✺roguetrick✺

  • 1 Post
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 16th, 2024

help-circle

  • The problem is looking at it too functionally. You cannot fix it by “fixing” voting as if voting magically creates a functional government. It’s a method to derive consensus. You cannot look at a system that is failing to produce consensus and then fix it by directly removing anything that increases consensus. That’s insane.

    You need to critically look at the entire system and identify what the problem is. In this case it’s largely the abstraction layers. People now interact with their government through filters even greater than the old Hearst days. Information flows from media filters to the population and from the population to government through social media filters. And both of those filters have their own agendas. Of course nobody believes the resulting government is responsive or legitimate. It’s not.

    There are many potential solutions for civic engagement. But that largely means breaking down the very walls that powerful interests have created. There’s no easy solution to it. Certainly not “let’s make these stupid people unable to vote.” A solution is much more radical and takes understanding both what you want to achieve and how the current system is preventing it.







  • So the argument of this video is anti-woke crusaders don’t exist? That they’re not organized and virulent since gamergate? That they’re responding to as he put it legitimate “shallow politics, performative casting, and and tone deaf writing” (this is the point I stopped watching the video) instead of knee jerk misogyny and racism? Because that’s what the excerpt he highlighted is obviously discussing as a risk. So either he thinks that those groups don’t exist or that all consumers are legitimately part of those groups. Or he’s just misrepresenting some bullshit he read from their annual report for rage bait.









  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI 🖤 LaTeX
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The tex there has the Greek letter chi instead of Latin x at the end and is supposed to be reminiscent of a Greek root from which we derived the word technique: techne or τέχνη. The tex there is just pronounced tech usually. The original intention I believe was for it to sound like the ch in loch or bach but that sound isn’t seen in modern English(generally even in the examples I gave). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_fricative

    For all the star Trek nerds: that’s close to what the Klingon word gagh ends with. Gagh has a voiced uvular fricative, so just do the same without voice and just air and you’ll get chi.