bobquasit: (Default)
Once again I'm effectively homeless online. I quit Reddit after the whole API thing; for some reason I didn't miss it. But I got involved again on Facebook, which I'd abandoned for years. I guess I really wanted a place to talk about politics.

It's probably me. There's an undeniable pattern. I get involved in political groups online, and end up being censored and/or banned for what I'm told are extremist comments. Now, as I see it, my comments are anything but extremist; the oligarchs are literally killing off the human race and rendering the Earth uninhabitable for life, but we're not allowed to even TALK about fighting back.

The latest round was particularly ironic, I think. I was on a Facebook group that was originally called "Guillotines for Billionaires", but was later called "Guillotines For A Better America", or something like that. I think the implication of violence was pretty clear, no? In fact, I was quite surprised that Facebook itself allowed the group to exist. It was pretty clear that the group wasn't hidden or anything, since we were hit by a surprisingly high number of DNC trolls. But in any case, I had fun making memes and being involved with the group. Until...

Someone posted a photo of a sign on a pillar that said something like "Thank a cop today", with a stick underneath that said "And pepper spray them". I commented "And kick them in the balls. HARD. And then take their gun." Okay, a little harsh, but all cops are bastards in my book. Nonetheless the INSTANT I tried to post that comment I got a message that my comment went against community standards - and that if I deleted it immediately I might "avoid potential account restrictions".

Now, there's nothing that gets me more angry than being told to shut up. So I quit the group and Facebook on the spot.

That's free speech in these days of late-stage capitalism; censorship by software, with no appeal allowed. The only places that have free speech are those where no one will hear you...like here.

So I'll be writing here and in the other digital holes in the ground, for now.

Either/Or

Feb. 12th, 2024 03:39 am
bobquasit: (Default)
 The Democratic Party leadership don't give a shit about democracy. If they did, they wouldn't have put a visibly demented, doddering old  octogenarian up against Donald Trump. 

OR, this is all just a game between the two major political parties and who wins is meaningless - the oligarchs win either way. In which case we don't have democracy and probably haven't had it for decades. If ever. 
bobquasit: (Default)
For the record: even if #GenocideJoe drops out and is replaced by someone else, I'm still supporting Jill Stein. Gavin Newsom is a sleazy scumbag; take a look at his record in California, and you'll see that pretty much everything he does is a betrayal of poor and working Americans.

Hell, even if Bernie Sanders was the nominee I wouldn't support him. He sold us out too many times, and proved himself a shill for the oligarchy. The entire Democratic and Republican parties are complicit in the genocide of Gaza, and for that there can be no forgiveness - ever. 

#FreePalestine

bobquasit: (Default)
First off: I'm voting for Jill Stein, as I have before. But if someone took me to the polls, aimed a gun at my head and said "Biden or Trump", I'd vote for Trump.

And if they said "No, Biden or death", I'd say "Shoot."

Okay, not really. My vote isn't worth my life. It's not as if this is a real democracy. It's just my way of saying that there is no fucking WAY I'll ever vote for Joe Biden. Genocide is absolutely unforgivable, and dementia is no excuse. 
bobquasit: (Default)
If Bernie doesn't win, our only option will be revolution in the streets. The alternative is a dead planet.
bobquasit: (Default)
Today I took Sebastian over to town hall and got him registered to vote. People were friendly, and it was kind of fun!
bobquasit: (Default)
Apparently Nancy Pelosi is very concerned that Democratic candidates might have Democratic positions - except for matters of identity politics and talking about workers rights (as opposed to actually doing anything about them, of course).

But that she ridicules the idea of even trying to shut down the fossil fuel industry in 10 years shows that she really doesn't believe that we are facing potential extinction if drastic action isn't taken about the climate.
 
Either that, or she just doesn't care. Either way, she might as well be a Republican.
 

2020

Jun. 19th, 2019 09:16 am
bobquasit: (Default)
I don't discuss politics here on my journal, because there are people I don't want to piss off. But I do still have strong opinions. Don't read it if it's going to upset you, but here's my current take on the 2020 Presidential election.

Personally, I'm supporting Tulsi Gabbard. She's the only candidate running who ever made a real sacrifice for a point of principle, which might make her unique in the history of the United States. Her positions are uniformly outstanding; unfortunately they're not yet linked to her 2020 campaign site. But you can find them here: TulsiGabbard.org.

I can't afford to donate much to her, but I'm doing what I can. I believe that she's one of only two candidates who offer the slightest hope for the human race's survival. And nothing else matters, because if humanity goes extinct no other issue will have any meaning at all.

bobquasit: (Default)
I wrote this in response to this video, in which the (writer? Voice and opinion guy? Videographer?) talks about identity politics and virtue-signalling in the MCU:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAt0LHKlTMY

The problem isn't actually the identity politics. It's that so far, identity politics have driven out good writing. The directors of Captain Marvel had no background in comics, SF, or fantasy, and their contempt for the genre really showed. Rather than bother with great writing and compelling stories, they created a preachy, condescending little morality play to enlighten ignorant and regressive fans - as they saw us.

Identity politics doesn't necessarily preclude good writing. But the attitude BEHIND identity politics does. The movie is no longer entertainment; it's a virtue-signalling device. And that's what might kill the MCU, as it killed Star Wars.
bobquasit: (Default)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned about the recent revelation that the rich are buying college admissions for their children: this greatly devalues all Ivy League and other prestigious college degrees. You graduated from Harvard? Who bought your way in?

Anyone with a top-college degree (particularly those from wealthy families) has now lost an undefined but very real value from their degree.
bobquasit: (Default)
 I try not to shop at Walmart. On the rare occasions when I go there, I pay in cash to deny them data.

So you can imagine how I felt when I went in there recently and saw my face on the self-checkout cash register screen. There was a small camera lens directly above the screen. Has anyone else seen that?

Anyway, I covered the camera with my hand and the image disappeared. I know that they have my image anyway. But I don't like this invasion of privacy bullshit.

I'm tempted to stick a small sticky note over those lenses when I go there. Maybe with something written on them. But what?
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous WebsiteInside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website by Daniel Domscheit-Berg

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


A difficult book to judge. In large part, it seems to be one side of a battle over a broken relationship. Not knowing the other side, how am I to judge who's right? And why should I bother?

In this particular case, the dispute is between the book's co-author, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and famed Wikileaks director Julian Assange. I'll credit Domscheit-Berg and/or his co-author Tina Klopp (who I presume is a ghost writer), with showing some restraint; they paint Assange as an arrogant and irresponsible egomaniac, but you can see them trying hard not to seem too obviously one-sided.

As for the truth of the details, how the hell am I to know? It's believable that Assange is an asshole. On the other hand, that's just if you go by Domscheit-Berg's word. Frankly, there are a million stories like this out there: a working relationship gone sour. I've had a few of them myself. Unfortunately this one isn't terribly more interesting than, well, any of mine for example! It's only the celebrity of Assange and Wikileaks that got this book into print.

There are two things that could have redeemed this book. One would have been great writing. I can't speak for the original German edition, but the translation in the English edition was merely workmanlike. Oh, it was handled well enough that it didn't jump out at me as a translation; whoever went over the translation did a good enough job, as far as that goes (and incidentally, I used to touch up and in some cases re-write poorly translated articles for a magazine myself, so I have some experience in this area). But the writing simply isn't anything special. Nor is there, for example, any particular humor to the book.

The other potentially redeeming factor would have been some really insightful details about the workings of Wikileaks. There's some of that here, and it is somewhat interesting. If it's credible (and I have no particular reason to doubt it) then Wikileaks is in a real technological pickle. But again, although I support openness and the stated principles of Wikileaks, technical issues don't mean a lot to me here.

The book is remarkably current. It's about issues that took place as recently as five or six months ago. That's a bit jarring! It gave me the feeling that I could have been reading the whole thing on some online forum.

I also have to say that I can't help but feel a little bit taken advantage of by Mr. Domscheit-Berg. His book seems to be little more than a veiled continuation of a running battle with Julian Assange. Okay, if his account is accurate, then Assange is an irresponsible egotist and bastard. But I wasn't involved in this battle, and why is Mr. Domscheit-Berg making money off of me in pursuit of his war? Apart from anything else, that seems a highly ironic act for someone who professes such high ideals.

Incidentally, the book was a birthday gift from my sister and her husband. I'm quite sure they hadn't read it themselves. It was a thoughtful gift - if you're reading this, sis, I hope this review doesn't hurt your feelings - because I am interested in openness, politics, and Wikileaks. I just wish Domscheit-Berg had produced something more worthwhile and in-depth.



View all my reviews
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous WebsiteInside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website by Daniel Domscheit-Berg

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


A difficult book to judge. In large part, it seems to be one side of a battle over a broken relationship. Not knowing the other side, how am I to judge who's right? And why should I bother?

In this particular case, the dispute is between the book's co-author, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and famed Wikileaks director Julian Assange. I'll credit Domscheit-Berg and/or his co-author Tina Klopp (who I presume is a ghost writer), with showing some restraint; they paint Assange as an arrogant and irresponsible egomaniac, but you can see them trying hard not to seem too obviously one-sided.

As for the truth of the details, how the hell am I to know? It's believable that Assange is an asshole. On the other hand, that's just if you go by Domscheit-Berg's word. Frankly, there are a million stories like this out there: a working relationship gone sour. I've had a few of them myself. Unfortunately this one isn't terribly more interesting than, well, any of mine for example! It's only the celebrity of Assange and Wikileaks that got this book into print.

There are two things that could have redeemed this book. One would have been great writing. I can't speak for the original German edition, but the translation in the English edition was merely workmanlike. Oh, it was handled well enough that it didn't jump out at me as a translation; whoever went over the translation did a good enough job, as far as that goes (and incidentally, I used to touch up and in some cases re-write poorly translated articles for a magazine myself, so I have some experience in this area). But the writing simply isn't anything special. Nor is there, for example, any particular humor to the book.

The other potentially redeeming factor would have been some really insightful details about the workings of Wikileaks. There's some of that here, and it is somewhat interesting. If it's credible (and I have no particular reason to doubt it) then Wikileaks is in a real technological pickle. But again, although I support openness and the stated principles of Wikileaks, technical issues don't mean a lot to me here.

The book is remarkably current. It's about issues that took place as recently as five or six months ago. That's a bit jarring! It gave me the feeling that I could have been reading the whole thing on some online forum.

I also have to say that I can't help but feel a little bit taken advantage of by Mr. Domscheit-Berg. His book seems to be little more than a veiled continuation of a running battle with Julian Assange. Okay, if his account is accurate, then Assange is an irresponsible egotist and bastard. But I wasn't involved in this battle, and why is Mr. Domscheit-Berg making money off of me in pursuit of his war? Apart from anything else, that seems a highly ironic act for someone who professes such high ideals.

Incidentally, the book was a birthday gift from my sister and her husband. I'm quite sure they hadn't read it themselves. It was a thoughtful gift - if you're reading this, sis, I hope this review doesn't hurt your feelings - because I am interested in openness, politics, and Wikileaks. I just wish Domscheit-Berg had produced something more worthwhile and in-depth.



View all my reviews
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Posted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Posted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Hidden Empire Hidden Empire by Orson Scott Card


My rating: 1 of 5 stars
The label on the spine says "SCIENCE FICTION", but "FANTASY" would have been more accurate. "RIGHT-WING FANTASY" would have been the most accurate of all.

Global warming is a lie, and even liberals know it in their heart of hearts. Guantanamo is relatively "nice". Progressives conspired against America, and were roundly defeated by patriotic red-state forces. Fox News is the only channel that even occasionally tells the truth. A Rush Limbaugh analog is a brave, noble, and lovable hero.

Three thoughts went through my head as I read this:

First, that George W. Bush could have written the whole thing. I knew that Card had been getting more and more right-wing over the years, but this surprised even me.

Second, that with each page I found myself disliking Card more and more. Your mileage may differ, but I found his opinions really offensive. He really seems quite proud of his bigoted opinions; that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read any of his homophobic and religiously-biased articles.

Third, whatever storytelling talent Card had has long since been replaced with a dumbed-down writing style and an urge to grab the microphone and preach the True Faith. He's really gotten himself into a rut; he seems utterly dependent on overly-precious banter between precocious kids and their parent(s), alternating with warmed-over right-wing political philosophy and rather limp and confused action scenes.

There's a worldwide epidemic and African warfare thread which is slightly less tedious than the rest of the book, but it certainly doesn't make up for the rest of it. The whole thing rather reminded me of the Left Behind series, and that's a memory I would rather not have dredged up.

It's funny; he was able to write well, once upon a time. It's hard to believe that this book is by the same guy who wrote Songmaster.

Avoid!

View all my reviews >>
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Hidden Empire Hidden Empire by Orson Scott Card


My rating: 1 of 5 stars
The label on the spine says "SCIENCE FICTION", but "FANTASY" would have been more accurate. "RIGHT-WING FANTASY" would have been the most accurate of all.

Global warming is a lie, and even liberals know it in their heart of hearts. Guantanamo is relatively "nice". Progressives conspired against America, and were roundly defeated by patriotic red-state forces. Fox News is the only channel that even occasionally tells the truth. A Rush Limbaugh analog is a brave, noble, and lovable hero.

Three thoughts went through my head as I read this:

First, that George W. Bush could have written the whole thing. I knew that Card had been getting more and more right-wing over the years, but this surprised even me.

Second, that with each page I found myself disliking Card more and more. Your mileage may differ, but I found his opinions really offensive. He really seems quite proud of his bigoted opinions; that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read any of his homophobic and religiously-biased articles.

Third, whatever storytelling talent Card had has long since been replaced with a dumbed-down writing style and an urge to grab the microphone and preach the True Faith. He's really gotten himself into a rut; he seems utterly dependent on overly-precious banter between precocious kids and their parent(s), alternating with warmed-over right-wing political philosophy and rather limp and confused action scenes.

There's a worldwide epidemic and African warfare thread which is slightly less tedious than the rest of the book, but it certainly doesn't make up for the rest of it. The whole thing rather reminded me of the Left Behind series, and that's a memory I would rather not have dredged up.

It's funny; he was able to write well, once upon a time. It's hard to believe that this book is by the same guy who wrote Songmaster.

Avoid!

View all my reviews >>
bobquasit: (Default)
This is an absolutely delightful (political) video:
Read more... )
bobquasit: (Default)
This is an absolutely delightful (political) video:
Read more... )

March 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30 31     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 01:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios