I have seen many comments saying that lemmy.world sucks, and sh.itjust.works is good. I have seen that lemmy.world apparently has a very poor reputation among other instances. Why? After a quick look, sh.itjust.works doesn't look much different to me. Can anyone explain?

Edit: many good replies. the conclusion I'm drawing is that for my purposes it doesn't really matter. I appreciate everyone who responded

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

Re: the old republic, I can accept that explanation, though the Jedi are still statist cops in that context, just not for a state with explicit internal slavery. (I only saw the prequals + original 3 + rogue 1, so I don't know what the current narrative is)

re: Thoughtcrime- I actually liked G'Kar a lot in Babylon 5, and having psychic cops does raise all sorts of issues with how they then get used by the state as enforcers.

re: 40k I get that it's grimdark and no sides are 'good' but that doesn't preclude a lot of them from being evil- it's just that they rationalize the evil they do as a choice they are forced into. I always took a lot of the the imperial cult stuff to be unreliable narrators- so much of their tech they don't even understand and that's what they have to tell themselves to justify their inhuman behavior towards xenos or heretics. Taking the World eaters as an example, Angron was set up. Not only getting the nuralink, but the Emperor could have chosen to teleport down and help him lead his slave revolt against the nobility, but he was busy with Lorgar coming up with new reasons why women couldn't be space marines. I haven't read all the 30k lore out there, but a lot of the plot points stem from the Emperor failing to properly interact with (or even betraying in their eyes) his superhuman children.

So critically, if you can’t understand the motivations behind the two protagonist factions in two of the largest pieces of media in the whole of human history, media written not for it’s depth of political complexity but for it’s ease of digestion by (lets be honest) the lowest common nerd denominator,

I would argue that both of those factions can be interpreted as the antagonists, especially if you view it from the standpoint of upholding the status quo vs advancing the plot. The protagonist doesn't have to be 'good' nor the antagonist a villain. In terms of character development the chaos factions do end up pretty villainous, but they're also the ones challenging the status quo and advancing the plot while the loyalists are just reacting to that.

why do you think your understanding of the situation in Ukraine is going to be more reasonably concluded?

If anything I think the failure to be critical of what you see as the protagonist in a story belies a possible blind spot when it comes to criticism of states you may agree with (or share a material interest with) in the real world. That said I have all sorts of unconventional opinions about the conflict due having family impacted by this. For me at least that makes it hard to see the Russians as some monolithic evil when I can just pick up a phone and call my uncle (lived in Karkov, got out before the border shut down). The guy even used my chosen name the last time we talked!

I mean, fuck, Juche is almost cartoonishly evil.

The UA war is the most heavily propagandized hot conflict in history.

Every other war has also been heavily propagandized, including the Korean and Cold war, which is why you have the idea that something like Juche is cartoonishly evil rather than the product of its environment- I try to approach understanding any subject by reading what the people who believe in it actually say, as well as what criticism there is from people with a similar ideology, as often their enemies are often just preaching to the choir.

For example, the primary point of Juche is that each revolution must be carried out by its own people, rather than by a foreign power attempting to dominate the younger revolution towards its own interests. I would agree with this, and fun fact, Juche was actually coined as a term by Korean anarchists, and anarchists are still one of the leftist tendencies present in the DPRK to this day.

Participating in rallies is good step, though I doubt that will ever influence policy- even when Trump was in office the first time trying to get democrats to oppose war was like pulling teeth. I even got told to fuck off by my federal reps staffers because I showed up at their office to pester them about their supporting Trumps warmongering. I personally prefer to spend my time making sure the unhoused people around me have a warm meal every week instead.

[–] Warl0k3 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

(For ease of reading I've once again broken it down. Man, these cold meds are great!)

Ah, I'm afraid you've missed the core thesis of what me might politely call my 'disjointed ramble'.

What I meant:

In 40k, it's not that "no sides are good" or "everyone is evil", it's that comparison of all the players on the stage is fundamentally meaningless when they're viewed through a lens that reduces them to such a simplistic binary. When examined, the Imperium's actions are usually rational (the Kryptman Gambit is a classic example) but undeniably horrible. It's the dark comedy of the setting, that any actions can be justified given enough context or rhetoric or simple need. A similar issue occurs when reducing the Jedi as they are presented in the movie-canon to "statist cops". They don't perform law enforcement duties, they don't police space. Their only role in the republic was as historians, until Palpatine insisted they be instated as Generals in the Republic's war against the separatists, a role they themselves argued they were unqualified for and did not want. Thence they were branded traitors, hunted down to near extinction as a result. To brand them as 'spacecops' loses so much of (what passes for, in George Lucas' mind) the narrative lore or nuance of the characters.

Few people judge the Russian people as anything except victims - certainly not as a monolithic group. That's the classic tragedy of war, isn't it. Young men die for the ambitions of old men. They're being forced, through politics or propaganda or nationalism or even personal creed, to inflict horrors on another people. If some are enthusiastic participants, those individuals are especially guilty. But if you continue to support a regime that produces those horrors and protects the perpetrators, time and time again, doesn't some of the guilt lay on you for their actions? Is it fair, then, to view Russia as a diverse tapestry of complex moralities? Of interplaying guilt and support?
Yes.
Absolutely.

On Tankies:

This is the critical thing that I think separates a Tankie from "just someone I disagree with". The concept that I don't support the war in ukraine, that I don't support those horrors, and yet that I am not afraid of accepting the guilt that comes with supporting the Ukrainian right to choose their own fate. The failure to grasp that concept, that's the single defining trait. War is horror, but why is it the sole responsibility of people who's land has been invaded, who's homes are being destroyed, who's children are being raped, stolen, executed en masse to accept the guilt for this war? Why would it be the sole responsibility of the invaders to accept the guilt for their captured soldiers being executed by the AFU?

My actions and choices during this war have lead me to carry far more guilt than yours have, I am willing to bet a great deal of money on that. I took those actions and made those choices with the full knowledge of what they would lead to, and I accepted those consequences readily. I don't know if I'd make the same choices again, but that's beside the point: I am not unique, nor special. Everyone fighting for their homeland with the AFU, or fighting for whatever reason they were told with the HPA or Putin's so-called "new axis", accepted that same burden and is being asked to make the same kind of choice. Reducing it to a binary, good vs. evil, either a warmonger or a peace-bringer, cheapens the sacrifices of people who have to make that choice, no matter which side you or they are on.

On Juche:

(I usually loathe to use the quote -> respond format, but I've been trying to figure out how to work in a response to this naturally and I've just failed. )

Every other war has also been heavily propagandized, including the Korean and Cold war, which is why you have the idea that something like Juche is cartoonishly evil rather than the product of its environment - I try to approach understanding any subject by reading what the people who believe in it actually say, as well as what criticism there is from people with a similar ideology, as often their enemies are often just preaching to the choir.

I think I do understand what you mean here, and I'm increasingly sure we'd get along quite well in person. And so I would like to express, and I say this with nothing but sincerity, that I am worried your approach to contentious or propagandized topics (while a genuinely laudable magnanimous outlook to have) may too easily lead you into unfairly restricting your sources of criticism. Extrapolated out to an extreme degree, it's easily to extend holding internal criticism in the highest regard to the point that outside perspectives can be dismissed with "Ah, but how can he criticize society without participating in society?" While a good place to start on any topic is obviously those most familiar with the topic, and the entire discipline of academia is based on this principle, it's a viewpoint which can be all too easily manipulated so that you are only shown curated, or propagandized, accounts of a system.

spoiler To carry forward the example of Juche:
We have the selected writings, accounts, essays, stated principals etc. of Kim Il-Sung, and while we can no doubt both agree that the accounts we have are heavily edited version of the original works, we can also probably agree that those edits were made with his full knowledge and approval. They do, in short, say what he meant.

What he meant, too, were understandable goals. Independence, self reliance, security of 'hearth and thought' (I assume this is a catchier slogan in korean). Freedom from the influence of outside governments, defense of their interpretation of socialism since, though it might not be what others consider the best, it is what we consider the best. So on and so forth, nationalism through a socialist approach. And, were you to read only their accounts, they succeeded spectacularly.

But that doesn't quite square with the realities they show us. We know how, for decades, they have been extremely reliant on US and South Korean humanitarian aid deliveries. This is exhaustively documented, and while I feel there is no shame in accepting those handouts especially as they have been effectively isolated from all larger markets (which was sort of their goal, I know that's not 100% right but this is already 12 paragraphs), they fervently deny their acceptance of this aid even on an international stage. Why? And who should we believe, those critical of the system that point to this as a failure of the core principles of Juche, or those who practice Juche, who either deny or fabricate justifications for accepting this aid?

There's massive portraits of Kims Jong-Un, Jong-Il and Il-Sung. National pride is all well and good, and we have mount rushmore after all. But, while there's active and very publicized legal attempts to demolish Rushmore as a tacky monument built on sacred, stolen land, there's only one of those featuring the 'founding fathers'. You can see, even on google maps, dozens upon dozens of murals, statues, rose-gardens grown in the shape of their portraits. They have celebrations and venerate those three men as unto gods themselves. Is this Juche? It's not in the original works, it's certainly not discussed by DPRK public statements. Nor is it broadly discussed by their allies, what few of them they have.

So who do we turn to learn about this? Survivors, those self-styled escapees who tell us of their experiences, are the usual route. But can we believe them? They would seem to have little reason to lie about their experiences, KR doesn't treat them terribly well so they clearly aren't being bribed. But the stories they bring us are... horrifying. Institutionalized sex slavery of highschool girls. Executions by anti aircraft cannon. People made to celebrate until they collapse, then are beaten until they stand again or die from their injuries. Generations of families held hostage, concentration camps for political enemies and foreign captives alike. Gassings, lack of sewer systems, rampant corruption, roman decimation of underperforming military units.

Those are the stories we hear from the people critical of Juche rule, the few who are able to speak about their experiences freely. We do not know what those who live under the DPRK's rule have to say, because they have no mouth from which to scream. Even if they did find one, it's claimed they and everyone related to them would be killed. How do you rate their credibility? I wholly believe some of it is exaggerated. Claims of execution by mortar are just... well having tried to aim mortars, they're either made up or it's the most tedious execution ever. But... how do you rate these stories? Who do you believe? How can you be sure that, in a drive to find the most reasonable truth, you aren't discounting outliers that appear extreme because they're either propaganda or... just impossibly horrible? Especially in a situation where the only other data being presented is so clearly and openly curated to appear moderate.

I am very sincerely asking, I would absolutely like to know your perspective here. It's not a question to which I think I have a satisfying answer.

:::

(Addendum:)

In the most exhaustively well documented example we have of the AFU executing prisoners, the executed prisoners had filmed themselves gang-raping a child. Extrajudicial killing is fundamentally wrong, and I condemn them sincerely for their actions, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't understand their choice. And to their credit, the AFU has not in any way attempted to cover up the actions or to excuse the prosecution of the soldiers that did it. Though, I doubt they'd be able to fill a full firing squad of men who would be willing to pull the trigger.

[–] Warl0k3 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

(A spoiler heavy bonus rant about the current star-wars narrative.)

Since I've got fuck all else to do while I'm down with this cold, here's a rant:

The new movies are bad. Bad bad. Really, tediously bad.

Okay To be fair, the newest 3 movies have some great scenes in them. The battle of Crait and Luke, the Supremacy hyperspace jump, Porgs, the flying woman scene, the shiny woman that never comes up again after the first movie. Luke drinking raw green space cow milk (yeah, that happens).

But the rest, it's just so meh. It falls flat, and it's made all the worse because there's some truly great ideas in it, then it gets all disney'd up. Seriously, their stand-in for Vader throws a temper tantrum in an elevator and then smashes up his helmet. The big evil twist is that, get this, the big evil sith is the protag's father. No seriously, they do that again. And it's palpatine this time, they brought him back because nobody could figure out how to make the BBEG 'snoke' actually scary. Oh, and Big Papa P's evil plan? What if every ship had a death star laser mounted on it! Muahahaha! Oh and then Rey and Kylo... uh, pull a lightsaber out of their ears? That scene was baffling.

But I'll confess that I do actually like Rey's character and feel she is actually a decent addition to the Disney princess lineup, and as children's movies go, they're really not that egregious.

Anyways If you want genuinely good starwars content, The Mandalorian is incredible. It's basically Lone Wolf And Cub, but in space, with an insane budget and gorgeous practical effects done by Legacy Effects, a company founded by Stan Winston's four most prodigal students. As a puppetry and SFX nerd it's an absolute buffet of beautiful content. Also they got Taika Watiti, Rachel Morrison and Jon Favreau to direct some of it, Werner Herzog guest stars (and yelled at them until they kept the puppet they were using for rehearsals instead of having a CG baby yoda), it's actually just super fun.

After the 2nd season, the plot switches over to "The Book Of Boba Fett" (or as it's popularly known, "Dances With Bantha"), a show I absolutely adore because someone finally, after years of us begging and pleading and signing petitions, finally let the Wookiepedia editors write a show. It's not a good show, it must be said. In fact it's so bad that it just stops in the middle to become The Mandalorian again for a few episodes, I assume so you don't completely give up on it, but at least it's short...! And to it's credit it does actually really 'humanize' the native population of Tatooine, which is a big point in it's favor.