That picture of Starmer perfectly encapsulates his confusion and sense of loss as Kaiba slowly explains the perfectly legal manner in which he summons three Blue Eyes White Dragons.
I very much think that system illiteracy (an inability to read/understand systems) is a huge problem in political understanding. A couple years ago, American liberals were very happy to say “policing is systemically racist,” but when you ask them why, or what that means, they would just say, “They used to be slave catchers.” And these are reformists, right? These are people who (at least claim to) believe that if you change important components of a system, that system can be fundamentally altered in purpose. Yet they seem to think the inherent racism of policing is some kind of ghost or curse: something bad that happened once upon a time, and that we are all just slowly learning about and educating ourselves out of, and then the system will be fine. The “reform” they’re advocating always seems to be… just… everyone else becomes smart and wise and understands whatever thing the liberal just learned about, and now we’re all just good individuals. Zero recognition that a System might, for example… continually reproduce something. Ah well. EDIT: Right after I posted, I saw the first article, Hayward’s “haunted by the ghosts” and like… yeah, there it is. Liberals are just ghost busters, man.
@@melanieg.9092 Aw, you're sweet. Sophie uses the term "ghosts" in very different context in her actual analysis of the article, so I was worried people would be all, "UMMM, that's what the ghosts are!"
I always interpreted that specific example as meaning more "They started as slave catcher patrols, and one way that the South buttressed the institution of slavery was promoting mass paranoia that any given shed could have a secret army of escaped slaves hidden inside, that any gathering of slaves was a potential slave revolt, etc, etc - so the institutional culture of the slave catcher patrols was that of a civilian militia running a continuous military occupation that expressly targeted nonwhites. Ergo, the failures of Reconstruction resulted in the racist militias going around lynching people being handed badges, and that is such a catastrophically fucked point to start from that modern police simply _cannot help_ but have massive amounts of leftover racism flowing through them even if we assume that police aren't individually racist."
It's infuriating the way these articles always simultaneously treat technocratic policy details as if they are at once the only thing that a grown-up would care about and also completely hypothetical, divorced from moral consequences.
Also, smaller/ maybe incoherent comment since I'm only halfway through the stream and still expanding my brain, but: another thing all this "haunting" talk does is imply that the haunter in question (either morality itself or real human beings) is already dead. If it means the people, I saw a post elsewhere from a Palestinian who said that framing a population as already dead allows the killing to continue and feeds a sort of doomerist complacency. Really seems like their point is being proven by articles like this 😬 And if the article is implying that morality is dead... well, that simply is the position of these liberal electoral wonks.
I've been chatting to people who were at the protest in Oxford that the New Statesman mentioned. TNS kind of makes it sound like it was a few naïve students without real political convictions, but my friends said it was mostly non-students with big contingents from local Muslim and Jewish communities.
The boom and bust nature of the economy is systematic cuz it makes you constantly fear any sort of change. “Things are good right now, but too much rocking the boat may make everything worse” which leads to “yes the boat is already capsized and sinking, but trying to fix it might make us sink faster. And if you leave to find a boat that isn’t sinking, you’ll surely drown before you find it”
I'm only an hour in, I hope someone brought this up later in the stream, but Luke Akehurst is the current and founding Director of "We Believe in Israel". This is maybe a bit relevant to mention in that first article Freddie?! Not just local impartial NEC member!
The part about AI data labeling and that labor being invisibleized to us while also being referred to as magic made me think of Pamphleteer's video about JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson. Specifically the part where she is describing the fascist logic of the harry potter series and points out that the magic generally fuctions as labor or servitude but with the servants/laborers erased and called magic. I just now made that connection to the way that AI techbros and the "foomscrollers" tend to refer to AI in magical terms in more or less the same way as Rowling's fascistic worldview would lead her to create an independent system of magic. I don't really know where to take this connection from here at the moment but I thought it was pretty interesting at the very least lol. Also I feel validated as a vod watcher and patron, love the slop streams and videos, keep up the great work Sophie!
Loyal VOD viewer, but I subbed on Twitch so that I never forget to pay for the stream. Thank you for your analysis, it's very helpful to give me the language to articulate my political understanding. I try to read my theory, but I don't word good without some help :)
Sophie's discussions systematically disadvantages live chat commenters by pitting them against VoD commenters, the latter having the advantage in crafting their statements, due to having more time to think them through, respond to specific timestamps without the conversation moving on without them and the ability to comment on the full stream with the benefit of hindsight. While philosophers have differing thoughts on how this benefits the streaming class, I personally agree with Friedrich Engels's observation that the material consequences encourages a live audience that enjoys humiliation, one that its likely full of subs, who are therefore more likely to pay up when instructed.
So, the phrase "impact politics through indirect means" set off alarm bells for me. This clause is the second half of a colloquial definition of terrorism: "Acts of violence or intimidation performed with the intent to *impact politics through indirect means.*" With that in mind, it seems to me that the author of the first article may be signaling that he thinks the actions of these councilors are tantamount to terrorism.
irt "humanitarian pause," I'm pretty sure this is NOT the same as a ceasefire but rather an unacceptable compromise. These "pauses" are to be like, little timeouts, not an end to the fighting. That said, even discussion of this concession is absolutely a response to protests and we absolutely must keep going at minimum until we achieve a ceasefire (and really until Palestine is free).
I really rate how the last article tacitly reduced the entire group calling for a ceasefire was just the Muslim population - as if white people don't also care about thousands of children being murdered - and then seemingly signalling duel loyalty? As if Qatar or some other Middle-Eastern country are influencing their opinions. Not to mention that Scottish Tory broadly talking about how Muslim families and communities all vote together, creating a faction that's separate from the rest of the country. The conclusion here isn't said but people can and will draw a conclusion that the Muslim - and all other non-white communities - do not really care or speak for the people in this country. This will only further fuel racist vitriol and violence, marginalising a group further while giving the white people tacit permission to do nothing. Absolute ghouls.
Regarding the first article, I think it does a little bit more than promotes inaction. It mocks protestors for two things: 1. Not being focused on the 'pragmatic.' 'What changes can these councillors control? Certainly not the UK involvement in Israel's war crimes,' says the author.Therefore not only are their actions ineffectual but they are actually being harmful to people who elected them by leaving the party and risking a worse team getting in. Focus on the job you can do, work your way up and then you'll get to call the shots. It's the same myth of changing the system from within that we hear again and again. 2. The classic mocking of people not knowing what they're talking about 'their flag is the wrong way round.' This has two effects in my mind: reinforcing the narrative that politics is incredibly complex and requires lots of specialized knowledge to navigate, and if you want to make your point, you better know every facet of the topic. So what is this article doing from a systematic pov? Imo it creates the narrow framework of electoral politics being the only way to effect change. It erases the effect that grass roots direct action has on the world. It also discourages someone from taking a stand at the risk of being shamed for being incorrect on a point (in the current political ecosystem being semantically wrong is far more harmful than being morally wrong). This ultimately helps the liberal world view as it seems to suggest prosperity because people aren't on the streets when in reality there is a collective impotent unease that threatens to boil over at any point.
33:10 I used to do exactly that. I thought I could create world peace, but the methods I imagined were the stuff of an evil overlord...except I saw myself as benevolent and good. I also recognized that I would have to live forever (not just long life, but invulnerable) because other people couldn't be trusted to not screw it up. Since my shift to the left I stopped thinking that way, but only since my shift to really accepting humanism (it's easy to say, hard to do. I used to say it a lot before I really understood it) did I come to understand just what a monster I was before. That's the power of indoctrination into top-down thinking. I've also come to realize that a significant portion of people who claim to be socialists and communists (especially the Maoist and Stalinized ML types) view things in much the same way of "if only we get the right people in power they will do the stuff that needs to be done" etc. After explaining what my ideas were in my blog, this excerpt is the conclusion that I came to: ------ Aside from the obvious "that's an insane fantasy from a fascist," the cautionary tale is not that socialists can "do a fascism," but that socialists and leftists in general are products of their societies. Societies which have such ingrained hierarchies, that teach-and-reinforce from cradle to grave the notion of "putting the right people into power," that they often can't comprehend any other approach even to their own ideal outcomes. As products of such societies, even the most hardcore communists regularly look at the movement in terms of "putting the right people into power." "If only we elected the right person, we would have socialism." "Our party should force through legislation to get to socialism." These and more were repeated in every socialist movement around the world. They are repeated by Maoists and Stalinized Marxist-Leninists and even many who see themselves as regular Marxists today, and they truly believe that the only way to achieve socialism and eventual communism is by putting the "right" people in power. Not through common democracy, which they maintain is impractical and "idealistic but just can't work," but authoritarian control. If you recall back to my first post, I explained the difference between the "left" and "right" as being one's position on hierarchy. The cautionary tale I told put "past me" solidly in the category of "right." My intentions may have been good (world peace and prosperity), but my approach was entirely hierarchical, with me at the very top. Socialists, communists, and leftists in general all have their hearts in the right place, but the moment they start thinking in terms of "we need the right people in the right positions of power to ensure that we get socialism/communism (or whatever else)" is the moment that they take a turn to the right into hierarchical authoritarianism, with themselves above the masses. That is where the "Horseshoe theory" picks up its claims that the further left you go the more you resemble the right; your goal is far left, but your methods are far right. As leftists we must fight that tendency, no matter how much we think it could grant us victory over capitalism, and instead stick to democratization; there's no guarantee that it will result in socialism or communism, but it does guarantee that the decision is made by everyone. You cannot attain socialism or communism by force from above, because then it is neither socialism nor communism, but dictatorial statism, with you (or "the party") as the dictator. ------
1:15:23 Adding to what you say about the political implications of the word "ghosts", in many ghost stories the ghosts also can't speak for themselves. They have to find a medium to speak for them. So because they get to assign themselves the role of medium and they get to decide what the ghosts are saying. What the ghosts want and what they need will always be very conveniently the same thing as what these self-assigned "mediums" already believed in the first place.
that thing Sophie discusses at the end about liberal slop encouraging you to equivocate until the little voice telling you something feels wrong/right goes away hits so hard. Im an american reform jew who grew up in broadly liberal but aggressively pro israel spaces, i spent a long time supressing that little voice and saying "i dont know shit about shit, so who am i to have an opinion," followed by doing absolutely 0 research that might precipitate having an opinon. trying very very hard to fix that now. semi related: in 3 different unrelated jewish youth events, organizers attempted to force us to simulate two state solution negotiations/ israeli parlimentary negotiations regarding palestine. All the kids always just went "we would simply comprimise and share our holy sites :)" (because of course these were almost always framed through religious conflict) "and then the event organizer would immediately backpedal to "nonono its not that simple clearly you dont understand how IMPOSSIBLE this is" never any explanation as to why exactly it wasnt that simple though lmao
If you think something is bad, then fill out this paperwork and submit it to a representative of one of the two valid political parties. Trying to change the status quo in any other way is adding to the problem. Also have you considered that bad things are good, actually?
Can someone help explain something to me? What does Sophie mean when she says that systematic statements are "true in all cases"? Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it seems to me (as someone from a math background with little philosophy/sociology knowledge) that any true statement is true in all cases. Similarly, based on how Sophie is describing them, it seems like a systemic or systematic statement could be created that is always true, always false, or sometimes true. E.g. "The state under funds education because they want the moon bears to attack" is (to the best of my understanding) a systematic statement, but it is clearly false in all cases. I think Sophie is trying to say that systemic statements describe the effects of a system and systematic statements describe the goals of a system. Maybe I'm missing something though, so if anyone can help me understand, I'd appreciate it. Sophie, if you're seeing this, sorry for lowering your opinion of the VOD watchers.
what a great clarifying question, my opinion remains untarnished. I was maybe a little clumsy in my speech there. The "true" part isn't that relevant, since we aspire to make true statements. Since you have a maths background for a second, let's think of systems a little like functions. A system will have many variables of course, whether that system is education, policing or patriarchy, but let's be reductive and imagine a system that works on only one variable, the people, so our system can be f(x). In all cases, f(x) acts the same way, be it policing x, giving x healthcare, or what have you. to find the actual mathematical function that it represented by f(x), we should look at f(x) for each x, and this would be making systematic statements, whereas the systemic statements are quite limited: "f(x) is a system" "f(X) is systemic" But even if, and this is where my metaphor gets messy, we were to identify a system-wide problem in f(x) like racism, systemic statements are underequipped. "f(x) is systemically racist" can mean a lot of things but "f(X) is systematically racist" means that for any x, f(x) is racially biased and altering the outcome. Perhaps even we see that it is an unavoidable variable in every calculation and that f(x) is in fact f(x, R) where R is the perceived racialisation of x. systemic statements shape our understanding of systems at the broader level, while systematic statements comment on the nitty-gritty, the immediate funcitoning of a system. Hope this all has helped, but happy to chat more
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 Thanks so much for clarifying. I originally posted a comment that I was still ab bit confused but after coming back to it later, it makes much more sense now. Thanks!
I want to add one more thought to what was said on the first article: I think the point of handwringing about teamsports is to make people afraid. Idk, maybe that's more true in America where I could confidently assume there's a hidden premise that the rightwing party having power is meant to be my worst nightmare, but I still think regardless, the imagined reader probably supports labor and is probably Concerned about continued Tory rule. Teamsports horserace discourse heightens the fear of losing. And of course, the rest of what the article is doing is minimizing the issue that is jeopardizing Labor's ability to gain/hold power. Calling concerns over Palestine theoretical and dishonest I think are meant to make the reader think about whatever it is that reader hopes Labor will do for them personally and how much more real and important that thing is. (it's gross! 🙃)
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 NA-nib-gal [ˈnɑnɪbgɑl] is how I pronounce it, though tbqh the origin is Sumerian so I could actually be wrong about my own name. Also, hello from Japan and thank you for this response!
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 On an aside, thanks so much for noticing me. I've been going through a rough patch and just having a nice conversation with someone I respect and look up to will really help get me through today. I'm still just waking up so I'm not the most coherent, but I'm really happy to watch and learn from your videos. I really look forward to the day when I can show my support financially, but for right now I hope you can accept my sincere thanks for the work you do and the light you shine in the world.
Игры
That picture of Starmer perfectly encapsulates his confusion and sense of loss as Kaiba slowly explains the perfectly legal manner in which he summons three Blue Eyes White Dragons.
starts at exactly 10:00
Thanks!
I very much think that system illiteracy (an inability to read/understand systems) is a huge problem in political understanding. A couple years ago, American liberals were very happy to say “policing is systemically racist,” but when you ask them why, or what that means, they would just say, “They used to be slave catchers.” And these are reformists, right? These are people who (at least claim to) believe that if you change important components of a system, that system can be fundamentally altered in purpose. Yet they seem to think the inherent racism of policing is some kind of ghost or curse: something bad that happened once upon a time, and that we are all just slowly learning about and educating ourselves out of, and then the system will be fine. The “reform” they’re advocating always seems to be… just… everyone else becomes smart and wise and understands whatever thing the liberal just learned about, and now we’re all just good individuals. Zero recognition that a System might, for example… continually reproduce something. Ah well. EDIT: Right after I posted, I saw the first article, Hayward’s “haunted by the ghosts” and like… yeah, there it is. Liberals are just ghost busters, man.
"Liberals are just Ghostbusters"
Damn that hits the nail on his head...
ghostbusters was literally a libertarian-neoliberal movie so yeag
@@melanieg.9092 Aw, you're sweet. Sophie uses the term "ghosts" in very different context in her actual analysis of the article, so I was worried people would be all, "UMMM, that's what the ghosts are!"
@@jaredmcdaris7370 tbh I haven't watched the stream yet but my ADHD brain got sidetracked by the comments lol
I always interpreted that specific example as meaning more "They started as slave catcher patrols, and one way that the South buttressed the institution of slavery was promoting mass paranoia that any given shed could have a secret army of escaped slaves hidden inside, that any gathering of slaves was a potential slave revolt, etc, etc - so the institutional culture of the slave catcher patrols was that of a civilian militia running a continuous military occupation that expressly targeted nonwhites. Ergo, the failures of Reconstruction resulted in the racist militias going around lynching people being handed badges, and that is such a catastrophically fucked point to start from that modern police simply _cannot help_ but have massive amounts of leftover racism flowing through them even if we assume that police aren't individually racist."
Sophie said we’re her favorite! Swoon!
We're so much better than the degenerate chat 😂
It's infuriating the way these articles always simultaneously treat technocratic policy details as if they are at once the only thing that a grown-up would care about and also completely hypothetical, divorced from moral consequences.
Teacher used me as an example! And even pronounced my name the way I do! I feel like I'm back in school again in one of my favorite classes ❤❤❤
Also, smaller/ maybe incoherent comment since I'm only halfway through the stream and still expanding my brain, but: another thing all this "haunting" talk does is imply that the haunter in question (either morality itself or real human beings) is already dead. If it means the people, I saw a post elsewhere from a Palestinian who said that framing a population as already dead allows the killing to continue and feeds a sort of doomerist complacency. Really seems like their point is being proven by articles like this 😬
And if the article is implying that morality is dead... well, that simply is the position of these liberal electoral wonks.
I've been chatting to people who were at the protest in Oxford that the New Statesman mentioned. TNS kind of makes it sound like it was a few naïve students without real political convictions, but my friends said it was mostly non-students with big contingents from local Muslim and Jewish communities.
(not that students = naïve or unprincipled anyway! But they weren't the main demographic)
The boom and bust nature of the economy is systematic cuz it makes you constantly fear any sort of change.
“Things are good right now, but too much rocking the boat may make everything worse” which leads to “yes the boat is already capsized and sinking, but trying to fix it might make us sink faster. And if you leave to find a boat that isn’t sinking, you’ll surely drown before you find it”
I'm only an hour in, I hope someone brought this up later in the stream, but Luke Akehurst is the current and founding Director of "We Believe in Israel". This is maybe a bit relevant to mention in that first article Freddie?! Not just local impartial NEC member!
The part about AI data labeling and that labor being invisibleized to us while also being referred to as magic made me think of Pamphleteer's video about JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson. Specifically the part where she is describing the fascist logic of the harry potter series and points out that the magic generally fuctions as labor or servitude but with the servants/laborers erased and called magic. I just now made that connection to the way that AI techbros and the "foomscrollers" tend to refer to AI in magical terms in more or less the same way as Rowling's fascistic worldview would lead her to create an independent system of magic.
I don't really know where to take this connection from here at the moment but I thought it was pretty interesting at the very least lol. Also I feel validated as a vod watcher and patron, love the slop streams and videos, keep up the great work Sophie!
Loyal VOD viewer, but I subbed on Twitch so that I never forget to pay for the stream. Thank you for your analysis, it's very helpful to give me the language to articulate my political understanding. I try to read my theory, but I don't word good without some help :)
Sophie's discussions systematically disadvantages live chat commenters by pitting them against VoD commenters, the latter having the advantage in crafting their statements, due to having more time to think them through, respond to specific timestamps without the conversation moving on without them and the ability to comment on the full stream with the benefit of hindsight.
While philosophers have differing thoughts on how this benefits the streaming class, I personally agree with Friedrich Engels's observation that the material consequences encourages a live audience that enjoys humiliation, one that its likely full of subs, who are therefore more likely to pay up when instructed.
My snoot descendeth, for it is liberal slop time
So, the phrase "impact politics through indirect means" set off alarm bells for me. This clause is the second half of a colloquial definition of terrorism: "Acts of violence or intimidation performed with the intent to *impact politics through indirect means.*" With that in mind, it seems to me that the author of the first article may be signaling that he thinks the actions of these councilors are tantamount to terrorism.
irt "humanitarian pause," I'm pretty sure this is NOT the same as a ceasefire but rather an unacceptable compromise. These "pauses" are to be like, little timeouts, not an end to the fighting. That said, even discussion of this concession is absolutely a response to protests and we absolutely must keep going at minimum until we achieve a ceasefire (and really until Palestine is free).
I really rate how the last article tacitly reduced the entire group calling for a ceasefire was just the Muslim population - as if white people don't also care about thousands of children being murdered - and then seemingly signalling duel loyalty? As if Qatar or some other Middle-Eastern country are influencing their opinions. Not to mention that Scottish Tory broadly talking about how Muslim families and communities all vote together, creating a faction that's separate from the rest of the country.
The conclusion here isn't said but people can and will draw a conclusion that the Muslim - and all other non-white communities - do not really care or speak for the people in this country. This will only further fuel racist vitriol and violence, marginalising a group further while giving the white people tacit permission to do nothing.
Absolute ghouls.
Regarding the first article, I think it does a little bit more than promotes inaction. It mocks protestors for two things:
1. Not being focused on the 'pragmatic.'
'What changes can these councillors control? Certainly not the UK involvement in Israel's war crimes,' says the author.Therefore not only are their actions ineffectual but they are actually being harmful to people who elected them by leaving the party and risking a worse team getting in. Focus on the job you can do, work your way up and then you'll get to call the shots. It's the same myth of changing the system from within that we hear again and again.
2. The classic mocking of people not knowing what they're talking about 'their flag is the wrong way round.' This has two effects in my mind: reinforcing the narrative that politics is incredibly complex and requires lots of specialized knowledge to navigate, and if you want to make your point, you better know every facet of the topic.
So what is this article doing from a systematic pov?
Imo it creates the narrow framework of electoral politics being the only way to effect change. It erases the effect that grass roots direct action has on the world. It also discourages someone from taking a stand at the risk of being shamed for being incorrect on a point (in the current political ecosystem being semantically wrong is far more harmful than being morally wrong). This ultimately helps the liberal world view as it seems to suggest prosperity because people aren't on the streets when in reality there is a collective impotent unease that threatens to boil over at any point.
33:10 I used to do exactly that. I thought I could create world peace, but the methods I imagined were the stuff of an evil overlord...except I saw myself as benevolent and good. I also recognized that I would have to live forever (not just long life, but invulnerable) because other people couldn't be trusted to not screw it up. Since my shift to the left I stopped thinking that way, but only since my shift to really accepting humanism (it's easy to say, hard to do. I used to say it a lot before I really understood it) did I come to understand just what a monster I was before. That's the power of indoctrination into top-down thinking. I've also come to realize that a significant portion of people who claim to be socialists and communists (especially the Maoist and Stalinized ML types) view things in much the same way of "if only we get the right people in power they will do the stuff that needs to be done" etc.
After explaining what my ideas were in my blog, this excerpt is the conclusion that I came to:
------
Aside from the obvious "that's an insane fantasy from a fascist," the cautionary tale is not that socialists can "do a fascism," but that socialists and leftists in general are products of their societies. Societies which have such ingrained hierarchies, that teach-and-reinforce from cradle to grave the notion of "putting the right people into power," that they often can't comprehend any other approach even to their own ideal outcomes. As products of such societies, even the most hardcore communists regularly look at the movement in terms of "putting the right people into power." "If only we elected the right person, we would have socialism." "Our party should force through legislation to get to socialism." These and more were repeated in every socialist movement around the world. They are repeated by Maoists and Stalinized Marxist-Leninists and even many who see themselves as regular Marxists today, and they truly believe that the only way to achieve socialism and eventual communism is by putting the "right" people in power. Not through common democracy, which they maintain is impractical and "idealistic but just can't work," but authoritarian control.
If you recall back to my first post, I explained the difference between the "left" and "right" as being one's position on hierarchy. The cautionary tale I told put "past me" solidly in the category of "right." My intentions may have been good (world peace and prosperity), but my approach was entirely hierarchical, with me at the very top. Socialists, communists, and leftists in general all have their hearts in the right place, but the moment they start thinking in terms of "we need the right people in the right positions of power to ensure that we get socialism/communism (or whatever else)" is the moment that they take a turn to the right into hierarchical authoritarianism, with themselves above the masses. That is where the "Horseshoe theory" picks up its claims that the further left you go the more you resemble the right; your goal is far left, but your methods are far right. As leftists we must fight that tendency, no matter how much we think it could grant us victory over capitalism, and instead stick to democratization; there's no guarantee that it will result in socialism or communism, but it does guarantee that the decision is made by everyone. You cannot attain socialism or communism by force from above, because then it is neither socialism nor communism, but dictatorial statism, with you (or "the party") as the dictator.
------
1:15:23 Adding to what you say about the political implications of the word "ghosts", in many ghost stories the ghosts also can't speak for themselves. They have to find a medium to speak for them. So because they get to assign themselves the role of medium and they get to decide what the ghosts are saying. What the ghosts want and what they need will always be very conveniently the same thing as what these self-assigned "mediums" already believed in the first place.
slop! slop! slop! slop! slop!
I love how the entire economy is just a temporarily gravity defying person and their dog.
that thing Sophie discusses at the end about liberal slop encouraging you to equivocate until the little voice telling you something feels wrong/right goes away hits so hard. Im an american reform jew who grew up in broadly liberal but aggressively pro israel spaces, i spent a long time supressing that little voice and saying "i dont know shit about shit, so who am i to have an opinion," followed by doing absolutely 0 research that might precipitate having an opinon. trying very very hard to fix that now. semi related: in 3 different unrelated jewish youth events, organizers attempted to force us to simulate two state solution negotiations/ israeli parlimentary negotiations regarding palestine. All the kids always just went "we would simply comprimise and share our holy sites :)" (because of course these were almost always framed through religious conflict) "and then the event organizer would immediately backpedal to "nonono its not that simple clearly you dont understand how IMPOSSIBLE this is" never any explanation as to why exactly it wasnt that simple though lmao
Missed the stream but I’m here for the vod
Likes for the like God, comments for the algorithm throne.
me pointinng at the screen like yes !! hauntology!! give me that derridaddy content
Sophie: I love you vod viewers!
Me, in an Alex Jones grunt: I love you
Me, in an Alex Jones chorus: It's time to pray.
If you think something is bad, then fill out this paperwork and submit it to a representative of one of the two valid political parties. Trying to change the status quo in any other way is adding to the problem. Also have you considered that bad things are good, actually?
1:37:30
- claims to be communist
- immediately changes the donation goal to support the myth of infinite growth
/joke
Flip Flop Jibes was the name I went by when I was a battle rapper.
I had to quit because I was too bad at it and I got repeatedly humiliated.
aaaaa monster men hauntology goooo
Can someone help explain something to me? What does Sophie mean when she says that systematic statements are "true in all cases"? Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it seems to me (as someone from a math background with little philosophy/sociology knowledge) that any true statement is true in all cases. Similarly, based on how Sophie is describing them, it seems like a systemic or systematic statement could be created that is always true, always false, or sometimes true. E.g. "The state under funds education because they want the moon bears to attack" is (to the best of my understanding) a systematic statement, but it is clearly false in all cases. I think Sophie is trying to say that systemic statements describe the effects of a system and systematic statements describe the goals of a system. Maybe I'm missing something though, so if anyone can help me understand, I'd appreciate it. Sophie, if you're seeing this, sorry for lowering your opinion of the VOD watchers.
what a great clarifying question, my opinion remains untarnished. I was maybe a little clumsy in my speech there. The "true" part isn't that relevant, since we aspire to make true statements. Since you have a maths background for a second, let's think of systems a little like functions. A system will have many variables of course, whether that system is education, policing or patriarchy, but let's be reductive and imagine a system that works on only one variable, the people, so our system can be f(x). In all cases, f(x) acts the same way, be it policing x, giving x healthcare, or what have you. to find the actual mathematical function that it represented by f(x), we should look at f(x) for each x, and this would be making systematic statements, whereas the systemic statements are quite limited: "f(x) is a system" "f(X) is systemic"
But even if, and this is where my metaphor gets messy, we were to identify a system-wide problem in f(x) like racism, systemic statements are underequipped. "f(x) is systemically racist" can mean a lot of things but "f(X) is systematically racist" means that for any x, f(x) is racially biased and altering the outcome. Perhaps even we see that it is an unavoidable variable in every calculation and that f(x) is in fact f(x, R) where R is the perceived racialisation of x. systemic statements shape our understanding of systems at the broader level, while systematic statements comment on the nitty-gritty, the immediate funcitoning of a system. Hope this all has helped, but happy to chat more
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 Thanks so much for clarifying. I originally posted a comment that I was still ab bit confused but after coming back to it later, it makes much more sense now. Thanks!
Sorry if I missed it, but is there a good working definition of "system(s)" that you're using? Is it synonymous with "institution"?
I want to add one more thought to what was said on the first article: I think the point of handwringing about teamsports is to make people afraid. Idk, maybe that's more true in America where I could confidently assume there's a hidden premise that the rightwing party having power is meant to be my worst nightmare, but I still think regardless, the imagined reader probably supports labor and is probably Concerned about continued Tory rule. Teamsports horserace discourse heightens the fear of losing. And of course, the rest of what the article is doing is minimizing the issue that is jeopardizing Labor's ability to gain/hold power. Calling concerns over Palestine theoretical and dishonest I think are meant to make the reader think about whatever it is that reader hopes Labor will do for them personally and how much more real and important that thing is. (it's gross! 🙃)
what if i loved sophie
many such cases
Vod viewers rule! Though I would like to join the chat just to hear how Sophie would pronounce my username….
Also as soon as I get a job again I’m gonna drop fat stacks of yen. Make it rain like a typhoon
well it's either nani b gal the linguophile or nanib (?) gal the linguophile, right? would I have gotten it?
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 NA-nib-gal [ˈnɑnɪbgɑl] is how I pronounce it, though tbqh the origin is Sumerian so I could actually be wrong about my own name. Also, hello from Japan and thank you for this response!
oh lol well i would have failed then lol. hi!
@@sophiefrommarsstreams5920 On an aside, thanks so much for noticing me. I've been going through a rough patch and just having a nice conversation with someone I respect and look up to will really help get me through today.
I'm still just waking up so I'm not the most coherent, but I'm really happy to watch and learn from your videos. I really look forward to the day when I can show my support financially, but for right now I hope you can accept my sincere thanks for the work you do and the light you shine in the world.
We love you too sophie 🥵