Consider Darth Vader. As a Sith Lord, he stands in total moral opposition to the Jedi. However, unlike his secular Imperial compatriots, he accepts all the same cosmological tenants as his spiritual enemies:

first, there should always be a consideration for Darth Vader. To my main point tho, I think it's funny that Darth Vader regularly showcases actual magic powers but his coworkers remain skeptical secularists? But in the Star Wars universe, unlike Christianity, the force doesn't care if you believe in it. It would be like Richard Dawkins was being condescending to a priest while a literal archangel was in the room with them. I suppose they are aware that Darth Vader is individually powerful, but a single force user's power is not enough to do planetary scale destruction and run a multi-solar system government.

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I actually typed that before finishing the article lol

Admiral Motti: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebels' hidden fort—(gasps as Darth Vader chokes him with The Force)

This seems interesting as an allegory for Elon Musk. He's ready to force choke (primary) any republican than stands up to him, but at the same time, his grok isn't going to find any fraud, stolen data tapes, or rebel bases, his spaceships arn't going to be on Mars any time soon, his fully self driving isn't going to fully self drive any time soon. He really is there just to be a threatening authoritarian, and it's not clear to me if the ancient religion in this context would be his failing companies, nazism, the vague concept of scifi, or a synthetic simulacrum of the aforementioned (aka his brand).

strangely enough, if we decided to follow this allegory to it's end, then Elon Musk will reunite with one of his estranged children, realize the wrongs of his ways, throw Trump over a balcony, then die.

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

back on topic:

Dark New Atheists would agree with the New Atheists that there is no God and that seeking meaning primarily through science and reason will bring about a new secular enlightenment, but also that that's bad actually. Dark New Atheists therefore should embrace and promote obscurantism, pseudoscience, and woo, all while performatively worshiping a God they don't actually believe in.

that feels like basically half of the last 10+ years of online Atheism after elevator gate and gamergate, I guess you could say online Atheism suffered the Feminism-Manosphere split. But also feels like an apt description of modern mainstream Christianity in the US.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Dark Marxists would accept everything Karl Marx says about the evolution of human society and the socio-economic forces at work (labor theory of value, surplus value, tendency of the rate of profit to fall, etc.). Dark Marxists would also accept that Capitalism is but one stage of social evolution along the inevitable path to Socialism and finally Communism, but also that the exploitation of workers at the hands of capital is good, actually. Therefore, Dark Marxists should dedicate themselves to holding back the irresistible march of history like Norse Gods striving in vain to delay the coming of Ragnarok.

Dark Capitalists would agree that free markets, capital formation, free trade, and light regulation foster economic dynamism, innovation, and competitive market forces that in turn drive economic growth, increased living standards, and technological progress, but also that economic growth, increased living standards, and technological progress are bad, actually. Therefore, Dark Capitalists should impede markets, discourage capital formation, restrict trade, and intentionally burden the economy with regulations. Dark Capitalists do this not because it will help workers or achieve a more equal society, but because it will hurt economic growth and make everyone poorer.

Lotta things wrong with this.

[CW: Colonial violence, slavery]

No Marxist worth their salt claims that communism is inevitable. The possibilities are outlined by Rosa Luxemburg - "socialism or barbarism."
We can reasonably infer that capital agrees that these are the alternatives because, when threatened with socialism, it does not hesitate for a moment to descend headlong into barbarism. Capital enabled the rise of the Nazis, Suharto, Syngman Rhee, Pinochet, the Contras, and countless other horrific fascists, who combined butchered millions in the name of preserving the reign of capital. Even today, as capital's endless need for growth threatens to destroy the biosphere by boiling the planet, it continues to violently suppress labor at every turn - and if it wins, its final reward is the annihilation of civilization and a dead Earth. None of this is speculation on my part. Fossil companies learned through their own studies more than half a century ago that global warming is real, and their response was to spend massive amounts of money telling people otherwise. What is this, if not "holding back the irresistible march of history like Norse Gods striving in vain to delay the coming of Ragnarok"?
Communists have no intrinsic motivation to oppose increased living standards and technological progress, and in fact, socialism has a strong and consistent record of increasing one or both everywhere that it is implemented.
There is ample, obvious evidence that capitalists consider the exploitation of workers to be a good thing - that being that they constantly do it and commit horrific crimes (see #2) to further enable doing it. They have a strong intrinsic motivation to do so - it's how they make their money. Capitalism made (and continues to make) enormous profits through colonialism and imperialism, using entire continents as sources of expendable slave labor. Britain destroyed India's industries and forced its workers to farm cash crops for exports while its people starved. Spain worked six million native South Americans to death in its silver mines. The phrase "Banana Republic" refers specifically to US puppet governments set up in Latin America to force them to export cheap fruit. The Transatlantic slave trade needs no elaboration. Even today, African child slaves mine cobalt and harvest cocoa at the behest of foreign corporations. If capitalists say that they don't consider exploiting workers a good thing, should we believe their words, or should we believe their actions?