The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.

It is weird that your comment was removed.

it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad

Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]

i guess we makin babies now

Dickfacé

On a note completely unrelated to this comment. MullvadVPN was raided by the police and was unable to provide logs and accepts cash by mail without providing personal information.

Perhaps it could be state funded? It worked for PBS for a time and it still mostly works for the BBC. Why not a browser? A truly independent steward for the open web is important and it doesn’t seem like Google is capable of that.

On

Oh boy, I can’t wait until we bail out the tech giants because they’re too big to fail.

It’s a bad enough idea we don’t need anymore for the next few centuries.

One of Hasan’s pieces of advice he repeats often is “be normal”. People on the left can get obsessed with politics. Don’t go around constantly talking about politics when it makes people uncomfortable. Try to be relatable and likable first, only broach the subject of politics when it’s appropriate and the other person seems comfortable with it.

He’s not saying there isn’t room for deeper more intense political discussions but they require some amount of trust and good faith from both parties.

It’s probably advice I could stand to adhere to more often.

They could potentially release source only with no art assets. Then you wouldn’t be able to compile the game without either owning the game or pirating the assets elsewhere. But it would allow community members to update the game when it breaks or to add new features. Similar to the Mario 64 decompile.

While all this would be great for consumers it would probably take legislation to get publishers on board with something like this. Publishers have a financial incentive to let the games languish then force you to pay to get a “remastered” version.

Yeah, I’m not sure I agree that YouTube wants their platform to shrink. Even if you don’t watch ads you are still giving them your data which they can monetize.

Personally I would be willing to pay for YouTube premium but not under the current terms. 1. If I’m paying for the service they should no longer collect and sell my data. 2. Allow me to have a YouTube-only account not connected to other Google services and 3. The current pricing is a bit high.

They can offer these terms or I’ll continue to use them logged out with Adblock. Or they can continue to enshitify and eventually their platform will start to shrink which will make the data they sell to advertisers less valuable.

Well, it seems I may have wooshed myself.

Sandy Cheeks

I own a 1080ti and there was recently a massive update to Allan Wake 2 that made it more playable on pascal GPUs. Digital foundry did a video on it: http://youtu.be/t-3PkRbeO8A

I don’t know of any current game that can’t run at least 1080p30fps on 1080ti. But of course my knowledge is not exhaustive.

I wouldn’t expect every “next-gen” game to get the same treatment as Alan Wake 2 going forward. But we’re 4 years into the generation and there has probably been less than 10 games that were built to take full advantage of modern console hardware. My 1080ti has got a few more good years in it.

Linux shouldn’t let itself be slutshamed. Linux should proud of what a good little slut it is.

Also seeing the Nitter theme like a year after its death hits hard.

I don’t know of any specific laws against them enshitifying adblockers. But there are things like the GDPR and in the EU big tech corporations are under constant scrutiny by regulators. Making them a lot less likely to do these kinds of shitty things in general. I assume that’s why she/he’s asking. Perhaps pressure from regulators has caused them to reframe from engaging in this same behavior in the EU? Out of caution?

Edit: I use the modified version of the Youtube app on iOS (uYou) and the skipping behavior happened to me and it reminded me to respond to your comment. I’m pretty sure they’re breaking adblockers on purpose.

I assume he’s asking because the EU has a bunch of laws that protects users from this kind of shitty behavior. When I went to the EU many of the apps I use became less shitty.

It’s considered the first popular piece of Gen-Alpha internet humor.