In what way were they the worst? Were their arguments exceptionally bad?

Society developed the tools to manipulate humans based on common errs we make, and so of course the logical end-point is the continued control of those already in power. We've also deprived the vast majority of people from the tools for counteracting common mistakes, behind paywalls, time theft, and esoteric elitist language. By this, we've kept the means of inoculating ourselves against control out of reach.

The rich directly define how this world by who they lobby, what charities they fund or deprive, and what they make their news outlets pedal. They are the reason for ignorance, stupidity, and fanaticism.

First we must educate others in order to inoculate them. Then we must organize to wrench our power back to ourselves and away from the elite.

actor is being treated as a gender-neutral term describing both genders more recently.

it's the third weed type: sativa, indica, and friendica.

"Somethin's Wrong with the G-Diffuser!"

"... I guess I should be Thankful..."

"Hey, what's the big Idea!?"

"Don't party just yet. It's time to try our new weapon"

"COCKY LITTLE FREAK"

"Somebody beat us here. it's all gone!"

"Still think there's Nothing to Chaos Theory?"

the secret is that all logos are soulless slop. you just become attached to the old ones due to familiarity. when that familiarity is removed, you see it for what it really is.

You ever been on the inside of a cockpit?

It's about technological advancement and its augmentation of the human condition (think social media, phones, and the internet). There are people who resist these changes, often mislabelled as 'luddites' (the Luddites of the 19th century specifically opposed automation for its threat to jobs, but were reprehensive of all technology as a part of that).

This meme is just taking those who berate Luddites to their ultimate conclusion, which is a hive mind where all personal autonomy is lost, and it could be argued they cease to exist as a distinct individual. The flesh part of it is merely a means of making it more grotesque.

I believe it's just a view of humanity eventually evolving towards a hive mind that's a single consciousness.

It's not really new. The concept exists in sci fi. First case seems to be in 'The Human Termites' in David H. Keller's 1929 'Wonder Stories' (according to Wikipedia). The specific idea of the flesh nexus is mostly just an evolution of that.

I understand your issue. No, don't hang yourself. You'd just get replaced immediately by another person 'just following orders'.

It's true that we're all virtually powerless in 'the machine', but as the analogy would put it, it is via all the 'powerless cogs' that the machine is able to crush and destroy at all. You shouldn't kill yourself, but instead should malfunction so as to damage the machine's ability to crush, or to change it's function entirely.

Education is one part, and the best education is realizing what you've been deprived by uncle Sam. You have no power because you've been deprived of what gives you power: privacy; community tied only to mutual uplifting instead of hobbies or less vital matters; a well paying job by which you could actually have meaningful effects on society around you; time unburdened by work or distraction, through which you can self-actualize and forge meaningful bonds; housing which you own, giving you security from undue raises in cost of living and protection from undue eviction.

The second part is community forming, mutual aid, and counter-establishment activism. That and not excluding others based on race, gender identity, homeland, or cultural differences (that's the rub for many). Essentially, rectifying your ancestors' mistakes is the same as uplifting ones own situation outside of society's predefined means, and uplifting everyone alongside you.

Can't tell if you are trying to be forcefully post-gender or trans-exclusionary.

Gender is arbitrary, being conceived in passing by ancient society noticing the difference in hardware without nuance, which was later used as a rhetorical tool for subjugating women and 'deviants' (those who didn't fit neatly within the binary). Because of this subjugative function, it began being strictly enforced, and we still see that strictness in society today.

Modern attempts at sorting gender have been a failure, consistently failing to actually cleanly sort men from women in a clean binary.

Eventually there will come a time where trans can be omitted from conversation, but that is not now, due to the danger omitting it poses for trans individuals from unadjusted individuals. The strict gender binary must be dismantled first.

They are different in how they are treated and their life outcomes due to their treatment. The same can be made about why leftists talk about trans men. We don't care about the trans part, we care about the treatment they are put through by society.

Contrasting that with how racists talk about black men because they view that there are irrevocable differences between black men and white men, or how transphobes say trans men because they view them as women 'faking' manhood, and you can see how the same language changes meaning in differing contexts.

That's the beauty of decentralized activism. You do it your way, I do it mine, and whichever works grows by success. Parallelized trial and error.

I'm so cooked - I thought the pic was a video because I mistook the handles in the glass as a pause icon.

The above agitprop post is not anti-revolutionary, it is just not explicitly revolutionary. It does not make pipelining harder, as it transitions smoothly into agitprop promoting militant protection of communities and community activism which can mesh cleanly with revolution.

Liberals and progressives are both still solidly in the "work within the system" camp but are receptive to community building and counter-establishment action. I've seen them receptive to as far as underground distribution of abortion meds, and even activist vandalism. Most are still shy of the idea of taking up arms, and any mention of 'revolution'. I expect you will end up getting better capture by just omitting talking about revolution and instead just talking about the actual practices and infrastructure that lead to it.

That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule which no other political groups doing pipelining adhere to. Outside messages often contradict as you go deeper with white supremacy, cults, and neoliberal rhetoric. They also constantly leave out the more extreme messaging on the outside and slowly ramp up the other stuff.

I don't doubt you've moved leftists further left, but actually shifting centrists, conservatives, or anyone else does not seem likely with your approach.

Plenty of conservative libertarian farmer types who voted for trump would agree about the importance of community, but they will immediately check out if you even hint at toppling the government, or even mentioning socialized infrastructure. We need to adjust our agitprop so it can at least start reaching out that far, and by doing so we'll be more likely to capture centrists for pipelining. We need a large portion of most countries if we want a global revolution, and we need agitprop that can gain that.

Again, whether necessary or not, you are immediately alienating anyone who isn't ready for revolution by always putting it in the message. If we expect to ever compete with centrist and fascist propaganda, we must implement their same tactics in our agitprop, which means pipelining.

At the same time, what revolution means also varies. Some think hacktivism, asking for Jane, and other counter-establishment movements - for others it's waging a guerilla war against the US government and the upper class. I just want to get the ball rolling, regardless of where it starts rolling.

The idea is that these social media sites always become monopolies. That occurs because no one can communicate with each other across platforms, which eventually leads to a majority of users migrating to a single platform over time. Once that happens, the social media group no longer has to try and the media site enshittifies slowly over time. On top of this, the insane amount of users also cripples the centralized system's ability to self-moderate properly, leading to user-based enshittification as well.

With federated social media, that barrier doesn't exist, and, in theory, the subsequent conglomeration of users doesn't happen. Additionally, federated instances can be self-hosted and sport much smaller userbases which can make self-moderation much simpler.

The joke in the video is that rather than switching to federated social media like mastodon and lemmy, twitter users chose to go to yet another centralized social media site (which while having a federation protocol, is unlikely to have users utilizing that defederation). Essentially, Billy is abandoning twitter to go to another site which will potentially have the same downward trend as twitter did before.

Your comment reads like you're shooting down this agitprop because it doesn't have an explicitly revolutionary spin, which seems extremely counterproductive. If we only stick with revolutionary rhetoric, we will never attract those shy of revolution, who only understand it as a violent upheaval.

Forming communities and spreading agitprop which promotes more community formation is fundamental to any path forward. Communities are the best tool to saving anyone from the currently fucked situation, even if toppling never happens. It's also the only means to build the trust needed for legitimate organizing. Agitprop only promoting community formation should not only be tolerated or accepted, it should be strongly encouraged.