The English language already uses a capitalised I by default in common language, so attempting to use the same conventions would be at best unnecessarily confusing.

Maybe it didn’t strictly have to be Latin, but it easily makes sense to invent discrete terms.

Broadly the discussion has been very absolutist about these terms, I don’t really care wether or not Parenti is “better” on a spectrum.

I want to hear what his usage of the term in his most famous lecture actually implies about him and these sorts of terms as a whole. Is this post actually a discussion about language or just a massive circlejerk about how much we dislike academics.

It’s not pedantic, he used one of the example words in his most famous lecture. Why?

Were his ideas not clever enough? Is he bourgeoise? Did he change terminology afterwards?

what about this makes English “cucked”?

Those ones are literally just normal, you’d have to just not have engaged with political-historical discourse at all in English to not have heard hagiography used to insult mainstream presidential retrospective articles at the very least.

The only imaginable bright spot is that the obvious attempt to groom his young son into a predator too happened so recently that there’s some hope that he might receive effective therapy for it before he becomes an adult.

Literally what is there even to say, fifteen women. And that’s just the number who spoke to his wife personally!

Also the most horrific shit he was doing literally like 2022, 2023, 2024.

Neil Gaiman is going to need to hire a private military for life to be able to walk the streets without getting three Luigis in the back.

Recently I’ve taken to just idly browsing secondhand and auction sites to look at funny vintage clothes and the weird phrasings people come up with.

Lots of what I assume to be attempts at gaming search results by typing “BRAND NEW VINTAGE/ANTIQUE” in the title and shit like that.

I’m sold, hell yeah.

Did they make Orlok a romantic sadboy?

I want to have faith in Eggers but also it feels like every single Dracula since Christopher Lee has tried to be subversive about the original story in a way that just annoys me to no end.

It’s a common prosecutor folk wisdom that it’s good to gamble on the death penalty because if its on the table then the jury will be more likely to be filled with regimepilled sickos who vote guilty in the name of state violence no matter what.

Ivy league style is pretty sharp.

It seems fine as it’s own work, just sorta comes off like a separate work of fiction that had to be stapled onto the Watchmen IP instead of being its own thing.

Like the whole Hooded Justice thing isn’t bad, but I think it kind of fails to exploit what Moore was going for by making the “first” costumed superhero in his universe a nazi-sympathizing sadist dressed up in thinly veiled lynching iconography and a dark klan hood.

I’ve essentially never seen anything from the sphere of “parapolitics” that actually appears to impart any useful practical knowledge for understanding the past or predicting the future, at best it appears to be a masturbatory hobby that lets you be smug about JFK for 50+ years straight, at worst it makes you some annoying asshole who goes around saying shit like “denying the existence of snuff films is leftist flat earth” for attention.

Also Programmed To Kill is a very stupid book.

I think the AI tools used for the last song was primarily to separate Lennons voice and piano from the artifacts of the poor quality demo, including a persistent hiss.

Bad sensationalist headline, should really be more clear about what uses are being discussed. He’s clearly not against the audio tools that helped on the song, but against generative AI exploitation. There’s no reversal going on.

Granted I haven’t read it, but I really don’t think a Grover Furr book about the historical debate around the secret speech is intermediate.

I’m not sure I would include a work like that at all on a general reading list but at the very least it seems like something you’d get into on an advanced focus level.

I’m also not sure Mark Fisher actually needs to be there, but I see possible arguments at least.

Yes, most critically he later admitted in an article(after being laid off) that he was personally witness to Helen Hindpere receiving verbal abuse on a company call that was so loud that he could hear it from her headphones.

Helen mentions this in the documentary, Tuulik did not, and while he was not the primary figure questioning Hindperes work and leadership, he took a centrist stance between owners and the fired creatives.

Obviously not that any of this makes him deserve being subjected to the crap thats going on, though I do think it makes the goofy radical shit from his studio take on kind of a hollow tone.

If you’re gonna be the gamer maoist studio dropping manifestos with “creatives hold up half the sky” type slogans, I think a gamer self crit is warranted too.

Reminds me of one of the main FOIA guys who runs “The Black Vault” for UFO shit being like.

“I trust the government and appreciate all their good works, I just firmly believe in the civic value of government transparency and disclosure.”

Probably my favourite kind of brainworms within the sphere of parapolitics, just a fundamentally endearing viewpoint to have.

I think a big part is that if you accept for arguments sake the fundamental legal premises and rules of a court trial in the Rittenhouse case, you can arrive at a conclusion that within that premise and those laws the acquittal makes sense. Basically that the injustice is enshrined in the bones of the system rather than a malicious and arbitrary dismissal of what’s supposed to happen.

Meanwhile there just is not a reasonable argument that a trained soldier would not be aware that extended application of a chokehold past unconsciousness would certainly be lethal, and that he continued past the point where average bystanders could tell that he was murdering Jordan Neely.

Theres no legal argument that makes sense in this scenario, anyone who accepts it are accepting it outside of the law.

Support for Daniel Penny is all but overtly just simple support for lynching, while Rittenhouse you can very torturously make a case involving other American brainworms like the right to self defense and the idea that a dumb fascist toddler like Rittenhouse earnestly feared for his life.

I think a lot of people around the site right now are being genuinely embarrassing in how much good faith they are using to interpret the CEO shooter suspects various weird chud posts and opinions, including one where he suggests among other things that conveyor belt sushi restaurants in japan are part of causing infertility issues due to a loss of customer-waitor interactions.

Edit: as to your edit, my main point is I think people are going out of their way to interpret his weirdo beliefs that in any other context would be read as being an online chud as instead being fundamentally grounded in theoryless critique of capitalism. And that the embarrassing part of this is that literally none of it is necessary when the core thing people support is just him shooting the CEO, there’s no need to steelman his personal beliefs if all anyone cares about is the assassination.

If he wasnt the guy who shot a CEO I think literally any of the tweets getting posted would be read as bog standard weirdo reactionary-by-osmosis white guy. And ultimately if you’re going to be good faithing guys with opinions on Japanese birth rates, I would use that good faith on guys who aren’t going to prison and being locked away from all effective organizing.