this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
134 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
23 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You can’t “debunk” Marxism by skimming the Wikipedia page. You can’t expound on your infantile “critique” from a position of total ignorance.

Every time a liberal “debunks” Marxism it is, without fail, not a single exception, the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago. A lot of “Marx didn’t consider”s that he’s written entire essays on. They can’t come up with literally anything new, spewing the same shit over and over again like a broken record.

Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?

And no I am not German I stole the screenshot.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

The video is just dumb. She mentions Marx, and fails to even understand that the whole academic concept of Capitalism actually derives from his work and instead acts like Capitalism is just a basic term for an economic system that uses an exchange medium.

She's good with physics, but holy shit does this make her look bad. She needs to actually read something about this topic before opening her mouth.

The whole video is just capitalism == money and buying a banana with money is easier than buying it with the products of your labor. Which again just comes off as incredibly uninformed because that whole argument is addressed and picked apart in the first chapter of Capital.

[–] VILenin@hexbear.net 38 points 1 year ago

Imagine discussing nuclear physics with someone who refuses to learn algebra. That’s what this feels like.

she's also felt the need to come out bad on trans issues as well. Fuck her and people like her

[–] jungekatz@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Exactly , her physics videos are radical AF , but this was pathetic video , I though the title was a clickbait and she will talk of how bad capitalism is , but ugh she mentions adam smith and and what not !

[–] JuneFall@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Marx and Ricardo mention Adam Smith too, and not only his anger against landlords who want to reap were they didn't sow.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole video is just capitalism == money and buying a banana with money is easier than buying it with the products of your labor. Which again just comes off as incredibly uninformed because that whole argument is addressed and picked apart in the first chapter of Capital.

Also the second chapter is Marx’s comparison of barter (incidental direct exchange of goods) with commodity exchange (generalized exchange mediated by money) and says the distinction between these forms of exchange is intrinsically related to the separation of exchange value and use value. But exchange is either absent or a secondary aspect in societies with ownership in common (e.g. past communal societies but importantly also future communist societies of which this woman has no theoretical knowledge):

”Objects in themselves are external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for men, by a tacit understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State.”

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 47 points 1 year ago (6 children)

"Capitalism is good actually!" I scream at a homeless cancer sufferer living in a tent because the medical system took all their money.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is like the fifth hot take of hers. Sabine Hossenfelder, you have lost subscriber downbear

Any other recommendations for science news roundups?

[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

i like Anton Petrov

i haven't seen all his stuff, but when I do, he's usually pretty good at separating hard facts from speculation and pointing out wishful thinking in headlines https://www.youtube.com/@whatdamath/videos

[–] jungekatz@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Her views in physics are radical tho! That most classical science channels dont offer ugh ! Just her last video do ur own research taught how to do research of our own and she comes up with this shit lmao !

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

Other physicists I've talked to her have called her a wingnut at best, and a crank at worst, and that's my impression is the same.

[–] lckdscl@whiskers.bim.boats 7 points 1 year ago

I know right, her videos on quantum physics, especially the delayed choice quantum eraser debunked, resolved a lot of confusion for me, since in physics we don't do a lot of interpretation and in phil of physics, there's too much waffling and jargon. She's contrarian on purpose, for sure, but this is just hardcore stemlord game-theory idealist nonsense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Of course liberals are terrible at understanding and engaging with Marxism. They don't need to be good at it, because they're hegemonic and can forcibly suppress it through means ranging from social ostracism all the way to mass murder. The video isn't a good-faith attempt to analyze and critique economic systems, it's social signaling: "Hey everyone, I'm on the Good Team!"

[–] 2Password2Remember@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?

of course. if they were intellectually serious, they’d be leftists

Death to America

[–] take_five_seconds@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any individual, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

been thinkin bout him lately

[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

alright, i'm going to make this a proper dunk and try to watch the video. My prediction is "capitalism made the iphone" and "communism killed 1,000,000,0000,00000000" will take center stage, but she is a scientist, so maybe the rationalized mysticism of Friedman and Pinker will pop up.

  • Weird dunk on Greta Thunberg. Okay I guess we're goin full boomer in this one.

  • Right off the bat we're explaining money with the barter myth. It's of course only natural that people, friends even, would require a trade of equal value to give their friend something. If you would simply give your friend a banana without expecting immediate payment, you're probably not even human. Starting a countdown now to how long before any real historical account of economic activity shows up.

  • "...the US dollar would collapse -- so don't do it" garf-troll

  • "Many economists" have argued that money is the most efficient way to distribute resources, but the only economist she names is Adam Smith, and she doesn't actually say what his arguments were. There's no obvious reason why it would be efficient, or what efficiency even means, which is a much harder question than "what is money?" although I suspect that the intended audience here is children.

  • Glances off the problem of overproduction but can't actually recognize it. So far all our imaginary characters have been capitalists buying and selling commodities which accrue magically. Also running a clock for how long until labor is explicitly mentioned.

  • Puts the beginning of capitalism "with the industrial revolution, 150 years ago." I know this is the grade school account, but it's a ridiculous oversimplification that only arises because liberals identify capitalism with technological advancement so strongly.

  • Her big example here is the story of the discovery of penicillin but she doesn't even really make clear how capitalism enabled it, except to point out that capitalists owned the pill factories? Why exactly does the technology of mass production necessitate that someone profit off of it? The University of Oxford isn't a capitalist institution! It's over a thousand years old!

  • Marx was apparently the first critic of capitalism, and there was "an element of truth to his fears... but that's another story." If your full-throated defense of capitalism has to simply ignore its most famous detractor, then you're barely even trying!

  • Woah big Western Lib moment out of nowhere: capitalism is good because of progress. places without capitalism like North Korea, Cuba, and Laos are places "you don't want to live." No explanation about why this is or how that happened, but the way it's said sounds like a threat.

  • Lol I'm jackin myself off with this "invisible hand" fuck you

  • Microeconomics works fine because it's won nobel prizes. Counting that as an oblique Friedman mention.

  • Global warming is happening because people don't pay enough attention to (certain) economists. Why do you think that is Sabine? Do you think it's sometimes not profitable to pay attention to economists?

  • It's bizarre that the central account of capitalism here is that it works, but only with sufficient regulation, yet she gives zero thought to how capital can purchase political power, that this has happened immediately and overwhelmingly in every new liberal "democracy," and that attempts to legally restrict capital have been laughably ineffective.

  • Cap and trade. Abloo abloo ablooo bloo. Good fucking luck. This was the real point of the video, the defense of capitalism is really half-assed and the first 10 minutes of the video are just clickbait.

At least she's getting torn apart in the comments. Good responses there for once.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spike@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago

A German Nazi? No way

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

'Hard' science nerd doesn't understand classical economics, philosophy and social sciences because they are definitely too easy to actually read the primary documents about, more at eleven.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't this lady say terf shit

[–] corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

Yes. It's all I remember her from.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure I can sum up this entire video:

"Inane rambling with fancy graphics and stock videos in the background while she describes things that happen capitalistly in capitalist nations and then says that is socialism. Followed up by vague gesturing in the direction of authoritarianism before smugly stating how it only works in theory. Doesn't actually tackle a single socialist claim or argument except deliberately cherry picked examples plucked from their context and deliberately misrepresented. Presents communism as a "failure" due to not being instantly perfect. Reiterates the point about how it never works and encourages viewers to like and subscribe and leave a comment."

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Actually lol no I'm sad to say you're far off, it was basically an extremely shitty anecdote about penicillin, she was literally recycling the microwave argument, i.e capitalism is successful because it allowed for mass production of things, and it just so happens some of these things were good.

She somehow avoided bad mouthing socialism, I guess because then it would obviously become a political argument who knows. But she did say "Capitalism got a bad rap because Marx said something about the industrial revolution but that is another story." I kid you not.

capitalism is successful because it allowed for mass production of things, and it just so happens some of these things were good

to which the response is yes and socialism would allow for mass production to be done better and in more humane conditions

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, I probably should've figured a defence of capitalism would probably focus more on that sort of stuff. I can't believe I was so wrong. Clearly communism has lead me astray, after all, under communism we would never had ifone or socks with Hogwarts houses on them. I can't believe we've all missed this vital point that capitalism is good actually because stuff people need to survive is produced under it. Really a major flaw in communist theory really.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VILenin@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t trust someone this academically dishonest and lazy to say anything about anything.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Yeah, always makes me suspicious of any "science" channels that talk about areas I don't know about. If they shit the bed on the stuff I do know about, how wrong might they be on other topics? Pop history channels are the worst for this though, a physicists might still be good at explaining physics even if their politics is dogshit.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

Hossenfelder is a crank even within her field, no surprise that she's aggressively wrong on completely different fields.

[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

The lesson here is to just never watch Youtubers

well if they were going to actually debunk Marx they would have to read Marx which they are afraid to do

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago
[–] discountsocialism@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She used an example of socialism to describe the success of capitalism. The initial penicillin trials were funded by government and charitable sources, not private capital.

[–] 2Password2Remember@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that’s not what socialism is

Death to America

[–] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that’s not what socialism is

there's a reason why neoliberalism was founded on dismantling the state. The mere possibility for a collective response, such as a state funded enterprise for healthcare (lol Biden's covid eugenics holocaust) is anathema to their "free association between individuals navigating the free market" utopia.

[–] 2Password2Remember@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

you're conflating social democracy with socialism

Death to America

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

You can’t “debunk” Marxism by skimming the Wikipedia page. You can’t expound on your infantile “critique” from a position of total ignorance.

Every time a liberal “debunks” Marxism it is, without fail, not a single exception, the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago. A lot of “Marx didn’t consider”s that he’s written entire essays on. They can’t come up with literally anything new, spewing the same shit over and over again like a broken record.

Are liberals allergic to academic honesty?

It worked for Dr Professor Lobster Esquire up-yours-woke-moralists

[–] jungekatz@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Though I follow her for science realted stuff , this video was poorly researched and badly made !!!

[–] whodoctor11@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh god how I hate most of scientific dissemination community

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

the exact same shit that was discredited 150 years ago

when was liberalism invented? It is a form of outdated political-economic science older than many countries lol

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Woman is a crank. She strongly supports the theory of super-determinism. Not surprised she likes capitalism. She has developed a unique ability to ignore reality.

If you not into physics: super determinism is a very childish theory. It's unfalsifiable and flies in the face of all our evidence.

[–] 1nt3rd1m3nt10n4l@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could you explain what the premise of the theory is?

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can try. PBS did a pretty good 20 min video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JnKzt6Xq-w4.

My summary, we have proven that local reality isn't real. What that means is particles don't have a fixed location/spin etc. Recent nobel prize winners proved this at a galactic scale. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

Most physicists believe this applies to the entire universe. However there is a loop hole, which is a theory that past events happened which set those particles characteristics. Or in otherwords position isn't determined by probability, it's determined by hidden variables and if we looked far enough into the past we'd be able to determine what those variables are. That theory is super determinism.

One more link: https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-fantasy-behind-sabine-hossenfelders-superdeterminism/reading/

load more comments
view more: next ›