you use "luddite" as if it's an insult. History proved luddites were right in their demands and they were fighting the good fight.

we do, and anybody telling you "it's complicated" has an agenda.

Please yankee, don't make everything happening in the world about you

Gnosticism is by definition the epitome of duality. That said, conflict with a reactionary entity doesn't imply you're not reactionary. Russia and Ukraine are at war with each other and they are both very reactionary, becoming even worse due to the needs produced by such conflict.

Also, hackers tend to hold libertarian (in the European sense) values and that's how they pick their targets for direct action. When I say they are reactionary, they are reactionary in effect, not in intent. That makes them even more problematic, because it's not immediately obvious what's the problem.

It would be quite a long argument, but I suggest TechGnosis by Erik Davis and this article: https://www.are.na/block/24206425

tl;dr: hacker culture is grounded in gnostic, individualistic californian hippie culture, and shares root with what is now the dominant, reactionary ideology of big tech moguls, ketamine cryptocolonialists, business white supremacists. One key tenet of hacker culture is the power of the individual super-human brain power to reshape entire societies through the production of disruptive technology. Mr. Robot tv series is one such example of said mindset. It preaches the superiority of the world of minds and the virtual over the material. The material is subject to the virtual and the virtual is where the real stuff is happening, where there's a real confrontation of power (the hacker vs the system, disruptors vs established businesses, out-of-the-box thinkers vs corporate drones). This mimics gnostic beliefs very closely. It is reactionary because it is individualistic, because it erases material conditions and collective action, but it also just operates from such a simplified worldview that it is impossible to adhere to if you have a very basic understanding of disciplines like sociology, history or politics. It's just not how the world works.

I have a few. I'm not the kind of person that says controversial things to attract attention, but I also don't refrain from putting them out there.

A selection of the ones I use in my political activity:

• knowing things doesn't change things
• work should be abolished
• atheism and rationalism are a scourge on the ability of the Left to reach people
• hacker culture is intrinsically gnostic and reactionary

Some others:

• suicidal and self-harming people should be listened to by understanding and validating the motivations behind their desire to hurt or kill themselves, even entertaining with them their own plans. Anything else would likely put a wedge between the two of you that will prevent from addressing the causes and ultimately do what's good for them.
• mathematics is just narrative with rules/arbitrary opinions with rules
• nurses, doctors, teachers and other professions of care attract the worst psychopaths because they are put in charge of vulnerable people. On top of that they are by default perceived as caregivers, so it's harder for them to raise suspicion of doing fucked up stuff.

Edit: people down voting in a thread about controversial opinions must be very very intelligent

The mistake of this logic is to believe that this betrayal of electoral logic won't radicalize people. It is a necessary step. There are now 11 Million French people, many of which probably don't believe much in electoralism but vote anyway, who are furious at what's happening.

People don't change their mind listening to arguments, they change their mind living experiences. The experience of joy after winning, followed by the disregard of democratic logic by Macron, will mobilize an insane amount of popular energy, contrary to snarky "electoralism doesn't work" comments that are relatable only to a microscopic niche of edgy, maximalist leftists.

I'm a union organizer in tech. I'm Italian, but I live in Germany and I do interact a lot with American organizers.

In Germany, most organizing is effectively cleansed of political identity and needs to be conducted in a very sanitized environment to be appealing to workers. It's also very very focused on the legal aspects.

Americans are way more technical about the whole of it: more methodologies, more processes, more tools, it's a game of numbers.

Italians..., well, let's say the unions there deserve the hate. Not because they are particularly corrupted or conservative (which they are), but because they have no fucking clue what they are doing. They are much slower than their foreign counterparts, they have no resources, they have very little coordination and no interest in getting better. Like many things in Italy, they are slowly sinking in the quicksand. The organizers on the ground they are often under prepared and they have no concept of methodology: they know their legal stuff, but they believe that building momentum in the workplace is just a matter of identifying the right arguments and deliver the right speech at the worker assemblies. Basically they rely on luck, workers motivation and 50 years old processes. They also have no operational coordination on a regional or national level. People from the same union working on the same category don't know or talk to each other unless they work in the same physical office.

At a demo some weeks ago in Berlin I definitely saw them chasing a kid that was 12 or younger, but luckily he was swift and disappeared into the crowd that was starting to surround and corner the police after they charged the crowd from the side into an otherwise completely relaxed demo. Obviously, the kid was arab.

Police in Germany is composed of pigs as much as any other police force.

Larping as a tankie is definitely a thing of immature, terminally online kids, but I wouldn't throw Lenin in the bunch. While Stalin is mostly condemned as a reactionary psychopath by pretty much everybody except a few leftist basement-dwellers, Lenin is still read and taught throughout the world. Nothing edgy in reading Lenin.

Edgy kids on the internet worship other psychopaths like Pol Pot or Hoxha.

Most people in the field don't even ask themselves this question. They all have an incentive in believing it works.

There's a book about it though: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374538651/subprimeattentioncrisis

In the picture you can see organizations moving in the public sphere around AI. On the left you have right-wing and libertarian think tanks, corporations and frontline actors that fuel a sense of panic around AI, either to sabotage their business competitors or to leverage this panic to project an idea of being sellers of a very powerful tool while at the same time deflecting responsibility. If the AI is dangerous and sentient, you won't care much about the engineers behind.

On the right you have several public orgs or NGOs operating in the field of algorithmic accountability, digital rights and so on. They push the opposite of the AI panic, pointing the finger at the corporations and powers that create and govern AI