone knows that scuba divers are just moist racists. Aquatic pursuits are a classic alt-right dog-whistle, because of the connotations of the transatlantic slave trade and the historical legacy of segregation depriving African-Americans of the opportunity to swim. Scuba divers spend thousands of pounds on equipment and travel around the world to go to the one place that they know black people can't follow them - under the water. Every scuba tank is like a burning cross. It's despicable.
|>>|| No. 19314
> to go to the one place that they know black people can't follow them - under the water.
Not for a lack of trying, it seems.
(although the lad in the picture could also be a Pacific Islander. Not entirely clear.)
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]