Avatar

se fode ae

@jaherafi / jaherafi.tumblr.com

21/m/brasília,brazil
Avatar
pendulette

2019 /pol/ is ~10% threads about how they can’t connect with normal people any more and it gives me so much life

@multiheaded it’s nice that you’re keeping tabs. i’ll take this opportunity to lay out where i’m at.

yes, i’ll openly stan olavo de carvalho, in the same way i’ll openly stan slavoj zizek. they are thinkers who i wouldn’t recommend as baby’s first contemporary philosopher, but who have worthwhile insights into the state of the world, much in the same way that i’d recommend both bronze age pervert and the gender accelerationist manifesto, both of which, while being on polar opposite sides, demonstrate a remarkable convergence on their understanding of our current cultural moment and the deep forces fighting for the soul of humanity. both are monstrous in their own ways, and i don’t intend to follow either into the abyss. but that doesn’t mean i’ll flinch from staring into it.

specifically, i’ll stan olavo de carvalho because he was once the lone voice in the wilderness against the very real, extensively documented conspiracy that ran the brazilian government and maintained literally the greatest corruption scheme in recorded history. not only that, it is quite clear that this corruption scheme was put in place and maintained in large part in the service of international socialism, by the heirs of the brazilian communist movement (and here i do mean quite literally the same people, many of whom were once on the payroll of the soviet bloc). moreover, this scheme was successful in ofering enormous support for the cuban regime, sponsored the rise of the chavez/maduro government, and had the full intention of doing something very similar in brazil. they did all this with the full blessing of the anglophone liberal media establishment, who, i will once again remind you, were cheerleaders for the chavez regime until everything went to shit in venezuela. there but for the grace of god go we, and not for lack of trying.

i stan him because i have increasingly endeavored to take the long view, and it is clear that these people are not going to stop trying. it’s also evident that a naive faith that liberalism or a nice version of socialism will inevitably prevail is unfounded. in particular, i have no conviction that favorable economic conditions are sufficient for a peaceful, tolerant and thriving society. culture matters. and at least two of the major contenders for global cultural dominance would rather you were dead (so much so that you fled one of them), and socialists also have a nasty tendency to want people like you dead or stuck in concentration camps once they get their hands on the reins of power, so one would think you might want to take this with the seriousness that it requires and attempt to identify and preserve whatever it is about the country currently hosting you that allows you not to live in constant fear for your life.

in a broader sense, i’m trying to understand what’s going on in the world, and i have found “nice” left-liberalism severely lacking. i don’t have a particular political program in mind, though. i support bolsonaro, conditionally and with reservations, because he was the only major contender with a serious plan for, or who even seriously acknowledged, the looming economic collapse, the political corruption machine and the SIXTY THOUSAND YEARLY MURDERS that take place in this country–problems so massive that rejecting him for the reasons people habitually reject him for betrays a pathetic lack of perspective, shared, if not produced, by most of the media establishment.

this lack of perspective, which dominates the “respectable” media establishment worldwide, is why i am increasingly unconcerned with being labeled “alt-right” by the liars, cowards and hysterics who run, and are run by, said establishment.

bitch.

So, what’s with the part where everyone told you that operation Car wash is obviously typical right wing nonsense power-grab, just like literally every other right-wing “corruption crackdown”, and then it turned out to be just that, you dumb fucking cunt?

Your blind belief in retarded conspiracy theorists who think the Sun revolves around Earth aside. If your “Lone voice” is the guy who literally cannot ever, and I do mean ever, not for a second, stop lying and lying and lying and misleading and slandering and lying, maybe you are just wrong about everything?

Avatar
jaherafi

Lmao this is patently pathetic

americans be like ‘thank you mr. soldier for killing civilians’

it’s the general attitude by americans towards anyone subaltern

note the sudden jump around when BLM hit the mainstream news in trust for police

similarly, the response to the killing of 4 students at kent state, from rick perlstein’s nixonland:

A respected lawyer told an Akron paper, “Frankly, if I’d been faced with the same situation and had a submachine gun…there probably would have been 140 of them dead.” People expressed disappointment that the rabblerousing professors—the gurus—had escaped: “The only mistake they made was not to shoot all the students and then start in on the faculty.”
When it was established that none of the four victims were guardsmen, citizens greeted each other by flashing four fingers in the air (“The score is four / And next time more”). The Kent paper printed pages of letters for weeks, a community purgation: “Hurray! I shout for God and Country, recourse to justice under law, fifes, drums, marshal music, parades, ice cream cones—America—support it or leave it.” “Why do they allow these so-called educated punks, who apparently know only how to spell four-lettered words, to run loose on our campuses tearing down and destroying that which good men spent years building up?…Signed by one who was taught that ‘to educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.’” “I extend appreciation and whole-hearted support of the Guard of every state for their fine efforts in protecting citizens like me and our property.” “When is the long-suffering silent majority going to rise up?”
It was the advance guard of a national mood. A Gallup poll found 58 percent blamed the Kent students for their own deaths. Only 11 percent blamed the National Guard.
A rumor spread in Kent that Jeff Miller, whose head was blown off, was such a dirty hippie that they had to keep the ambulance door open on the way to the hospital for the smell. Another rumor was that five hundred Black Panthers were on their way from elsewhere in Ohio to lead a real riot; and that Allison Krause was “the campus whore” and found with hand grenades on her.
Many recalled the State of Ohio’s original intention for the land upon which Kent State was built: a lunatic asylum. President White was flooded with letters saying it was his fault for letting Jerry Rubin speak on campus. Students started talking about the “Easy Rider syndrome,” after the Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda movie about hippies murdered by vigilantes. Townspeople picketed memorial services. “The Kent State Four!” they chanted. “Should have studied more!”
“Anyone who appears on the streets of a city like Kent with long hair, dirty clothes, or barefooted deserves to be shot,” a Kent resident told a researcher.
“Have I your permission to quote that?”
“You sure do. It would have been better if the Guard had shot the whole lot of them that morning.”
“But you had three sons there.”
“If they didn’t do what the Guards told them, they should have been mowed down.”
A letter to Life later that summer read, “It was a valuable object lesson to homegrown advocates of anarchy and revolution, regardless of age.”

Conservatism in America is an expression of blood lust

idk man ive been tryin this ‘twitter’ thing for a while now but it universally feels like unadulterated brain poison… i think the tendency to tie your twitter presence to your real identity and the ability to become verified mean that there is a critical mass of attractive people trying to become standup comics with irreverent tweets about dating apps and overprivileged brooklynite media people trying to build up clout. everyone is either trying to get a Netflix deal or trying to reply guy for liberal politicians hard enough that they can get noticed for it. even the tumblr adjacent hot takes people all seem to be doing it to build up clout with their local DSA chapter. not like here where people have god awful takes on everything just for the sheer pleasure of it, just for the art 

I’m always disappointed when I’m doing research and I come across something that reminds me that there are people that still take Ayn Rand seriously 

Avatar
wordcubed

what's your hottest 'my hero academia' take? bonus question: do you have sizzling 'one punch man' takes too?

Avatar

My hottest MHA take? The most 🔥scorching🔥 take? The take I’m not sure the fandom is ready for?

Mitsuki Bakugou is a joke character—and the entire joke is that she’s an adult version of Katsuki Bakugou. “Haha, wouldn’t it be funny if Katsuki had to interact with someone just like himself? Who was as loud and callous and violent as he was? ~Hilarious~”

She is a mirror held up to him. (Katsuki, who calls others weak, hears his own words reflected back, and is now called weak himself.) Ironically, she’s a mirror that softens the original’s edges quite a bit (Mitsuki is actually less aggressive than Katsuki), acknowledging her limitations (Mitsuki bows and willingly cedes control over her son’s life to UA—this is not something a supposed abuser would do), and is actually less violent than the original.

Bakugou stans hated this mirror so much they declared the reflection a monster. For a handful of panels, Katsuki had to endure the very behavior he constantly directs at others. The one time the fandom didn’t try to excuse Katsuki’s awful behavior towards others, was when it was directed back at him. The injustice of it all!

Heaven help the fandom when they realize how horrible the character Mitsuki’s based on is.

Avatar
Avatar
argumate
You think people are morally obligated to serve your emotions and do what you want them to do, because you are the one deciding what “the best interests of society as a whole” are. There is no way around this. You decide other people have the obligation to have their resources stolen from them to be given to those that you feel deserve those resources more, based on nothing but your feelings, but of course your resources should not be stolen because what a fucking coincidence the amount of resources you have is exactly the right amount of resources to be a morally good person.

the discussion started with the story of a company paying employees the smallest amount they could legally get away with such that some of those employees ended up homeless living out of their cars, and all it took to double their salaries was a small cut in executive bonuses.

now the CEO talking up that story is obviously looking for credit, and honestly why not give them credit, compared with the previous CEO who cut costs by grinding people into poverty?

I’m sure the executives who had their bonuses cut are hard-working, but it’s unlikely that they will suffer from this minor reduction in compensation, they are still earning a huge multiple of the base salary, and the overall increase in human flourishing from this change is enormous.

I don’t think that anyone should have their resources stolen, but I do think that people should recognise the impact their choices have on the world, and think about the kind of world they want to live in, and people who decide they want a world shaped like a pyramid with themselves at the top do not deserve respect.

the slippery slope argument that we cannot praise someone for helping others or condemn someone for exploiting others because this inevitably leads to theft or even genocide is bunk.

High CEO and executive pay is likely economically efficient. Performance of managers and executives is hard to measure in a way that enables paying per unit of output. The next best alternative is to measure relative performance, promote the top performers, and provide a large pay increase as an incentive to place high in the tournament. A newly promoted president would have three times the pay that they had as a VP, but do approximately the same quality of work - but if the pay increase wasn’t that large, they wouldn’t be working nearly as hard beforehand. Executive positions are not sinecures. It takes a large amount of skill, work, and effort to succeed at these competitions. If you want people to do lots of useful work to try to win the competition to become an executive, it has to have a reward that is worth striving for.

Avatar
argumate

this is the comedy that brings me back to tumblr! laughter is good for the soul

I was making a serious point, for what it’s worth. I’ll clarify it for your convenience:

Top (corporate executives / writers / athletes) make more money than the value of their work. The average pay of everyone trying to be a top (corporate executive / writer / athlete ) is significantly more fair. You can’t make things more fair without removing the incentive to work extraordinarily hard for success. And for (running a corporation / producing great literature / playing sportsball) only the performance of a few people really matters, you can’t get by through having a lot of people give a mediocre performance. So you end up with an economically efficient equilibrium that naively feels unfair: lots of people work hard and get little, a few people work hard and get a lot.

Avatar
argumate

I mean that’s somewhat like saying that a battlefield royale scenario in which fifty people enter an arena that only one person can survive is an economically efficient equilibrium that naively feels unfair given that all of them fight desperately for their lives but forty nine will inevitably die; I guess that’s just the incentive structure needed to make people work extraordinarily hard for success.

Got it in one, argumate. The fundamental unfairness flows out of the fact that large companies have a few top leadership positions whose performance matters a hell of a lot. It’s pretty obvious how to fix the battlefield royale - just don’t do it. I’m really curious how you’d manage to make corporate leadership less economically important.

Avatar
argumate

I mean I personally would choose conscientious leaders with a sense of civic responsibility over those that can be bribed, and hold those who aren’t willing to serve the common good in contempt, that’s what I would do.

the wildest part of this whole thread is seeing all the people who actually believe that executive salaries are as high as they are in order to compete for “top talent”, as though you can meaningfully measure upper executive performance and compare them against one another and people actually do that

at the upper class, executive salaries and usually even bonuses/stock payouts are almost completely disconnected from performance. To the extent companies “need” to offer such gigantic salaries it’s largely because if they don’t, they might not be able to attract patricians. But it’s not at all clear that having a non-patrician that matters in charge matters that much, or that if it does matter it does so for any reason other than networking/signalling

Once every two weeks Azaelia Banks says something like “I think we should shoot immigrants” and everyone acts shocked about it on Twitter and then goes on to buy her next shitty album anyway

Weird absolute monarchist YouTube guy: rather than the instability and fickle, arbitrary mob rule of democracy, the sovereign ensures continuity, stability, and conservation of tradition

Historical monarchs: what if we, uh, go to war with France to enforce my claim on the Netherlands, drive our finances into the ground with my unchecked fascination with my wife’s weird advice, kill some protestants, fail to fuck, and uhhhhh *dies of broken chromosomes and triggers a 13 year succession crisis*

A few things are likely happening. The first is curation. The reddit group was likely feeding her son a constant stream of outrages of men being ill-treated by feminists. An ad that denigrates male aggressiveness in sports. The story of a woman falsely accusing a man of rape.  Statistics showing the wage gap is a myth. A feminist saying outrageous things. Probably some fake stuff, ala #EndFathersDay thrown in for good measure. When these things are put all together in a stream, it can seem like there is a vast conspiracy to suppress the real truth. How come they never taught you this stuff, right?
Now, this is where we’d think being inquisitive would help. Get out and Google it, right? And for someone skilled at finding the right information on the web that strategy might work. But the curation and the language used produces loaded searches that just pulls one deeper into the narrative that the curation scaffolded.
What do I mean? Well, take the infamous Dylann Roof search “black on white crime” which he indicated was his first step into the radicalization that led to him slaughtering black worshipers in a church basement in an attempt to incite a “race war”. In the beginning, he put “black on white crime” into Google, and this is what happened next:
But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?  
As I’ve talked about previously, “black on white crime” is a data void. It is not a term used by social scientists or reputable news organizations, which is why the white nationalist site Council of Conservative Citizens came up in those results.  That site has since gone away, but what it was was a running catalog of cases where black men had murdered (usually) white women. In other words, it’s yet another curation, even more radical and toxic than the one that got you there. And then the process begins again.
The thing to remember about this algorithmic-human grooming hybrid is that the gradualness of it — the step-by-step nature of it — is a feature for the groomers, not a bug. I imagine if the first page Roof had encountered on this — the CCC page — had sported a Nazi flag and and a big banner saying  “Kill All Jews” he’d have hit the back button, and maybe the world might be different. (Maybe). But the curation/search spiral brings you to that point step by step. In the center of the spiral you probably still have enough good sense to not read stuff by Nazis, at least knowingly. By the time you  get to the edges, not so much.
In the minutes before the first detainees set foot on Guantánamo, “you could literally hear a pin drop,” Brandon Neely, a military-police officer, recalled, in an interview with the Guantánamo Testimonials Project, at the University of California, Davis, in 2008. “Everyone, including myself, was very nervous,” he said. It was January 11, 2002. The Bush Administration had decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war on terror, which meant that the men captured abroad could be deprived of the rights of prisoners of war. That day, Neely’s job was to haul captives from a bus to a holding area for processing, and then to small, outdoor cages, where they would spend nearly four months sleeping on rocks, and relieving themselves in buckets, while soldiers constructed more permanent cellblocks. “I keep thinking, Here it comes—I am fixing to see what a terrorist looks like face to face,” Neely, who was twenty-one at the time, said.
The first man off the bus had only one leg. He wore handcuffs, leg shackles, earmuffs, blackout goggles, a surgical mask, and a bright-orange jumpsuit. As two M.P.s dragged him to the holding area, someone tossed his prosthetic leg out of the bus. All afternoon, guards screamed at the detainees to shut up and walk faster, called them “sand niggers,” and said that their family members and countries had been obliterated by nuclear bombs.
Later that day, Neely and his partner brought an elderly detainee to the holding area and forced him to his knees. When they removed his shackles, the man, who was shaking with fear, suddenly jerked to the left. Neely jumped on top of him, and forced his face into the concrete floor. An officer shouted “Code Red!” into a radio, and the Internal Reaction Force team raced to the scene and hog-tied him. He was left for hours in the Caribbean sun.
Neely later found out that the elderly detainee had jerked because, when he was forced to his knees, he thought he was about to be shot in the back of the head. In his home country, Neely said, “this man had seen some of his friends and family members executed on their knees.” The man’s response was hardly unique; a military document, drafted ten days later for the base commander, noted that “the detainees think they are being taken to be shot.”
Officially, the job of the Internal Reaction Force was to restrain unruly detainees, to prevent them from injuring themselves or the guards. But, in practice, “IRFing” was often done as a form of revenge, initiated liberally—for example, when a detainee was found to have two plastic cups instead of one, or refused to drink a bottle of Ensure, because he thought that he was being given poison. IRFing typically involved a team of six or more men dressed in riot gear: the first man would pepper-spray the detainee, then charge into the cell and, using a heavy shield and his body weight, tackle the detainee; the rest would jump on top, shackling or binding the detainee until he was no longer moving. Although many of the detainees arrived malnourished, with their bodies marked by bullet wounds and broken bones, some IRF teams punched them and slammed their heads into the ground until they were bloody and unconscious. “You could always tell when someone got IRFed, as the detainees throughout the camp would start chanting and screaming,” Neely recalled. Once, he watched an IRF team leader beat a detainee so badly that he had to be sent to the hospital and the floor of his cell was stained with blood; the next time the team leader was in the cellblock, another detainee yelled out, “Sergeant, have you come back to finish him off?”
In Islam, the Quran is considered the transcribed word of God; some Muslims keep the book wrapped in cloth, never letting it touch unclean surfaces. To dispel notions that the United States was at war with Islam, detainees were allowed to have private meetings with a Muslim military chaplain, and were given copies of the Quran. Some guards saw an opportunity to torment the detainees—by tossing the Quran into the toilet, for example, or by breaking the binding under the guise of searching for “weapons.” Desecration of the Quran provoked riots in the cellblocks, which resulted in IRF teams storming into the cells and beating up detainees.
One day, after an interrogator kicked a Quran across the floor, detainees organized a mass suicide attempt. “Once every fifteen minutes, a prisoner tried to hang himself by tying his sheet around his neck and fastening it through the mesh of the cage wall,” James Yee, an Army captain who served as the Muslim chaplain in Guantánamo, recalled in his memoir, “For God and Country,” from 2005. “As soon as the prisoner was taken to the hospital, another detainee would be found—his sheet wound around his neck and tied to his cage wall. The guards would rush in to save him and the chaos would start again. The protest lasted for several days as twenty-three prisoners tried to hang themselves.”
Military-police officers so frequently abused the Quran during cell searches that detainees demanded that the books be kept in the library, where they would be safe. Yee, who had converted to Islam in the early nineties, sent a request up the chain of command, but was rebuffed. “I felt this decision stemmed from the command’s desire to be able to tell the media that we gave all detainees a Quran out of sensitivity to their religious needs,” he wrote. The detainees protested, and so “it was decided that every detainee who refused the Quran would be IRFed.” While the detainees were receiving medical treatment for their post-IRF injuries, the Qurans were placed back in their cells.
In time, Yee came to believe that “Islam was systematically used as a weapon against the prisoners.” Guards mocked the call to prayer, and manipulated Islamic principles of modesty—by having female guards watch naked detainees in the showers, for example—to create tension as an excuse to exact violence. During interrogations, detainees were forced to perform mock satanic rituals, or were draped in the Israeli flag.
Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that the men in Guantánamo were “among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.” But after Brandon Neely’s first shift, on the day the detention camp opened, “no one really spoke much,” he recalled. “I went back to my tent and laid down to go to sleep. I was thinking, Those were the worst people the world had to offer?”

Tobin’s Q is a common measure in discussions of corporate finance, measuring a firm’s market value (V) divided by the replacement cost (RC) of it’s capital (as in, literally, the cost to replace all of the assets it has) (Q = V / RC). If

For a standard firm Q = 1. But even under perfect competiton, some firms will have a Q > 1.00, representing anything from the value of brand recognition to a reputation of quality management. Others will have Q > 1. In an optimally-functioning competitive marketplace, however, the Q will be around 1.00 at any given point in time.

Major disruptions from Q = 1.00 indicate that the market isn’t functioning properly. A Q substantially over 1.00 generally indicates that there a market isn’t competitive, and that barriers to entry distorting the market in favor of existing firms by restricting the entry of new firms to the market that would otherwise be occuring with such high valuations. Firms with Q>1.00 in uncompetitive markets are extracting rent- unearned income- from consumers, earning higher profits than they would under regular competition.

In summary, a market having an average Q significantly above 1.00 is uncompetitive in such a way that it favors the profits of the firms in it to the expense of others.