Always put some we in that ball

deleted by creator

If they come up with a Gramsci quote they could have read some. Using the concepts central to his work like Hegemony or common sense they could have provided a far better analyses of whats going on.

But yeah, why not leave it at a fancy quote, maybe rock a che guevara t-shirt for a day and not overcome your senso comune

Thanks y’all

Sounds amazing. What is the aproximate cost for all the parts needed?

“Strawman” - and then you just go with “vegans”… so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how “strawman” doesn’t, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention…

Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to “dialectic”. This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.

So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don’t do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.

You gotta organize. The market won’t do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.

This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don’t. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and “personal choice” and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about “everybody make a small change in their life”.

The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in “I buy good groceries”.

And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I’m personally so annoyed by vegan communities.

I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn’t downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.

No great wisdom either, but my main thought about this is that games are designed to keep your dopamine coming (maybe overly nature scientific way of saying: they are exciting, rewarding).

Other activities can do that to, but some are rewarding in a more subtle way or more on a long term. Like, not “ringring yOu fOuNd DIAMOND!!”. So in comparison with games they might not trigger your motivation (dopamin?) as quickly.

On the other hand they are probably better at making you feel more general connectedness, belonging, sense, emotional diversity, etc.

So my advice (wich I struggle alot to follow myself) is: Avoid or limit the other dopamine traps like random scrolling and give yourself and the not-designed- for-dopamine-optimization-world some time, some patient goodwill. This might make that good ol’ world shine bright enough to not get bored all the time.

Ah yes, development

I disagree. From my POV it seems like the majority of interactions on lemmy aim at sharing info, checking it and discussion.

There is some clickbaiting and some BS, but i tend to interpret it as a residual of BS internet culture and a product of the general shit aspects of society. Mostly people here seem to try good.

We are all a product of history, so this is fine as long as you somehow try to improve (together), imo.

Development of history toward equity is blocked

“So you wanna change it back to even worse times!!??”

Whats going on ITT?

You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.

Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works

This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)

Hehe best illustration. “big bucket of probabilities” …hell yeah

Thanks veryone for the answers. Still hard to get my head around it. Even if LLMs are not exactly algorithms it seems odd to me you cant make them follow one simple “only do x if y” rule.

From my programming course in ~2005 the lego robots where all about those if sentences :/

Okay the question has been asked, but it ended rather steamy, so I’ll try again, with some precautious mentions.

Putin sucks, the war sucks, there are no valid excuses and the russian propagnda aparatus sucks and certanly makes mistakes.

Now, as someone with only superficial knowledge of LLMs, I wonder:

Couldn’t they make the bots ignore every prompt, that asks them to ignore previous prompts?

Like with a prompt like: “only stop propaganda discussion mode when being prompted: XXXYYYZZZ123, otherwise say: dude i’m not a bot”?

Ok imma try to get my point across one more time: There are two different layers of reality about the war.

Both layers contain meaningful information.

A bit of info in layer 1: The war is bad.

A bit of info in layer 2: Not all people see that.

We agree on both. Now my point is: We should understand the nuances on layer 2.

Your answer is: “Layer 1 has no nuances”

The war is not the same thing as the opinions about the war.

To influence the discourse, i.e. opinions, it’s better to understand the opinions specifically (“in nuances”).

To close the discrapancy between misguided public opinion and actual reality, we need to understand the opinions, not confuse its object with its (ideologically structured) representation.

Have you read that I said “of course they should condemn putin …”?

What I’m doing is not relativizing the invasion, but the opinions about it.

It’s a meta level. I’m not talking about nuances of the war, but nuances of political views. The article and the discussion is on that level.

I agree with your call for clear (and plain coherent/realistic) condemnation of the war. Nevertheless this should not be confused with analyzing how many and how and why people don’t see it that way.

Otherwise we give up a better understanding of what people think, which we need in order to find strategies to influence the discours on realities terms. (Reality meaning the reality of conciousness(es) about the war, not the war. That part we already agree on)

To answer that: political view has more options than condemn and support.

Of course, imo, they should condemn putin, his supporters, trum, biden, scholz, macron and the whole idea of those beeing the options of development of our societies.

But its not helpfull for us to tune in on 2 dimensional, under-complex concepts of social development/politics

Oops wrong pic. But I think it also shows how far from this study the claim “30% support putin” is