I’m one of the few volunteer contributors to Bonfire, and I would never dream of recommending Mozilla to use it. You have to reach out to people where they are at, not pick the tools based on prime principles. American platforms are blackmailing us by gatekeeping access to audiences, but it’s not like you can pretend most humans are reachable on microscopic federated platforms. Which btw is not the intended use case for bonfire.
mind that the writers are engaged with many other orgs and don’t really speak on behalf of Mozilla Foundation
bro, this logic of thinking that only stupid people fall for propaganda is only useful to make you feel intelligent and reinforces the right-wing. There’s plenty of evidence this is not how it works. Get your shit together, and find another activity to feed your ego.
Probably the same people have been targeted over and over by the same videos. TikTok users likely watch dozens of videos per day and the views add up quickly.
It’s fun how every country reinvents the newspaper-selling machine. It’s like carcinization, but for politics.
Generative AI includes also image and video generation, which have a very different approach than LLMs
because it is relevant in different communities, no?
is not particularly Marxist Marx wrote extensively about metaphysics. The whole discussion of dialectical materialism vs historical materialism is a metaphysical debate. Also you’re treating Marxism as metaphysical dogma: we can evolve from a 150-year-old idea of world and history, you know? Especially since it’s failing to deliver big times in the West.
No need to bring in a larger metaphysical framework.
Same argument as before: whatever we used so far paralyzed us and made us weaker and the results are clear. Most of the metaphysical framework employed by the traditional left is paralyzing, disempowering, and on top of that stuck into an idea of “modernity” that has been dying for a while. The far-right took note modernity is over and this enabled them to operate in ways that the Left fails even to process, let alone to imitate. The indigenous people of a good part of the world always rejected modernist metaphysics and are now free to produce more interesting theory, practices and struggles than most of the Global North. China is its own thing.
The 20th century is over and the world has changed. Any ecosystem achieving meaningful political results employs an anti-modern metaphysical framework. Maybe it’s worth considering that there might be a problem with the modernist, teleological, reductionist 19th-century framework you operate in.
The practices you just described are very pigeonholed: they are within what’s common, socially acceptable and expected from a leftist, which is a very narrow and specific frame, much more narrow than what’s necessary and more narrow than what’s possible.
Here the expansion of the frame of action goes beyond the boundaries prescribed by your political identity and ideology. It’s about doing all of those things, but also infiltrating companies, foundations, and the academia to work on both sides if it’s useful to generate leverage. It’s about building infrastructure, protocols, and systems that scale and can outcooperate the capitalist system. It’s about building structures that can surpass in power the existing ones in order to replace their oppressive “power over” with a liberating “power with”. It’s about sabotaging the old and scaling up the new. What has been tried so far by “leftists”, whatever it is, has failed and therefore it was not sufficient nor we have reasons to believe it will be sufficient in the future.
Again, there are plenty of leftists in the boards of companies, foundations, and decision bodies of academia, but they often lack a bigger frame to coordinate their action beyond their direct social structure, especially because they have to operate under cover.
A metaphysical shift, and with it a narrative shift, can enable these actors to recognize each other in a common language, distinct from that of the manichean left but also distinct from who is operating within the old world and with old practices. This is something the current frame doesn’t offer, and forces, through a fake duality, that there’s an “inside the system” within which change is not possible, and an “outside the system” where change is possible. In reality, there’s a single system of power, and no inside or outside: we are complicit. we are all participating in evolving the system. The only difference is if we are contributing to evolve the system in a liberating direction or not.
“stuff I don’t understand is worthless and people who care about it are stupid”. Sure, bro.
manichean vs augustinian is not an ideological frame but a metaphysical frame. It’s one order of abstraction above. It’s the shape of the stage in which ideologies (including dual power, potentially) will play out.
The article also is about the use of geometric language in politics. The reference to Nunes is just to contextualize the topic.
Your question doesn’t make sense and it has no relationship to the article
the outcome matters yet you can’t estimate likelihood of shit, so what do you do?
If you’re in a personal situation where you can’t navigate your political environement at all, you find a different form of change to create on which you have agency and leverage.
bro, the people who identify as right-wing in the USA control the state, the farms, the businesse, the technology, and they are a considerable part of the working class.
Who do you think Lenin was trying to win over with all his activities? People who already identified as socialist? Obviously winning over people who identify as right-wing is necessary, especially if your idea of right wing is anybody who is not actively building a socialist revolution.
What’s the problem with these institutions? They are very established in this space
many people are visual thinkers and can understand this better than a wall of text. There’s plenty of writing about this stuff already. Not every brain is the same.
yeah, I conveyed a similar feedback to the author of the article. Thanks for the analysis
what’s wrong with the title?
I don’t understand your downvotes. If they are from scabs, or they are from people who only read the title and thought this is some managerial shit.
A lot of these spaces are reading, writing and designing around so-called “anti-capture” protocols exactly to avoid that.