Raphaël A. Costeau

🇧🇷 Latino-Americano. Estudante de Física. Marxista.

A propósito, eu uso Arch.


🇻🇦 Latinus-Americanus. Discipulus Physicae. Marxista.

Ipse Arch utor per viam.

  • 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 29th, 2023

help-circle



  • conflicting canon

    There is no such thing as a “canon”, generally speaking. There are several stories in which part of what makes them good is how well they connect with each other, for example, the books by Tolkien or Asimov, but, to cite another example, the viewer of Doctor Who has to turn a blind eye to the immense amount of contradictory events that confront each other over the course of 60 years. Which is not to say that there is no problem in writing something that decharacterizes the character or universe of the story (Doctor Who’s Timeless Children, Zack Snyder’s Batman, etc.), or that compromises the logic that the author himself chose to follow throughout the story (Star Wars’s Sequels), but, objectively speaking, the only problem this produces is poorly written shit, because, realizing that there is no canon, the next person to write something has complete freedom to ignore the past shit.

    I think it sucks that the ZA/UM people split up the way they did, but if each of these studios wants to make their own sequel to Disco Elysium, whether it’s spiritual or not, I can and will appreciate them individually and with the relationship they want to establish with Disco Elysium, there being no need for them to be coherent with each other.










  • Deep level irony that you used a Simpsons meme, which takes place in a city that suffers from a Nuclear Power Plant that doesn’t dispose of nuclear waste properly.

    Every form of energy generation is problematic in the hands of capital. Security measures can and are often considered unnecessary expense. And even assuming that they will respect all safety standards, we still have the problem of fuel: France, for example, was only able to supply its plants at a cheap cost because of colonialism in Africa. Therefore, nuclear energy potentially has the same geopolitical problems as oil, in addition to the particular ones: dual technology that can and is applied in the military, not necessarily but mainly atomic bombs.

    __

    Also, I thought memes were supposed to be funny…




  • In my country, this generational divide doesn’t make much sense. But comparing those born in the 90s and early 2000s with those born from the late 2000s onwards, there is a fundamental difference: there was, even in the public education system, a variety of computer courses available to many people. With the arrival and hegemony of the app model, which is designed with the idea that it is intuitive and does not require anyone to be taught how to use it, computer courses have been disappearing. As a result, millions of young people use computers daily and have no knowledge of simple concepts such as shortcuts Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, let alone advanced features of Office suites, not to mention that they have no idea what LATEX and Markdown are.



  • And when you say collective action is the only way, which, if I am not mistaken is a core authleft belief.

    It’s a core Marxist observation, based in history. Every system that has ever fallen has fallen because of the organized action of a class or a set of classes, not necessarily in a party, since the very notion of a party is extremely recent, but organization in some form. It’s a process that is always violent, usually doesn’t happen all at once and may not be definitive, but that’s how things have happened so far. There’s no evidence that it will happen the way you think it will, but honestly, good luck with that. It would be great if we could move to a fairer system without all the burden of having to organize and having to respond to reactionary violence in the same level.

    I do take special exception with your notion that these egregors come into being out of conscious and renewed informed consent.

    I don’t know exactly what in my answer led you to the conclusion that I think so, but that’s not the case. In my opinion, these “egregors”, which I call ideologies, arise according to the need that material conditions require. As material conditions change, mainly because of the sophistication of the means of production, new ideologies emerge from the new socioeconomic conditions produced by this change.


  • Every aspect of human society exists because we, as a society, believe in them, including society itself. The very tools we use to measure the world beyond man are human fabrications. However, the maintenance of a social model does not necessarily depend on all its members believing in or agreeing with it, only on continuing to work for it. Cultural, social, and physical constraints exist and are very real. For example, it was common a few years ago in the “Free Palestine” online community to say that Israel is not real, but this statement has never stopped any of Israel’s oppressive actions from happening. Understanding that all systems are fabricated is a fundamental step towards the possibility of replacing them with better systems, but for this to happen, realization needs to evolve into organized action: the only tool capable of changing the world. And yes, it is only possible to replace one system with another, and it is not possible to live without a system, because what makes us human is precisely this characteristic: we created the social system to overcome the evolutionary system.

    And to rationalize the world we live in, we create rules to legitimize our other creations. We can use any factors to generate these rules, but to avoid chaos, we agree, in materialism, to use historical, cultural, and economic factors to justify the control of a territory by a nation state. Considering these factors, in a comparative sense, the control of the United States over any of its constituent territories is much more illegitimate than the control of Tibet by China. Does this mean that we should dismember the United States and return its territories to their original owners? No, it means that someone who believes that China should grant independence to Tibet should also advocate for the dismemberment of the United States. Since in this case the decision came from the United States government, which, I imagine, has no intention whatsoever of dismembering the United States, we can conclude that the only motivation for this is to antagonize China, and it does not stem from a concern for the right of peoples to self-determination.