And when everyone’s female… Muahahahahaha, no one will be.

Once again we see what I call the Seppo-Usonian-American tripartite division: the “Israeli” “Americans” or other “Americans” in “Israel”, these are really Seppos through-and-through, they have sold their chance at dignity for a “guarantee” of protection by The Empire, making their own interests align with those of The Empire; the Palestinian Americans, and the solidary Americans in the West Bank generally, these are the true Americans, because for as much as their lives may or may not have been shaped by Americana or by living in the USA, their interests do not align with those of the USA, so these Americans in fact feel very acutely how little their lives actually matter to a USA that despite all evidence insists the contrary.

I genuinely feel like the word “American”, as most people use it, is a sort of Janus word or contronym, it’s a word with multiple contradictory meanings. I have already reflected on this in my own country in Northern Europe, that just because I happen to share a first language and a blue passport with the NATO ghouls, that this alone does not make me and them belong to the same nation, our nations are in fact not only distinct but in an antagonistic relationship with one another! And the “Israeli” “Americans” I would say have far more in common with those Seppo soldiers in Norway, and the Palestinian Americans far more in common with myself, than the opposite or either group with the other.

So this is not a dynamic that’s unique to the (“)Americans(”) in “Israel”/Palestine, this is a dynamic that is omnipresent throughout the entirety of what people presently understand as the “American diaspora” — it just happens to be that in Palestine, the contradictions are much more plainly visible and felt and much more openly discussed… Except even in the case of Palestine, it’s phrased as “Israeli Americans” and “Palestinian Americans”, as if these groups somehow share a common “American-ness” that the US government is simply hypocritical about, as if it’s “brother against brother”. But call a Seppo a Seppo, and all the apparent hypocrisy of the US government towards its overseas citizens disappears in an instant.

I should clarify that I am not a parent nor a child psychologist nor anything else to that effect, I am only speaking from my own experience of being parented—

I remember being around that age and I had a similar problem of just watching absolute political slop on YouTube. My access to content was never restricted nor closely monitored, but when my mom caught me watching some reactionary bozo on occasion, she would just call it what it was — and then all of a sudden I found myself a lot less interested in that type of content. When she or others would point out the problems with what I was watching or the messages I got from the content, that showed me the “smoke and mirrors” of it. And insofar as I engaged in that content out of a desire to appear precocious… Well, realizing that I was manifesting the exact phenomenon that C.S. Lewis described in that famous quote of his about the “fear of childishness”, and that my attempt to convince myself that I was more grown-up than I really was was collapsing in front of me, I just felt ashamed — but very specifically not humiliated.

So I think the best thing you can do is to understand what role these streamers really play for the child. Because it’s probably not all wanting to be popular, it’s probably not all wanting to appear precocious, and it’s probably not all wanting to build an identity; just as it’s probably not all noticing the ways in which they’re genuinely getting screwed over, and acting on genuine frustrations, genuinely trying to understand why this is and what to do about it even with the limitations of their own lived experience; nor is it probably all learning about the world’s issues and wanting to do their best to be a good person even about things that don’t very obviously affect them personally.

Rather the child’s enjoyment is in all likelihood probably some sort of blend of these or perhaps other things. If you can determine the composition of the blend, you will know where to strike to most effectively reveal the “smoke and mirrors”, and make the child feel that sort of productive shame that causes actual self-reflection. You should aim to be like the elderly Hungarian-born immigrant saying “And that makes a difference, doesn’t it?”, if you’re familiar with that old propaganda film: shame is a negative emotion that makes one want to avoid the cause of the feeling, and it should be your aim to make the child identify the cause of the shame to be the shameful thing rather than the one shaming.

I trust that you’re on good terms with your child and only have good intentions, so I think that you will succeed. And of course I should reiterate that my own perspective is limited, and what worked for myself might not work for everyone.

RESULTS FOR TODAY’S BATTLE…

BOTH SIDES LOSE DUE TO A REALLY, REALLY OBVIOUS OVERSIGHT

Tell me about it!

No, it is a result of romanization: the dots over the ё are often dropped, and so it was historically considerably more common to romanize ё identically to е, this is also why it’s “Gorbachev” and generally not “Gorbachov” or “Gorbachyov”.

I already pointed this out in the original comment.

I’ve said it before, Israel Epstein is like the other Semen Hitler, when it comes to very respectable people who happen to have somewhat unfortunate names. Semen Hitler was kinda screwed over by people’s choice of romanization, though, he could just as easily have been called Semyon Gitler.

And Israel Epstein is also kinda like, yeah there’s a strong connotation of “apartheid regime and rich nonce”, but ultimately there are a lot of people with the forename Israel and the surname Epstein — such as the famous Hawaiian musician, and the fellow who co-discovered the first known oncogenic virus in humans alongside Yvonne Barr and Bert Achong.

I’m not going anywhere, I just think it’s funny that he was banned from Hexbear

This is going to sound really tedious, but what I’m trying to get at is this:

To justify that “no more or less than the author’s lifetime” is the perfect length of time for copyright to last, you must at the same time justify that “more or less than the author’s lifetime” is not the perfect length of time for copyright to last.

The time limitations of “0 seconds” and “until the heat death of the universe” are more and less than the author’s lifetime, which means that you must justify why these are not the perfect length of time for copyright, just the same as any finite time limitation.

In other words, in order to justify that the author’s lifetime is the perfect length of time for copyright to last, you must first justify both that copyright exists and that it expires. Hence, “What do you think the purpose of copyright is?”

It’s from the answer to that question that you come up with criteria to judge time limitations, and it is from those criteria that you decide on an ideal time limitation. On the other hand, without an answer to that question, your beliefs have no actual basis beyond gut feeling.

Likewise, to criticize someone’s understanding of the purpose or nature of copyright, is criticizing the criteria used for finding an ideal time limitation, is criticizing the favored time limitation itself. My first reply was then based on an assumption of what I figured you thought the purpose of copyright was.

The same Infrared Haz, dipshit spokesman of the “American Communist Party”, who was banned from Hexbear way back when?

What do you think the purpose of copyright is?

Isn’t Haz that dipshit with the “American Communist Party”?

Frankly, if you’re a small creator, copyright already doesn’t really exist for you in any meaningful sense: because copyright is enforced through the courts, you only really have rights over your work to the extent you can actually pay the court costs of continually defending your rights again and again and again — and if you have that kind of money to spare you aren’t exactly a starving artist.

wow_mao isn’t someone I pay much attention to, but he was on The Deprogram not too long ago because a bunch of classified Pentagon documents were leaked in his Discord server last year, and my cousin likes wow_mao and we talked about him once. My impression is that wow_mao mostly just makes shitposts.

The only other time I’ve heard that phrase was in that wow_mao video “I CAN BE WAY MORE RACIST THAN YOU”, where it was uttered by some Anglo nationalist who also kept calling the other guy that term for people with Down’s syndrome with roots in 18th century racial pseudoscience

chimp out

Isn’t this phrase associated with, like, stereotypes of Black people being aggressive?

I think for me it was a few different things, that largely boil down to

1. Misremembering the post (i.e. “her” referring to both Harris and the lib, the accusations of misogyny being a weaponization of the lib’s gender)
2. Making assumptions based on my own mind’s eye
3. Reading singular “they” more like a marker of social distance than a marker of explicit gender-neutrality, and thinking that women are more likely to get they-ed than men, because men are often a little ashamed of associating with women in a way that women aren’t with men (this requires assuming OP is a man)
4. Reading JaredLevi’s comment first and assuming it was correct about the lib’s gender

And these things are honestly all pretty problematic, I should’ve done better.

Settler-colonies I would say fundamentally operate on a completely different Overton window from normal countries. I’d say you can blame this exchange student’s thin skin on them being close to institutional power; you can blame the “seeing anyone who doesn’t support their form of fascism for being the other type of fascist in their country” on their spending most of their life completely isolated from actually having to face the contradictions of settler society; and you can blame the general tribalism of national politics in the USA at least partially on settlers needing to absolve themselves of guilt by demonizing the “other side” that supports 95% of the same things.

I’ve started to informally distinguish between three types of US citizen abroad: my own type are “Americans”, we are polar opposites to “Seppos”, and between us Americans and those Seppos is an unstable middle ground that I call “Usonians”.

From my own typology, I might label the exchange student you met as a “Seppo” just from this description — them refusing to speak to you means that they are likely wholly disinterested in, and will in all likelihood actively try to avoid through kicking and screaming if necessary, coming to terms with the contradictions surrounding your country’s relationship to the USA, and what this relationship says about the USA itself. If they intend on returning to the USA after they are done with their studies, they must actively not build roots in the local community in which they now reside, and making them confront their own relationship to imperialism and settler-colonialism quite simply interferes with this.

The outburst you witnessed is in other words what I consider a “repair strategy” through which the settler-colony prevents “settler hemorrhage”.

However, I could always be mistaken and they might really be typologically more like a Usonian — that despite that outburst you witnessed, they could actually one day become informed and genuinely empathetic, in which case they could become an American. But I have an image of what the typical US-born exchange student is like, and with the class background I’m imagining, I wouldn’t bet on winning them over to our side.

Edit: Fixed the pronouns

I support complete abolition of intellectual property as a whole.

Say you want to write closed captions for a movie, or even film a sign language interpretation of it, such that d/Deaf people can enjoy the movie better, among other reasons — even if you don’t post the movie itself, you’re still creating a derivative work and hence violating copyright.

Or say you want to record an audio description such that blind people can enjoy the movie better, among other reasons — again, even if you release only the AD track, this is still a derivative work and hence violates copyright. This obviously also goes for audiobooks.

Or say you even want to make a full-on dub of a movie into an endangered language, to try to break the reliance of its dwindling speakers on dominant-language content — in this case, unless you’ve secured a deal with the rightsholders such that you have access to the original SFX and music tracks, your only choices are VO dubbing like is common in the Former Soviet Union, or painstakingly redoing all the sound effects and music, before you can add the dialog. In any case, without a license, you’re still violating copyright even if you only release the dub track.

Now obviously the fact that these things violate IPR doesn’t stop people from making these things anyways, but IPR does still end up greatly limiting volunteer work in scope and visibility, and creates an antagonism between the rightsholders and those volunteering to make the content more accessible. So intellectual property in practice then ends up being among other things yet another mechanism through which the sighted oppress the blind, the hearing oppress the d/Deaf, the settlers oppress the Natives, et cetera. There is no universe in which accessible media and intellectual property coexist: as long as there is intellectual property there is a profit motive, and profit motives will never prioritize accessibility.

And this is not to get into a greater discussion of how private property in general oppresses the working class, although I should disclose that I support the abolition of all private property and not only intellectual property by itself.