aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]

I don’t know what this is

  • 3 Posts
  • 1.65K Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2020

help-circle











  • I mean it’s true, the jets on the carrier were flying round the clock missions 24/7 to intercept missiles and bomb launch sites, and they were doing this for over half a year. It’s much more intense than people think, Ansar Allah/ the Houthis have anti ship ballistic missiles with a hypersonic terminal velocity, there’s not much of a window to take out a launch site, intercept, or dodge the missile. Though ballistics are “easy” to dodge if you’re in moving military ship and know that the ballistic missile is incoming, thanks to radar. It’s also the first time in history anti ship ballistic missiles have been used in conflict. I think the closest we’ve seen so far to a military ship being hit is one of the US destroyers using it’s CIWS to shoot down a subsonic cruise missile, as cruise missiles are a lot harder to dodge. Th




  • The DA haven’t actually succeeded, they got the same share of the votes they did last time, around 20%. What has happened is that the ANC’s share of the vote has fallen below 50%, thus a coalition government is a reality. The EFF did try to get votes from Zulu nationalists and tried to get Jacob Zuma to join the EFF, but that was a failed endeavour as Jacob Zuma simply started his own political party in the MK. The EFF and MK are ANC off shoots already, Malema was part of the ANC Youth League, and Zuma was president.

    As for why the ANC went into coalition with the DA, it’s because it was the only viable option to actually form a government. The MK is led by Jacob Zuma, ex ANC leader and ex South African president. The MK demanded the resignation of Ramaphosa as the leader of the ANC as a prerequisite for a coalition. This was considered a non starter for the ANC. An ANC+EFF coalition also was not viable as the ANC+EFF together do not have 50% of the vote, so other parties would have to get involved. The EFF wanted to work with the ANC as a senior coalition partner and get multiple smaller parties to join to get just barely over 50% with no DA involvement due to ideological reasons, or to work with the MK in a ANC-MK-EFF coalition. The first option was not considered viable by the ANC as multiple parties coming together to barely get over 50% could easily fall apart. The ANC also viewed the EFF as hypocritical as they have worked together with the DA in the past to attempt to “destroy the ANC” in their view. The second option was also not viable due to the MK’s stance on Ramaphosa. Thus, we are left with the ANC - DA coalition.

    Main problem with the ANC has been corruption and ineffective service delivery moreso than policy, though policy is certainly a major issue.

    To understand the DA’s success amongst the coloured population, you have to understand that the coloured community is very socially conservative, and that there is anti black racism amongst older coloured people. You just have to compare the performance of the PA, the socially conservative political party based around coloured identity, to GOOD, the socially progressive party based on coloured identity, to see how socially conservative the coloured community is as a whole. The closet thing to the coloured community in the United States would probably be the Mexican/Latino community, though there are too many differences for it to be a 1 to 1 comparison. But the social conservatism is very similar. Also, the majority of coloured people in South Africa live in the Western Cape, a province that has been governed by the DA for quite some time now, and has the best financial management, despite growing inequality. So voters in the Western Cape want to keep that despite all the issues around DA governance.


  • The president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, just got inaugurated for his second term. I saw some of the fighter jets practicing their flyover near the Union Buildings earlier this week. Today is the first day of the Government of National Unity (GNU), effectively a coalition between the ANC and DA. To mark this occasion, old video footage, from 2010, has emerged of DA Member of Parliament Renaldo Gouws using racial slurs. For some background, Renaldo Gouws was an “anti SJW” YouTuber during the 2010s, that joined the DA last year for reasons no one can quite explain. What a way to start the GNU… Day one and a DA member is already involved in a racism scandal.

    New racist video of DA MP Renaldo Gouws surfaces, Independent Online, 19 June 2024

    article snippets, warning for racism

    A shocking new video has emerged of a Democratic Alliance Member of Parliament Renaldo Gouws appearing to spew hate speech.

    In the video first published to his Youtube channel and subsequently deleted, Gouws says “Alright so there’s a couple of things I want to say. Kill the f**ing kffirs, kill all the fing nggers. That’s all I gotta fing say. Kill all the kffirs! Kill all the fing n*ggers!”

    No comment

    However, the video was made available to Democratic Alliance (DA) federal chairperson Helen Zille.

    Zille said she would check the veracity of the video before commenting.

    “I have contacted Renaldo. He says he has no recollection at all of making a video with such vile language and says if one exists, it could be AI generated.”

    Zille went on to say that “Renaldo is denying flat out that he ever made this video. I am sending it for testing.”

    The video was retrieved from the internet archive, which collects snapshots of web pages from time to time for retrieval and leaked to IOL.

    Even though this content is deleted from Youtube, the video still exists in this archive.

    The video was allegedly published by Gouws on 11 March 2010 under the title “Kill all black people” before being deleted, but not before the content was archived.

    Open source analyst Andrew Fraser confirmed to IOL that the video was legitimate and that it is highly unlikely that the video is AI generated.

    “Deepfake technology has been generally available for fewer than 5 years. This video first aroused controversy in 2016, so unlikely that it was deepfaked. The video is visible on Gouws’ YouTube channel archive on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and was archived in 2011. The archive is of the actual Rendier YouTube Channel page, not a third party - so unlikely to have been placed there maliciously,” said Fraser.

    Gouws however has denied he made the video when contacted for comment.

    “Made hundreds of videos over the years. Would not have used those terms. I don’t have actual context from who the source is and how it could have been manipulated through audio or video AI. Whether this was an old video manipulated to use those words the same way my previous videos have been manipulated and audio synched to say things I never said. I don’t have full context but as with the last couple of days there has been a clear smear campaign against me and this seems to have reached new heights", said Gouws.

    The article explains itself. The video exists, it was uploaded to the internet archive 13 years ago, it’s not fake or AI, it’s impossible for it to be. It’s real, you can access it right now, and he did use those terms.

    The full video of the incident on the internet archive, warning for racism





  • I like the example of a clay ball and car/bicycle wheel/rim, as it’s easy to understand. For instance, a clay ball has little value on its own. But by removing some clay from the centre to turn it into a bowl or cup, it becomes more valuable, even though there is less clay. Same with a wheel rim. A solid block of steel doesn’t have much value beyond its raw material. But by shaping it into a circle and removing material from the centre to create spokes, it now becomes light enough to be a wheel, and is more valuable, despite there being less steel. The formal laws of logic would state that the more of something you have, the more valuable it is. But here the opposite is true, by having less of something, we have made it more valuable. How can this be, it’s a contradiction! However, the contradiction is synthesised by understanding that the labour to remove material from the object in a specific way, so that the object can be used to complete specific tasks, has drastically increased the use value of the object, to the point that is is much more valuable than the raw material it is made out of. The lack of material in certain locations actually makes it very valuable. That is dialectics.

    This is paraphrased from an explanation of Zhongyong Dialectics that I saw a few years ago. I hope I didn’t screw it up too much.