@kamilkazani I find his reaction understandable; with theories and abstract things, you can keep justifying and rationalizing ad infinitum.
It ends up losing relevance when you focus on practical action.
Theory without practice is poison to the soul.
@kamilkazani Is someone who acts like a gentleman a good example? I mean, someone with well-established ideas who remains cordial even in the face of hostility, but doesn't compromise on their core beliefs.
It would be like a very specific mixture of cordial rigidity
"cordial hostility"
@kamilkazani I think that's a general rule when dealing with the public, not just politics.
The more people you deal with, the more types of people you deal with.
And inevitably, at some point you'll deal with someone unbelievably cruel.
That's where a lot of people break down.
@ogsyedie@t6reshk9va@kamilkazani Couldn't he have acted as if nothing had happened?
If he did that, it would give the impression that the data was BS.
When he acts this way, it reinforces the idea that it was personal data.
@kamilkazani In the Democratic group, the internal factions seem too autonomous; there's a lack of a Stalin, a "quasi-hegemon," a king who prevents explicit internal struggles.
@kamilkazani But wasn't the oligarchy surrounding Stalin particularly submissive because they were his personal vassals?
I think I phrased that poorly; I don't deny there was a group supporting Stalin, just that submission to him seemed to hinder internal fight while he was alive.
@kamilkazani But Stalin was an individual; this is a party.
Won't they eventually end up with internal division and one faction purging the othersβespecially when the old guard dies off?
Itβs a cancer killing the hostβand itself.
@kamilkazani Well, but this type of learning seems more chaotic and difficult to control, it seems unpredictable and eradic.
I think the bureaucratic machine is simply terrified of joy.
Supposedly, if you learn in an unconventional way, you'll be throwing everything away and wasting time.
@kamilkazani As far as I know, Brasilia was a city planned to be a kind of small utopia for the elite and a flexing for president (obsessed with legacy) to leave something behind.
but yes, things are comically expensive there, But it looks like a small town compared to Mexico City or Moscow.
@kamilkazani Well, you just accidentally explained why people are so theatrical and performative.
Since itβs impossible to avoid hypocrisy, all you can do is actively play a superhuman character in the hope that people won't notice the mask.
@kamilkazani How could academia cease to be sloppy? afterall, isn't this tendency toward blindness something you're pointing out about bureaucracy, and that includes academic bureaucracy?
@kamilkazani In the end, there's a good metaphor:
Guns don't kill. If you leave a gun on the table, it won't kill anyone; what kills are people.
Similar here with AI; you can ruin everything using it or not. Anyway, I'm explaining the obvious for those who already know :p
@kamilkazani I think a good way to summarize is that the problem isn't AI itself, the problem is depending solely on it. If you have a diversity of sources, knowledge, and reflection, your vision ends up being much more solid than someone who only depends on AI or just one informational space
@kamilkazani What I'm trying to say is, isn't your definition of popular revolution something technically impossible to happen?
(It's more a matter of how you frame it, with what words, than what can or cannot actually happen.)
@kamilkazani But how do you define a popular revolution?
Because a group of unarmed people marching in the capital is madness.
But now, with armed people, all you can have is a civil war. Can't civil war be a type of popular revolution?
@kamilkazani I get the impression that people just read something, feel momentarily angry, and have an emotional catharsis by writing a random BS. I doubt if there's any reflective thought before writing things like a personal attack
I don't think it's malice, it's just a lack of self-control