wow the /c/greentext community has posts that remind you of 4chan

:0

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that is a major issue.

An interesting part of it is that I’m not use how much of that is the service working as intended (even in abstract ways, like promoting interest-grabbing things) and how much is abuse of the service (basically SEO for social media posts, using botfarms to promote content, etc.). And just to be clear, it’s still a fault of the platform if it’s being abused by organized think-tanks and advertisers. Whereas in Lemmy and Mastodon, the openness and customisability would communities to adjust ‘the algorithm’ that decides which posts to promote, or just block things that are unwelcome in their community.

Ah, that sucks to hear about.

I’m not sure if that’s really how the US propaganda model works (that is, the one defined in Manufacturing Consent). It’s an element of it, you’re right about that, but I think ultimately the issue is that they’re a for-profit information platform. And, as a result of that and the system we’re in, they’re affected by at least four of the five filters of bias that the authors proposed:

• They’re filtered by the investor demands to censor.
• They’re filtered by advertising demands to censor.
• They’re vulnerable to mass-media flak against their reputation.
• They’re vulnerable to anti-[flavour-of-the-month] red-scare hysteria.

Mastodon, like Lemmy, can basically ignore the first two filters, and established communities which don’t mind being smaller than mainstream are unaffected by the remaining two.

Ultimately, it’s important to remember that BlueSky is a for-profit business, like Twitter, like reddit. I urge everyone to avoid it where possible, just like I would go back in time and urge people not to make Twitter a thing.

They will inevitably go down a similar path. Even in the best case hypothetical scenario, they are still beholden to the interests of shareholders and advertisers. They have to make money from you, or from rich companies, to survive. Mastodon instances, on the other hand, are scalable enough that they can sustain themselves off self-funding or donations. Just like Lemmy, they don’t have an intrinsic motivation to throw in ads, or to get you addicted to scrolling and arguing, or to censor communities that offend their sponsors.

It’s no co-incidence that you’re feeling some similarities between Lemmy and Mastodon, in fact Mastodon users can actually post here! ‘Fediverse’ programs all use the same language (protocol) to communicate and so some are able to interact. I’ve had a Lemmy<->Mastodon conversation before. Admittedly it’s not ideal to do that everyday, because of the obvious difference in formats, but having the ability to do that can be useful, especially if one service has a community that yours doesn’t.

I was initially siding with Israel as they were hit first, but their response has made me rethink things.

To generalize this out to other wars and conflicts, even regular old arguments, there are almost always pre-existing conditions and tensions leading up to the first major attack. Even things like WWI, where the catalyst was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But there is quite obviously more to the atmosphere, national ambitions, etc. etc. that make it so that the separatists wanted to assassinate him, and make it so that Austria-Hungary wanted to invade Serbia and used this as an excuse. A war would have happened anyway, no matter who attacked first.

Is it even safe to start from the Ottomans?

I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.

Yeah, kneejerk reactions get tiring. I tend not to use reddit-like or twitter-like forums much because of how low-effort and unempathetic most posts are. 'Read the news title, get angry', might as well be the motto. I'm glad you appreciated it.

Affirmative action based on […] economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.

This absolutely is and should be fought for, alongside other movements. The concentration of wealth at the top has just accelerated after the main COVID crisis. Our whole economic system funnels wealth to those with capital, and their influence on our political system and mass media is the root cause of most issues in our society. My caveat is that affirmative action re: economic prosperity won't solve this, the problem runs so deep that affirmative action will ultimately be inadequate, treating the symptoms rather than the cause. We need a systematic overhaul… far far far far easier said than done.

That said, economic equity doesn't cover everything, as many Indigenous people have other priorities that aren't strictly economic, a major one being land rights. A somewhat-known recent example of the issue is mining companies destroying sacred land or historical artifacts, another is traditional use of the land to live off of. I admittedly don't know enough about land right to explain in proper detail, but it's one of the main demands that protesters have demanded for decades and decades.

I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.

I agree, and I would say that this doesn't mean affirmative action isn't still important. To take a metaphor from the Civil Rights struggle, that anti-discrimination is taking the knife out, there is still a need to heal the wound before we can say things are fine. We've abolished the most blatant aggression like non-suffrage, but done very little to make amends on things like colonisation and centuries of repression and land possession.

Generations of loss and disadvantage evidently still exist, and will remain without positive interference. Disadvantage is cyclical, it doesn't heal by itself, poverty is an self-evident example of the cyclic nature of powerlessness. And to re-emphasise, this applies generally to disadvantage, not just disadvantage caused by colonisation or racial disadvantage.

As a side note, I'm not sure if it's even correct to frame this as about race, Indigenous classification just inherently matches up with race since the historical inhabitants of Australian land were all, to use a racial term, Black indigenous Australians, and we've historically just grouped them all together when it comes to the social concept of race because they're not White or Asian. The ill-advised and quite frankly worthless Voice proposal was about them being the native peoples, not about them being a certain race or having been racially discriminated.

I am quickly fragged by space-aged weaponry, provided I don't explode from the strange atmosphere. Best case scenario isn't good, food seemingly doesn't exist.

I'll call for their manager and attack the manager specifically. Is there a term for that yet?

Security is a cat and mouse game. There's always a way to steal from anyone, especially a convenience-oriented business.

The best deal is always free. So, I'd rather inconvenience the conglomerate haute-booj than the petit-booj, even if it's only a few dollars.

Huh, I'll have to look for a mute button, thanks for the hint. Mine keeps yelling at me to finish unloading then churns out a nonsense marketing phrase. Utterly annoying.

Given this definition of racism, it creates an interesting problem: how can one solve systemic racism, without doing actions which take race into account? If someone needs help, is it unfair to treat them the same as someone else who doesn't need help? Or would it be more unfair to treat them the same as someone who doesn't need help, and therefore keeping things the same, leading to them still needing help? And, regardless of whether it's fair or not (subjective morality), is it more beneficial to society (material outcome)?

Do you mean 'concern trolling' or 'sealioning'?

'Concern trolling' is falsely pretending to agree with an idea but raising concerns, in order to sew discontent. Something like, "I agree with giving them a Voice, but I'm concerned that … ", an insincere astroturfing attempt.

'Sealioning' is when someone relentlessly stalks a person asking them for evidence or arguments, in order to 'just try and have a debate' when the other person doesn't want to. The term comes from from this comic, which describes it well. It's personal harassment pretending to be civil debate.

Their argument is that the Voice isn't even something good. It doesn't give Indigenous people any powers they didn't already have, and the Voice can be ignored just as easily as the advice of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody recently was. Interview with the Black Peoples Union describes in better detail.

But even if that weren't the case and they did think it wasn't worthless symbolism, successful collective bargaining doesn't just settle for every first offer. So I don't know why you're claiming it's a bad strategy, it's how unions have won important gains for workers. It's a strategy that has been historically shown to work when applied correctly.

That isn't a useful definition of racism. It's sounds alright, although it's ultimately idealistic, it doesn't hold up when applying to material circumstances.

As for why people think having different rules for different groups is good, I think one of the simplest ways to sum it up is: Equality of treatment will not give equality of outcome until there is already equality of conditions. Treating all people the same isn't fair in the real world.

As a thought-experiment to demonstrate: If we have two people, one has $200 savings after rent and the other has $10,000,000, you can't make them more equal or make the money more distributed by treating them the same: if society wants to reduce poverty (which is obviously a good thing for society, to have less people in poverty), it makes some sense to supply the poorer of the two with money, but it makes no sense to supply the richer: they already have more money than 90% of people! There isn't a moral or ethical benefit in giving them more money, they don't need the money as much as others do, it's not how to achieve fairness or equality.

The generalised point of that being, if a group is disadvantaged and the status quo is keeping them disadvantaged, solving that will require special treatment. Treating Indigenous people the same way as always just keeps the systemic racist status quo, and to solve that, the Government will inevitably have to treat Indigenous people differently. That's a consequence of trying to create a more equal outcome in an unequal environment.

The same goes for other types of disadvantage, of course. I am obviously not trying to imply that all people who aren't indigenous have all the advantage they need! Ultimately, everyone who is not a mega-multi-millionaire is disadvantaged, but we can't fix that all in one change. We have to start somewhere.

No, it is not just racism. There would have been an element of that, but it's certainly far from the main reason. That idea is contradicted by the facts that a very significant portion of Indigenous people and Indigenous activists voted against it.

Linking to this useful post, explaining why various progressive groups were against it.

You've actually explained one of the reasons many Indigenous people rejected this: it is just feedback that could simply be ignored by the Senate. That's powerless, and we've seen from royal commissions into Aboriginal deaths in custody that the feedback does get ignored. Why accept such a bad deal, pretending it's a victory or progress?

The Black Peoples Union interview with ABC explains why they took the 'no' position.

Relevant: the Black Peoples Union position on the referendum (interview on ABC).

An aggregation of written statements collected from socialist, anarchist and radical Indigenous groups, showing the diversity of thought on the matter: http://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/161r8r1/megathread_of_leftist_statements_on_the_voice/

(PS: don't just take all the 'yes' and 'no' summaries in that list at face value, a couple of them are misinterpretations or oversimplications)