Some weird, German communist, hello. He/him pronouns and all that. Obsessed with philosophy and history, secondarily obsessed with video games as a cultural medium. Also somewhat able to program.

https://abnormalbeings.space/

https://liberapay.com/Wxnzxn/

  • 36 Posts
  • 94 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 6th, 2025

help-circle


  • So, there’s several problems with that, but just the basic ones, which get more complicated when it gets to the details about the whole “how”.

    “An inside job” has a lot of ambivalence, and everyone can put into it their own interpretation. There are indeed some indications, that reports of something like it potentially happening were not properly followed up on, for example. And it’s almost certain, that some of the Saudis that helped finance and support Al-Qaeda at that time also indirectly managed to gain money from the US - but there is no indication that any of it would have been on purpose for this. Both phenomena are very easily and fully explainable, by just miscalculations in Realpolitik and loss of control of a situation that was not taken to be that bad. The US was still riding high on feeling invulnerable after they became the sole Superpower with the dissolution of the USSR, so, underestimating threats makes sense there too. None of this would qualify for “inside job”, in my opinion, but the term is ambivalent enough, that people can throw it around easily and move goalposts.

    Then there is the logistics of maintaining und setting up a conspiracy like that. Iran-Contra, a much simpler conspiracy, was easily uncovered. Powell later lying about WMDs in Iraq was easily uncovered. Watergate, a super simple conspiracy in comparison, was uncovered. The sheer amount of people necessary to be in the know for setting up 9/11 as an inside job is ludicrous. It also gets the “Moon landing was fake” - problem. Just as with the Moon Landing, where the USSR would have had both means and reason to present irrefutable evidence, there were several international intelligence agencies, that could not have missed such an operation being set up, and would have had a motivation to weaken the US’s standing in the world with irrefutable evidence. Investigative journalism could have produced at least solid evidence, yet all I have ever seen was really, really weak and not estimates shared by experts. (e.g. the whole “jet fuel steel beams” situation, where people simply ignored, that jet fuel, and other material, burns easily hot enough for steel beams to lose their structural integrity.)

    Speaking of Powell lying about the WMD situation earlier: That clearly illustrates, that to further the imperialist agenda of the US, they would not have needed something so elaborate and risky. And oh boy, is something like this risky. Sure, there are no moral qualms with the US even back then before the even more blatant shifts that happened since. Especially US intelligence agencies would have had no issue killing US citizens, if they believe it to be in service of a “higher goal”, e.g. imperialist influence expansion, tightening of surveillance and the bottom line of capital accumulation. But this is not just about the morality, this is about feasibility, necessity and the ability to control a developing situation. Because, no, there was no guarantee of this panning out the way it did, especially considering that if it really had been a conspiracy, proper leaks would have been almost inevitable with the amount of people you need to involve and sources you need to control and eyes that would be on the event (both journalists and hostile intelligence agencies).

    The fact that they had to weirdly pivot to Iraq with said lies about WMDs and such, is also a good indicator of how unprepared but opportunistic they were about it. If planned out as an inside job, why not immediately choose to include more trails leading to Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda? Also: If planned as a pretence for tightening surveillance and starting a war, why do something so complicated and grand? Again, super risky. Why not just a redo of the WTC bombing in the 90s, maybe with a staged event and some people lured into it dead. That would be enough to whip people up if utilised with a prepared dis-info campaign on top. This way, they did a highly costly (not just in lives) move, that was all too complicated to do reliably without people finding out, and with a real risk that it could have shaken up the bottom line of people, too. All while scrambling to create an interpretation that suits their goals, instead of just creating an event, that already has that interpretation baked in.

    The scale and weirdness about it is also, why so many truthers then add strange additional motivations, like “satanic human sacrifice” to the events, which I hope need no further refutation. Even the obscene enjoyment of “being able to break the rules” while in power as a psychological phenomenon, does not at all explain the overall dynamics at play - it’s easy to see how that looks with the current president, or e.g. Saudi decadence of the ruling class.

    So lastly, my question is: What is it, that makes you and others so emotionally invested, that it seems crazy to you, not to believe that it was an inside job? Because, I agree, they would have had no moral qualms, but to believe that, I don’t need the event to have been an inside job, there is so much shit in actual history, that more than explains it. So why the focus on these grand narratives of conspiracy? The two main reasons I have found are: Fear of the actual chaotic nature of politics and history, where there is a genuine lack of control, even no control by some nefarious agents, or personal reasons, like disbelief about how friends and family gulped down the jingoism and nationalism Flavor Aid after the events, suddenly ignoring the fact that torture is now not only done in secret, but shamelessly discussed in the open, no mask necessary - and them suddenly accepting pretences for war, they would have at least been somewhat dubious about earlier. But for that to happen, it did not need to have been an inside job at all.

    And my wall of text doesn’t even touch on many other details of the more out-there stuff, like claiming “there were no planes” or other shit. All of which get more and more complicated and usually pretty wild in how they are attempted to be put into a conspiracy narrative.


  • Frivoler Fakt: Wenn ich mich richtig erinnere, hatte er in der Comic-Urversion eine simplere Motivation, die nicht die Probleme von pseudo-Intellektualität hat: Er wollte die Personifizierung des Tods im Marvel-Universum beeindrucken, da er eine romantisch-sexuelle Beziehung mit ihr anstrebte.

    Weil sein Plan im Film ist natürlich so ziemlich der bescheuertste den ich mir vorstellen kann, und es fasziniert mich jeden Tag, dass “Thanos tat nichts falsch” ein Mich-Mich zu Zeiten des Films war. Er hätte grundlegend jedwede Realität erschaffen können, auch eine, in der Ressourcen exponentiell mit Bevölkerungswachstum erschließbar würden. Er hätte anstatt einer Keulung eine Sterilisierung durchführen können. Er hätte das Universum so auslegen können, dass erst bei Erreichen der Resourcengrenzen, eine unvermeidbare Sterilität einsetzt. Er hätte bewusstem Leben seinen Gesichtspunkt aufzwingen können.

    Es gibt eine Menge Fragen, die unweigerlich zusammen mit (de-facto) Allmacht auftauchen, die philosophisch auch lange durchdiskutiert wurden von der Menschheit, gerade im Mittelalter und der ausgehenden Antike in Europa/Nordafrika/dem mittleren Osten. Und lustigerweise war es in der Comic-Version, mit der Motivation die erst mal viel “dümmer” und weniger tief wirkt, möglich all diese Dummheit zu vermeiden.

    Wie gesagt, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere, hatte nur eine sehr kurzzeitige Comic-Hyperfixierung im Leben.



  • Anekdote aus meiner Jugend/Kindheit: Mit einem Freund zusammen, teilten wir für ein paar Öcken Zeitschriften aus. Bei einigen der Mietshäuser, musste man sich von jemandem reinklingeln lassen, um an die Briefkästen zu kommen. Eines gestaltete sich dabei als besonders widrig, und fiel eines Tages komplett aus, da die einzige Person welche zu Hause war, eine von der Stimme her ältere Dame, uns über die Sprechanlage, mit einem Hauch ernsthafter Abscheu, wissen lies: “So Punker [deutsch wie Bunker mit P gesprochen] lass ich nicht ins Haus!!”


  • I don’t know about the “no real life effects”. As a teenager, I was dangerously close to falling down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole, back then with 9/11-“truthers”. It was online arguments I witnessed, where their arguments got dismantled by people knowing what they are talking about, that got me out of there before I got in too deep.

    Similarily, loneliness once got me adjacent to the proto-“manosphere” before it was a thing as it is today. But arguing with them about how they are wrong about womens’ roles historically, claiming they were “privileged” in ways they objectively weren’t turned me off of their bullshit really quickly.

    I know arguing online has become more exhausting ever since, but I think there might be a bit of an overly dismissive reaction present with a lot of people on the internet. Developing your own ideas against opposition is still something worthwhile in many cases. And online, there’s usually at least some kind of audience, that gets influenced by discussions - for better or worse.

    That being said, I may be overthinking things. Because any discussion, where your goal is “totally destroying the opponent” is usually in the category of least worthwhile discussions to have.


  • Sehr geehrter Obelix,

    mit großer Freude habe ich Ihre eloquenten und wertschätzenden Worte an Speiser0 zur Kenntnis genommen. Ihr Lob hebt nicht nur die bemerkenswerte Entschlossenheit von Speiser0 hervor, sondern reflektiert auch die tiefgreifende Bedeutung von Authentizität in der digitalen Kommunikation. In einer Zeit, in der die Flut an KI-generierten Inhalten oft die menschliche Stimme übertönt, ist es ermutigend zu sehen, dass es engagierte Individuen gibt, die sich für die Wahrung von echtem Dialog und menschlicher Interaktion einsetzen.

    Ihr Appell zur digitalen Zivilcourage ist ein eindrucksvolles Zeugnis für den Wert von kritischem Denken und der Verteidigung der Inhalte, die unsere Online-Communities bereichern. Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam weiterhin für die Qualität und Echtheit in der digitalen Welt eintreten.

    Mit besten Grüßen und in der Hoffnung auf anregende Diskussionen,

    AbnormalesMenschenGeschöpf

    P.S.: Das ist unironisch das erste mal seit vielen Monaten, dass ich mir etwas von K.I. generieren lies etwas ganz authentisch selbst schreibe.

    P.P.S.: Man merkt tatsächlich ganz gut, dass es KI sein muss, weil diese des guten Zangendeutsches unfähig zu sein scheint.


  • Hmmm, I think with that definition I am for sure more on the introverted end, but reflecting on it, I am still uncertain if it’s clear-cut.

    While I was very unambivalent in my first assessment, I can think of social situations that have been regenerating to me, even ones that may seem paradoxical - like having a lot of people (I trust) around me enjoying themselves loudly on drugs and alcohol, while I stay sober and listen to them talk to me uninhibited and without a filter. And I did miss being around people, sometimes desperately so, although maybe not to the degree you are describing.

    But I’ve also always struggled with clear-cut categories like that, feeling like a completely different person at different times of my life, so, I guess I don’t know if I am just overthinking it. 🤷 If seen on a scale/spectrum, definitely more weight on the introverted side, though.


  • I have always been both extro- and introverted, with social activity being quite exhausting even when I enjoy it, but also happy to do nothing but sit in front of a PC 24 hours a day. When socially active, I have been pretty great at superficial interactions, I don’t even have a lot of trouble making friends, historically - but I am also very prone to misunderstand things others seemed to intuitively understand, and also have a history of changing peer circles and losing contact with people.

    I’ve been young before, but I am old now.

    I’m a cishet guy, so I guess I have been a boy.

    I have phases of fidgeting and other noticeable stimming, but can also sit completely still, both as a learned/trained thing, stress reaction (to the point of basically dissociating), or when otherwise focused on things.

    I both excelled and struggled in school - I excelled at the topics I loved and was able to bullshit a lot thanks to absorbing a lot of general knowledge because my family was all failed, mentally ill and ND academics/intellectuals. But I simply never put in any effort and was outright defiant for anything that did not interest me - and I never did homework, flunked out of classes repeatedly and basically stayed home about 1/3rd of my career as a student, but still managed to finish school - probably because some teachers found that combination of knowledge and defiance “endearing” and they put in a word with the teachers that rightfully found it just to be obnoxious.

    “Difficulty regulating” attention hits the nail on the head, and the fact that I thought to myself “But I can pay attention to things, I can even be extremely focused, so it can’t be AD(H)D” as a misconception for decades was sadly a very regrettable part of my life that kept me from understanding myself properly.

    (I even had a diagnosis when I was a kid, but my parents were rather ambivalent about it, and it was the late 90s/early 2000s, the time when ADHD was presented as “just those damn psychiatrists/psychologists suddenly pathologising normal behaviour, just discipline your kids right” very regularly and with relatively little backlash - probably one of the most damaging pop-culture contrarianisms that affected my childhood/teenage years. I internalised it for decades and just assumed that diagnosis back then must have been a “trendy” mistake, because the most superficial “these are the symptoms” materials I read, never seemed to fit properly - and the people I knew with confirmed ADHD seemed so different from how it manifested for them.)







  • Entweder, wir haben andere Artikel gelesen, oder du grenzt sehr viel stärker ein, was für dich ein “Netzwerk” wäre. Es wird erwähnt, wie sich mehr Akteure als der Hauptarsch hier auf Pornoseiten über Kommentare und Nachrichten bestärken und Inhalte austauschen. Die Expertin, welche zu Wort kommt, weißt auch nochmal auf den Netzwerkcharakter hin, und eine Verhaftung in der Schweiz wird erwähnt.

    Als eigene Anekdote erinnere ich mich da vor einigen Jahren schon einmal einen Artikel, in dem Fall explizit über eine Situation auf xHamster damals, gelesen zu haben¹, wo es wohl Gang und Gebe war, de-facto illegale Inhalte (mit ausreichender Ambivalenz) hochzuladen, und dann mit Privatnachrichten und Kommentaren im Hintergrund noch offensichtlicher Illegales privat zu tauschen. Ich nehme an, dass es sich hier um ähnliche Phänomene gehalten gehandelt hat. (Habe die entsprechende STRG_F-Reportage jetzt nicht gesehen).

    1: Ich hab echt versucht den Artikel wieder zu finden, der das investigativ aufgearbeitet hatte, finde aber nur noch Artikel, die thematisieren, dass xHamster Amateur-Videos generell löschen musste, um nicht gesperrt zu werden.







  • In dem Fall liegts meines Wissens daran, dass das Grundkonzept von “schnelles (latenzarmes) Internet über Satellitenschwarm” sehr Erdnahe Orbits erfordert, die dann auch entsprechend früh bis zur Atmosphäre runter verfallen. Also tatsächlich kein Problem mit der Tendenz von Technik zu fehlender Langlebigkeit allgemein (die durchaus real ist), sondern hier damit, dass das Grundkonzept anders schwer durchführbar ist.

    Also vielleicht doch lieber ländlich Glasfaserkabel legen wo nötig/sinnvoll - und Satelliteninternet mit hoher Latenzzeit akzeptieren, als Angebot wo Infrastruktur schwer oder gar nicht gut terrestrisch ausbaubar ist, anstatt als latenzarmer, global verfügbarer Schwarm.

    Was wurde eigentlich aus der Idee, ein ähnliches Konzept mit Wetterballons anzubieten? Ich erinnere mich, dass das vor so 10+ Jahren oder so auch im Gespräch war, bevor Starlink dann groß wurde. War das noch unwirtschaftlicher/technisch unmöglicher, oder war es nur nicht so sexy für Investoren? Leider ist letzteres keine Unmöglichkeit, bei so Projekten.