Oh damn, I wasn't planning on playing silksong, but I remember finding it so hard on PC to downward strike effectively. Dying to falling into the poison water while trying to bounce around was, in the end, more annoying than fun to me. If silksong makes it easier I'll be very happy and maybe play it

With "it" I guess I meant the whole concept of LLM as a tool for helping understand generally, not that this form is better for it. Just that by changing it from making claim statements to saying "these concepts seem related according to my network" and throwing out words and phrases that have often been connected is fine. And then a "give me rarer phrasing associated" would be a cool addition

To come back to this, and not to stir the pot, I've got some points. (Awoo, if you're reading, just disengage if you don't want to be involved. I'm not taking bad about you but trying to find the root of the disagreement)

From what I can tell from the article, this may literally be an argument of definitions. When we state that a country is a settler-colony, some read that as having immediate implications all the way to the exact tactics that you must use (read, all violence is justified against the settler class). Others read it as a classification at high abstraction about the general way that 2 groups relate without many immediate implications for tactics. And others somewhere in between, with some implications for an end goal but not tactics, or with some implied basis for certain strategies but the goals aren't perfectly aligned.

It seems there is a chance that you and Awoo (and the article) are really reading the term "settler colony" with a different view of what that term implies. If it implies that all violence against all settlers is justified, like many here believe for Palestine, then the article wants us to not use the classification. If it only implies a relation to the land question, and some justice can be found and the indigenous class be restored without that universal violence against settlers, then the classification would likely be fine, according to the author.

There is also the question of how a primary contradiction relates to secondary ones, and whether its primary or not. This does immediately have implications, there is no way to play with definitions around that. If I'm reading right, looking at a quick article by Nick Estes and this article, there is a difference between some ML's about whether or not the settler-indigenous contradiction is the primary contradiction for the revolutionary classes of the US. I would tend to refer to Nick Estes about the other article in this case, but I don't see a huge gap between the 2 in practice right now. But I will stop talking about it because I am no expert.

In conclusion, I don't wanna be one of those people always saying "you just aren't defining your terms, children" like some Wittgensteinian monster. But I do think that discussing the implications alongside the class relation is necessary avoid speaking past one another. Do you agree that this could be happening?

Edit: I didn't state it, but I'm pretty sure Awoo is saying that there was a subset of Hexbear claiming that the exact tactics of Palestinians against Zionists was justified for all POC against white USians. That would be the extreme set of implications, and I'm pretty sure you're not saying that? But maybe you are, in which case, yes there is a real disagreement and I also think you'd be drawing an Ultra or Maoist conclusion.

Yeah I dont admit it much, but smoking a joint and watching Rick and Morty with my partner is a guilty pleasure. Some of it's horribly cringe, some just horrible, of course, but when I'm high I can just ignore it and laugh at funny gags

Happens like once every 6 months, but I do look forward to it when we plan a high night tbh

But I don't necessarily think this reflects on my politics much at all.

That's a great point about reading more into it! But the question that leaves me is this: is that then less bad? Like if it forces you to think, to replace what the words actually say and fill it in yourself, it's becoming more just a prompter to make you think your own thoughts. You're grafting them onto some bullshit, but it's better than thinking of the interactions as people immediately believing the exact bullshit instead!

Still pretty worthless, but that gives me ideas at least for how something similar could be nice. It just throws put phrases to make your brain connect some random concepts that the neural network identified as related. Just like a word association bot

Yeah, I think this can be generalized with the redsails definition of fascism here.. The conclusion is enough to get my point I think. These are all just forms of the fascism which became necessary for continued profitability after the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of economies which were exploited for their higher complexity labor (exporting manufacturing, for example). Fascism is always expropriating from a periphery and the developing outside of that direct line of fascism has presented the next profitability crisis.

We're just seeing the class collaboration among the imperialists shore up for the next wave of contradictions coming, and staving it off as long as possible.

Was the original LOTR that reference too??? I guess Tolkien probably did look at Shakespeares answers during the exam

I thought this was a roundabout reference to the Macbeth "I was born by C-Section" thing. Was thinking "wow a stretch, but funny".

I've never seen the LOTR movies and gave up in book 2. So forgive me that. I kinda liked it better when I thought you strechted Macbeth that far

I agree with you, but if others agreed to mostly automate it (with still mod discretion at some point, which brings me back to my point), I wouldn't leave or oppose too hard. But my point is only that now it's entirely opaque. Users can give input to or understand the "spirit of the law" for example.

But, again, I'm genuinely not focussed on banning, because that's one of the easier, already developed processes to deal with the site. It's all the other stuff that interests me more. Banning is just a portion of the roles.

And to add, roles can be delegated to the entire userbase. Maybe the "decider of rules" is actually us? But if it is, I really don't understand how to go about making changes in it and how we all approach that fairly. Do we just message an admin who will make a post? Or create a post with the possibility of stirring up a shit storm? Someone has decided how the site deals with that, I assume, but it's very unclear

You've said elsewhere that mods/admins are enforcers of the rules (my phrasing, but idk how else to use 1 small term to describe the role). My point is that this is not completely true! It's true for banning/removing comments (just taking your word for it). But there's interpretation of those rules, creating/delisting comms, making new rules, etc that also require other roles like "judge" (interpreting in new context) or "POC Veto" (for new interpretation of POC relevant stuff) or "emoji manager with veto power" (WhyEssEff, who does great, to be clear) etc. And there's always the "decides how we delegate/decide these roles" role.

From my experience in various organisations of all types, these unnamed and undescribed roles always lead to issues. Often they're just so small and unimportant in the day-to-day that nobody cares until it becomes relevant, then everyone thinks 'wait how does any of this work?' and people get pissed that the people with more material power just get to decide how it works. In this case, the material power is just mod/admin rights, and it's even possible to join the crowd just by asking! Which is nice, and technically much better than corporate methods, but also more dangerous for those that do pick up those tasks because they have this material power without being seen as a 'real authority'.

And there's this attempt, which is good, to get community feedback, but it's always unclear how that feedback relates to any of these unnamed tasks. It's good to make a mod who is POC that can have a quick veto power w.r.t. relevant stuff for quick action (idk if this exists, but I could imagine it), but deciding who that is, and what limitations there are is still a role somebody is picking up, either implicitly or explicitly. And, in cases where it goes wrong, that person will get named and people are angry because there's someone doing something that nobody understood or knew!

I think, in contradiction to what others have said, that there are attempts to really get user feedback and to put users in the leadership role (enter Allende with "at the top comes the people" story). But when it's not clear how that works at all, the shadow of a possibly non-existing authority behind it all doing the actual decisions comes into form. Does it exist? Idk, and I would guess you don't want it to. But without making the whole process clearer, its creating this danger, and extra stress too, for mods!

I'm actually also approaching this from worry about the mods/admins. Having all the these tasks outside of just direct "application or rules" that are relevant but not really written/described makes it also more dangerous for them. (Doxxing can be legitimately dangerous). These little, mostly ignored, portions of the free labour they provide can be actually a lot, and especially difficult given that there are little guidelines. That's one of my main concerns!