Because you know the actual enemy, you defend a meme that demonises “propagandised individuals” instead of the enemy. Interesting choice.

No i didn’t.

I understand what capitalists are and he does too. We agree with the definition.

He just feels forced to conflate both to justify a toxic meme.

As if the rhetoric of today has no influence on the rhetoric of tomorrow.

But even in this very short sighted context, the conflation of “propagandised individuals” and “capitalist” is obviously toxic to the aim of archiving communism.

I will take a wild guess that you have many friends who are raised in capitalistic environments and who have been exposed to anti communism propaganda. Some of that propaganda probably worked on them and consequently they are propagandised individuals. But I doubt you would call them capitalist and enemy. Ofc, you wouldn’t as you would special plead for them, while happily supporting conflating propagandised individuals with capitalists and the enemy.

Thanks for proving my point. Your “us vs them” thinking caused you to confuse “propagandised individuals” with “capitalist” and ignore the big difference between both.

“Capitalist” is a class that in communism doesn’t exist. So consequently, after the implementation of communism there is no enemy of the class “capitalist” anymore. So again, communism would serve all people.

“Propagandised individuals” wouldn’t disappear after the implementation of communism. They can be discriminate against.

I don’t think promoting these sentiments does anything but propagandise an “us vs them” mentality that is fundamentally toxic to the idea of communism.

“Four legs good, two legs bad” is all, I am gonna say.

For better usage: you don’t need to write it into console. Just write it in an array!

Oh interesting, technicalities like? I wrote to a bunch of politicians and I was assured that they rejected it on principle.

Maybe they lied to me. But why would they lie to me but not the general public? Maybe the EU is a bunch of politicians and they all have their own opinions.

“Europe… the guys that want backdoor into all encrypted communications” is a weird thing to say considering that every attempt of such a law failed because they didn’t have the majority.

“Europe… where a minority of politicians have continually failled to get a backdoor into all encrypted communications” would be far more accurate.

They usually don’t do it professionally.

As i understand it and what is interesting to me, is that they f… A programmer, not programmers and that exclusively and professionally.

A professional programmer f… wow that is a job?

Master was just always a bad name for it.

Flowcharts are where the tech debt starts tbf

I like this meme because hahaha Jordan Peterson dumb. But also, It makes me feel better for liking butts more.

Or your employer would invest some money in a proper tool for your job.

I don’t think it will take over. I think idiots will deploy ai everywhere and that will create systems that are fundamentally inhumane.

I mean more surveillance, more arbitrary “decisions” by opaque systems. Basically Oppression by lack of oversight and control.

I love how this paints the affirmation as some random unprovoked act and not the counter reaction to the harassment, because if they would paint it as what is it, a counter reaction to the harassment, then it would become obvious that the “live and let live” approach is under attack by bigots and the affirmation is an attempt to counter the attack and reinstate “live and let live”.

A memes get shared, consequently removed from context and consequently misunderstood. And removed from context, op isn’t around to explain and most people aren’t willing to read or write this much.

You are right that a meme has to be somewhat simple. Which is why I believe memes should be seen as a somewhat dangerous medium to communicate politics. The radicalization of the right wing was heavily powered by memes.

As the meme depictes a conversation, it could encourage people to have the conversation like that, and such a conversation wouldn’t be productive.

Edit: op btw made it clear to me that they wanted to reach the people “here” with his message and seemingly don’t care about possible consequences. Their audience was exclusively intended to be “here”, what I would call the in-group and I am considered about the conversation of out-group and in-group.

Interesting response to a point that invalidates the response.

Also you understand that the nature of the discussion in this situation is vastly different to a normal conversation, or a non-ml forum. This forum is a very political, primary ml, environment. You are primarily talking to people who generally agree with you. My critic is about how people who currently don’t agree with you, maybe due to ignorance, will experience this meme, or the actions promoted in it. Making it bad agitprop. Unless your aim is to alienate the in-group from the out-group and not to recruit the out-group into the in-group.

Completely missing the point are we?

I am saying, if you intend to correct their misunderstanding, you should care for what they understand because then you can probably explain to them how they are wrong. If you don’t consider what they understand, you will talk pass each other and leave them as ignorant as they started.

I am not saying, they are right about their definition. I am saying, if you don’t approach then where they are, they won’t follow you.