Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference

[supersonicwaffle]

More along the lines of announcing that they stand in opposition with the AFD, if I had to venture a guess. Especially because of the tendency for groups like this; I mean, look at the subject of the thread, for instance.

Remember that the DDR was controlled by Soviet communists; while you'll still find people in former East Germany that reminisce on the "good old days," you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that actually sympathizes with the party in a modern totalitarian setting. I know because I've met with a bunch of people who were quite literally on the line between East and West Germany

Look, I applaud taking a stand against radical right wingers such as AfD but pledging allegiance to left extremism is just flat out stupid, not inclusive and just tone deaf given Germany’s history.

My parents grew up in socialist Poland and I know a bunch of people who grew up in east Germany as well, I’m well aware of the resentment they hold towards socialism. At the same time it’s common knowledge where in Germany you can find actual communists so I wouldn’t really be hard pressed.

 

[Ericthegreat]

The conference itself has drawn criticism for its embracing of extreme left ideals. Here's a few things that have been reported on.

• An Antifa flag was prominently featured at the entrance.
• The event was supposed to be a bully free zone but a poster with a poll to ban or not ban a blogger that's been present have already been posted right after the event opened (implying it's been put there by organizers during set up) and wasn't taken down.
• A hacker assembly competing in the capture the flag competition was told not to show their flag by security because it may be damaged or stolen. The flag was given to them for making a CTF competition final at a Korean conference and under the team logo it said GERMANY and had a little German flag to denote the team's nationality.

--


Hacking has always been about transparency and challenging / questioning authority. Embracing totalitarianism is very outlandish.

You can be a hacker, and think whatever you like to think lol....

 

[TotalInsanity4]

At the same time it’s common knowledge where in Germany you can find actual communists so I wouldn’t really be hard pressed.

I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives

 

[Ericthegreat]

I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives

I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.

Right

 

[Xzi]

I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.

The thing is you don't need to go full gung-ho socialist/communist to simply have hints of those influences on our government and society. The New Deal was basically socialism. Our system is adaptable, and it should be able to take the best of all others, especially if the nation is to survive past another fifty years or so. Collapse is inevitable with debt bubbles and such a massive income inequality gap.

 

[SG854]

The thing is you don't need to go full gung-ho socialist/communist to simply have hints of those influences on our government and society. The New Deal was basically socialism. Our system is adaptable, and it should be able to take the best of all others, especially if the nation is to survive past another fifty years or so.

And the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

 

[Xzi]

And the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

Who gives a fuck? The workers were granted far greater agency over their own lives in the long run, after that it wasn't until about the 80s that we decided it was okay to start paying people shit wages that were impossible to live on. Before that, whole families could live decently on one full-time income.

I suppose the point is that corporate dick-sucking has to stop at some point. Just one or two annual corporate subsidies redirected to Social Security or Medicare for all would probably fund them for years. I guess both Elizabeth Warren and I share that view. Not sure she has my vote as of yet, of course, there are a lot of candidates for the democrats yet to declare.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

You can be a hacker, and think whatever you like to think lol....

There’s a difference between a club that organizes a conference and an individual. Especially if the club has an official ethical code that was introduced after some members worked as contractors for the KGB in the 80s. The ehtical code specifically states to be suspicious of authority

I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives

We can split hairs over this all we want but a matter of fact is that no one who believes in a free and pluralistic soceity has to resort to violence to make people understand and a soceity that is neither free nor pluralistic is totalitarian.

One problem we have here is that radical leftists don't denounce extremist violence, often condone it and mostly try to blame others. I'm really not interested in their mental gymnasticts how that isn't a totalitarian thought police and as far as I'm concerned the line between radicalism and extremism is very much blurred on the left (extremism in Germany is defined as being against the constitution whereas radicals operate in accordance to the constitution). As @Ericthegreat has said, you can make everything sound great on paper.

These are the same people who give you an incomplete quote of Popper's paradox of intolerence to justify their actions, sometimes even with a nice comic that shows how it specifically applies to nazis. They conveniently leave out that the qualifier to justify being intolerant towards nazis is that they aren't willing to have a rational discussion and/or resort to violence and that it would apply to EVERY extremist.

 

[SG854]

Who gives a fuck? The workers were granted far greater agency over their own lives in the long run, after that it wasn't until about the 80s that we decided it was okay to start paying people shit wages that were impossible to live on. Before that, whole families could live decently on one full-time income.

I suppose the point is that corporate dick-sucking has to stop at some point. Just one or two annual corporate subsidies redirected to Social Security or Medicare for all would probably fund them for years. I guess both Elizabeth Warren and I share that view. Not sure she has my vote as of yet, of course, there are a lot of candidates for the democrats yet to declare.

Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.

 

[Xzi]

Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.

People are forced to live with roommates and/or work multiple jobs now. Or they just live well below the poverty line. Plenty of homelessness and starvation in America too, don't kid yourself. They're called the 'working poor' for a reason.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.

You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.

So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.

These are the same people who give you an incomplete quote of Popper's paradox of intolerence to justify their actions, sometimes even with a nice comic that shows how it specifically applies to nazis.

First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to.

They conveniently leave out that the qualifier to justify being intolerant towards nazis is that they aren't willing to have a rational discussion and/or resort to violence and that it would apply to EVERY extremist.

This statement makes it seem like you don't know the full quote, either. I'll link it real quick:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

So then, I'll ask you; when's the last time that it was productive to engage a Nazi in "rational" discussion? Or a white supremacist. Or an extreme nationalist? Their ideologies are rooted in irrationalities -- so long as they are under the thumb of the movement, they are convinced there are "people like them" that will support their bigotry. I don't support needless confrontation. In fact, I actually quite abhor it; "violence for violence is the rule of beasts," and "these violent delights have violent ends," as they say. But the fact that globally, we're seeing a rise in white nationalism in people running for positions of power, consequently putting a LOT of underprivileged groups in real-world danger? In situations like this, I have no issues with decking people like Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos. And neither, I suspect, would Karl Popper.

 

[SG854]

You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.

So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.

First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to.

This statement makes it seem like you don't know the full quote, either. I'll link it real quick:

So then, I'll ask you; when's the last time that it was productive to engage a Nazi in "rational" discussion? Or a white supremacist. Or an extreme nationalist? Their ideologies are rooted in irrationalities -- so long as they are under the thumb of the movement, they are convinced there are "people like them" that will support their bigotry. I don't support needless confrontation. In fact, I actually quite abhor it; "violence for violence is the rule of beasts," and "these violent delights have violent ends," as they say. But the fact that globally, we're seeing a rise in white nationalism in people running for positions of power, consequently putting a LOT of underprivileged groups in real-world danger? In situations like this, I have no issues with decking people like Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos. And neither, I suspect, would Karl Popper.

I have a laptop connected to an external monitor. I also have an IPhone, Wii U, the Library, and tons of other ways to access internet.

People are spending less nowadays for products. A VCR use to be over $1,000 bucks. Now you can get a blueray player for less the $100. Better tech for cheaper price.

HDTV with wider color palettes then CRT for around the same price. Air conditioners now more common. Smartphones now more common, majority of poor has one, and increasing every year.

Our standard of living has risen so much. We are living comfortable even the poor in the country compared to the 1800’s. And it’s getting better and better every year for everyone.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to

You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.

So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.

First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to.

This statement makes it seem like you don't know the full quote, either. I'll link it real quick:

So then, I'll ask you; when's the last time that it was productive to engage a Nazi in "rational" discussion? Or a white supremacist. Or an extreme nationalist? Their ideologies are rooted in irrationalities -- so long as they are under the thumb of the movement, they are convinced there are "people like them" that will support their bigotry. I don't support needless confrontation. In fact, I actually quite abhor it; "violence for violence is the rule of beasts," and "these violent delights have violent ends," as they say. But the fact that globally, we're seeing a rise in white nationalism in people running for positions of power, consequently putting a LOT of underprivileged groups in real-world danger? In situations like this, I have no issues with decking people like Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos. And neither, I suspect, would Karl Popper.

Please excuse the lack of formatting I’m on mobile rn.

Can you cite it was in direct response to nazis? I admit I haven’t read The Open Soceity and its Enemies but reading what people wrote about they’re saying neither Nazis nor Soacalists are specifically mentioned but it’s pretty obvious he’s criticizing both. Genuinely curious, never heard about that, I may be misinformed.

I think I understand pretty well. Obviously I was paraphrasing but he’s literally saying we should not tolerate people who will not engage in rational discussion and resort to violence. Popper also says that these ideologues also manipulate their followers but I wouldn’t think you told me I don’t know the paradox because of that.
Please elaborate on what you think I’m misunderstanding.

WRT rational discussion with Nazis. I always maintained that both extremes are wrong but you’d have to turn a blind eye not to notice the inflationary accusations of Nazism, oftentimes refusing to discuss or you could say “denounce all argument”.

Popper specifically says that we should place intolerant people outside the law, IMO it’s quite obvious he means exercising the governments monopoly on violence as it’s mandated by the free soceity to do so, this is further substantiated by his statement that we don’t need to surpress if we can keep them in check by public opinion, it’s action that needs to come from soceity not some vigilantes.
So no, I would not suspect Popper would agree with you at all here, I would even go as far as to say you would qualify as an “intolerant” by his definition.

This is all about a free society’s ability to destroy itself. The left’s inability to denounce intolerance on their side is as much a contributor to the chasm in soceity as right extremists are.

 

[SG854]

People are forced to live with roommates and/or work multiple jobs now. Or they just live well below the poverty line. Plenty of homelessness and starvation in America too, don't kid yourself. They're called the 'working poor' for a reason.

How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group?

Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.

Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1. Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.

The homelessness problem is mostly in places with rent control. Expensive housing is mostly in rent control places. Not all of America.

 

[Xzi]

How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group

Lol, all age groups are subject to poverty, whole families can be found on the streets in most of middle America now.

Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.

I mean we're talking about years America has actually been in existence, not the 1600s and shit.

Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space.

We have housing shortages because that drives up the value of the empty houses, which are owned by banks. They could easily build several more housing developments, and it's actually cheaper for the city to house the homeless in small individual shelters than leave them on the street, but scarcity drives demand. Almighty dollar above everything else.

The homelessness problem is mostly in places with rent control. Expensive housing is mostly in rent control places. Not all of America.

Homelessness is everywhere, just as drug addiction is everywhere. You only witness more of it in larger cities because the populations are far denser there. You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't plenty of homeless vets and/or drug addicts anywhere you go. The unemployment rate is pretty low right now, but it doesn't account for the massive portion of the population that is no longer part of the labor force at all.

 

[notimp]

How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group?

Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.

Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1. Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.

You must have lived behind a rock, or gotten all your information from youtube so far.. (Trolling a bit, stay calm rest of the thread will be friendly. )

How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group?

Age group is hard to tell, but in most nations around the world people were kept at the income levels of the 1990s (if you adjust for inflation), that means that they did not participate in economic growth in any way since then.
See: https://economia.icaew.com/opinion/january-2019/ending-austerity-give-everyone-a-pay-rise (Just first google result. It also states that till 2008 they still were growing - but that might be britain only? Look for better sources. (Some UN organization preferably))

Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.

Grow up to be an educated human being, would you? At least in europe your parents generation usually had one job, they held for life, and better social care systems to compliment it. You dont compare using the stone ages.

Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1.

While this has some logic to it, because in the past people lived in flats as families of ten, on less space - looking at you parents generation again - you are at a disadvantage.

Also - usually peoples attitudes change, when they get married and have children.

But just tell your room mate not to have an affair with your guy/gal every day - and it all will turn out fine living in the same space. Just dont forget to do it after you've had your third child - those are the hard years..

Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.

Thats entirely wrong - because the housing market was coopted for financial investment strategies. When the financial crisis hit, and interest rates on savings where fixed at 0% (with inflation thats negative, so normal people payed for the crisis), wealthier people went into real estate big time. Maybe less so in the US, where people either live in cardboard shacks (drywall), or skyscrapers (limited real estate) but in Europe this has become a massive problem. Our cities are old. The houses there are built well. People rent. "Owning and renting out living space" for 20 years is something with a fixed cost ceiling - and a crisis proof annual return. Because our cities are still growing, and there is no fixed price housing market, and stable annual return on investment is a rare commodiy - prices exploded. (Investors wanted higher returns.)

@how long: Millennials in most of the world are a "lost generation", economic growth is not supposed to get back up to the levels your parents enjoyed. With your incomes you can't save up to own property anymore - you basically will be milked until you are dead.

In the US the economic recovery after the crisis went a bit faster than in the rest of the world - so currently most millennials there are happy spenders of disposable income (they keep the economy afloat), but in terms of savings or investments they are living hand to mouth. And again, will do so until they are dead. The generation after them should enjoy some modest growth (that wont be eaten up by inflation and 0% interest rates) again - but not anywhere at the levels seen in the 1980s.

 

[notimp]

Im trying to understand what you mean by this?

Virtue signaling, that you are socially interested/concerned/motivated - when your actions could effectively be seen as doing the opposite - even if unknowingly. You should be more intelligent given the accolades and opportunities you had, standing at the stage you are talking from, giving that talk.

The "misfit at a hacker conference" statement is a loving nod to the peer group. So is the black hoodie reference. In essence - people that don't care very much about virtue signaling at all - but never the less, are more intelligent (creating conceptual models) than the average. The "hacker" thats wearing a black hoody, but is standing at a conference stage doing "I had access, because I bought into chinese elites believes" prep talks, while listing her accolades and promoting how well they could help governments to keep their people under control ("Because the people would like it!"). Is an oxymoron. It isnt supposed to exist.

You only get it - if you get a millennial, thats so versed in virtue signaling (grown up on facebook), and so PR damaged ("want to do something with social - so I studied economics"), that they actually choose to self depricate (wear a black hoody), while spewing corporate or state propaganda on a conference stage.

Its horrible. Its the worst. I wouldnt tell her that to her face, but it is. Please let it be naivity. Please let her grow out of it.

Thats about the thought process I go through after watching 10 minutes of her talk, and even more so - after constantly being slammed with "she didn't think that through either" impact stories, of how well she did data science - by reading her text books.

The technical capability is there. We need people with a moral compass in the position she is in (designing societal models that are big data driven) - not people that advertise "I dont think things through" but am a very capable data scientist - interested in high prestige activities. Corporations and even governments love those - but its still not what we need.

With better education comes responsibility. She shows none. She hasnt even heard of certain concepts. Much less thought them through herself. Shes a kid, going into the entirely wrong direction.

 

[notimp]

The odd feeling when someone like George Soros, makes your point on stage in Davos.



#stoleitfromgbatemp



(He didnt use the term millenial though. But he cared to provoke as well.)

 

[Bladexdsl]

millennials and they're supposed to be running our future. were all doomed