I’m definitely in the “for almost everything” camp. It’s less ambiguous especially when you consider the DD/MM vs MM/DD nonsense between US dates vs elsewhere. Pretty much the only time I don’t use ISO-8601 is when I’m using non-numeric month names like when saying a date out loud.
In Canada we use MM/DD and DD/MM so you never quite know which it is! There’s an expense spreadsheet I fill out for work that uses one format in one place and the other format in another…
What I’d like to know is why they’re developing Lemmy if they’re like, actively Chinese agents. No Chinese citizen would even be allowed to use Lemmy so it’s baffling, and the Chinese government would not want a social media site that’s uncontrollable by the state.
If they aren’t Chinese agents I’m completely flummoxed as to how this community formed that’s so incredibly pro china?
I have no idea, but I’ve seen many people incredibly pro-China who are not Chinese or have any association with China. It’s baffling but it is a thing!
No idea why but on the other hand many people are pro US and they have interfered all over the world. Then there is the pro russian crowd and so on. As others have said thankfully a platform such as this gives space for all viewpoints and we can respectfully share different views.
As someone living in a country once under a US-backed dictatorship, I welcome the arrival of a new superpower in town. Not that China is much better than the US but at least they should keep each other in check.
It's a form of brain rot when you hear the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and think that they're your actual friend, and not another potential enemy who just so happens to be in a position to take up the resources/attention of your main enemy.
Almost everyone agrees that capitalism is the most evil system ever created.
The part where we disagree is that the tankies think you need an authoritarian state to murder all the capitalist, and anyone sympathetic to capitalist ideals, and eventually anyone who disagrees with all the murder.
At that point, you have an elite class (the ruling dictator) and everyone else who either obey or die. That's not communism, that's feudalism with extra steps. Which coincidentally is also the endpoint of capitalism.
No, the correct way to spread communism and socialist ideals is via educating the masses until the masses demand it, and then it can only ever truly exist under an actual free and fair democracy.
Coincidentally, the first step in the process is the easiest to sell. Voting reform. Everyone knows that voting in a two party system sucks. It's how the rich maintain control of the government, it forces the people to choose the lesser evil and not the greater good. STAR voting is the answer.
That's step one. It lets us regain control of the government for the people. After that, we simply let the people decide, because the vast majority of people like left leaning policy. The two party system of plurality voting tricks people into voting against their own interests, despite how much they like any single policy.
And before anyone chimes in with Ranked Choice as an option. Real world elections with it have produced worse results than Plurality. It's about the single worst design for a voting system that you could have. A coin flip often produces a better result than Ranked Choice. Aside from the other faults of the system, Ballot Exhaustion is particularly evil. Up to 20% of votes cast in any given RCV election aren't counted in the final tally because of Exhaustion.
RCV actually sets voting reform efforts back. It actively hurts the cause because of how bad it is.
Anyway, that turned into, like, three different rants.
Great points, I do love me a meandering rant! Could you explain more about STAR voting? From a skim of the wiki page it sounds basically how I understood rank choice voting to work.
I tend towards the more anarchist side of things. The hope of the people ever getting any meaningful control over the existing levers of power, without becoming that which they seek to destroy, seems like a fools errand. I tend to think a more pragmatic approach would be building real, positive, anti-capitalist, local communities that live like the world is dying, and work survive the death throws of the state. And also democratization of the workplace for the love of fuck!
What I really like so much about Lemmy is the apparent willingness of folks to have real honest discussions about things. Even agreeing to disagree. I am intelligent enough to have a vague understanding of how much shit I don’t know, and that there is no end all, be all ideology. I just know that the world could be a damn sight better than those in charge believe it can be.
It would be unfortunate if some of the creators of Lemmy lacked the empathy and curiosity of it’s members, and supposed reason for Lemmy’s existence. I hope that isn’t the case, but it seems, by virtue of the fediverse, to be ways of growing communities in spite of.
I do find it pretty amusing that the supposedly “CCP tankie agit-prop” instance isn’t Lemmygrad, considering they literally have a fucking tank for a logo.
Okay, Ranked Choice is a system where you have to rank candidates in order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Fuck that up and your ballot is thrown out.
The way Ranked Choice is counted is thus, If no single candidate has at least 50% of the current valid ballots, the candidate with the least amount of votes is ejected from the election and the ballots that have the ejected candidate move on to the next remaining candidate on said ballot.
This works quite well if the election only has two rounds. You have your first choice and then a backup. Done.
It falls apart badly if you have more than two rounds. Your backup might have been eliminated in an earlier round, and now your vote goes to the backup of the backup, but maybe they weren't popular either and also got removed in an early round. Now your vote goes to your last placed candidate, your most hated option. Or your ballot is just completely thrown out. The ultimate winner needs 50% of remaining ballots, which can end up being 80% of the initial ballots cast. 20% of ballots are just thrown out.
And the really fun part, if you had swapped your first choice for the second, the chances of either of them winning would have skyrocketed.
Because Ranked Choice makes no fucking sense. There are about a dozen research papers based on actual real world elections that try to explain how the fuck the results happened. Results that never match the polling data, because the system is fucked.
Also, Ranked Choice has to be counted in a singular location, you have to physically ship all the ballots over, and if extra ballots show up, well, who the fuck knows where they come from. The single counting location also means you cannot start counting until after the election is over.
The "mysterious additional ballots fuckup" actually happened in a NYC mayoral race, the winning candidate was actually the one to say hold on, this doesn't line up right, the source of the extra ballots was found as test ballots that should not have had the actual candidates listed, it should have had something like ice cream flavors or some shit. Anyway, the winning candidate still actually won.
We can't say the same about the fuck-up in San Francisco, where the count procedure was wrong, and the actual winning candidate was eliminated in the first round, and the candidate who should have actually been eliminated was sworn in and actually served in the position for a full month.
It's these sorts of fuckups that set the entire voting reform effort back by decades.
STAR voting is substantially different.
A voter basically gives each candidate a 5-star review. Multiple candidates can have the same rating.
Counting is also different. You simply count up the score that each candidate gets, and add it to the running total. Counting can be done at the polling location. This makes the election more secure. There's no single point of failure.
You can also count ballots as you go. You can then publicly release that data as it comes in.
When the election is over, the two candidates with the highest average scores compete in an automatic runoff.
How it works is simple. You look at every ballot. If candidate A is rated at a 5 and candidate B a 3, then the vote goes to A. That's it, whoever is rated higher on any given ballot gets that ballot as a vote.
The twist is when two candidates are rated the same. Those ballots are still counted. They're counted as "No preference" and the number of those is also released.
This lets the newly elected person know just how much of a true mandate they have. If your average was a 3.2 and almost a third of the people who did vote for you had no preference between you and the runner-up, your behavior in office should probably reflect that fact.
Rather than just saying "I'm the winner, fuck you" which would likely still happen...
Thanks for the explanation! So the main difference is in STAR you can rate a zero, and ranked choice you can only have a least preference, correct? I can see how that could be problematic.
The main difference is in how the votes are counted.
In RCV it's a series of tiny first past the post elections all rolled into one. You vote for person A at the expense of person B. You have to choose one or the other, and that forced choice often comes back to hurt you. It's an Ordinal voting system.
STAR is a Cardinal voting system at its core. Think of it this way, giving a 5-star review to the local steakhouse has nothing to do with the 3-star review you gave to the sandwich shop down the road.
Basically, Ordinal systems fall prey to Arrow's Theorem. This boils down to eventually being forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Which then leads to two-party dominance. Cardinal systems sidestep that completely.
This live stream is about three hours long, but breaks down STAR and RCV, and the massive flaws of RCV.
I suspect the CCP has effective LLMs running coordinated campaigns on here and other social media. A downside of anonymous social media, it’s hard to know who or what is voting/you’re talking to.
But instances are controllable by the state. That's the entire point, to be the admin of your feudal kingdom that other kingdoms can defederate from, but you still have full control over your instance's content and users.
If you want something that can't be really controlled by the state, you need a platform like Aether.
It's worth noting that a lot of Chinese citizenry have actually benefitted from the CCP in regards to the serious economic growth China has seen in the last few years. Or at least, a lot of the Chinese citizenry attribute the growth to the CCP, and it's understandable why.
There are a lot of people in China that genuinely like the CCP government, and not in a Stalin way where you only said so to avoid disappearing.
That's not to say the CCP aren't guilty of some serious crimes, but when you've got a large amount of people having somewhat recently gone from from poverty to middle class, you tend to get a few die-hard supporters.
The post 80s reform saw a massive growth of the Chinese middle class, at a time when the Cultural Revolution was no longer talked about or taught in schools.
They’re literally financed by the EU, via NLnet grants. They aren’t CCP agents, they’re just communists, who tend to have a more nuanced view of china because they’ve actually read the history and theory of the chinese state.
There are tons of commies who have major issues with modern china, though idk if the lemmy devs are in that camp or totally onboard with dengism/modern chinese policy, but typically their (communists’) issues aren’t as surface level as “but tiananmen square! uyghur genocide!”. because they see those issues as being 99% used as western propaganda and heavily distorted.
Suppressing different views on a platform doesn’t make them go away, it only radicalises them. The only real, long term solution is debate and persuasion.
I remember a point of time not too long ago when the world didn’t tolerate this bullshit out in the open.
Guess what? We didn’t have the extreme issues we’re seeing now from these groups after allowing them to advertise over every legit platform.
So don’t feed me this shit that if we don’t give them a platform, that they will become a problem. They are a bloody fucking problem ** now** that we have.
Don’t take this badly, but we’re all racist (or at least some kind of “-ist”) because the Human Cognitive System naturally uses simplifications to be able to interpret and take decisions on the world around us, including on people, so boiling people down to some “group” on something very visible (gender, skin color, clothing, the kind of words they use, how they move and speak and so on) and then assuming they’re “like” some idea you have about people from that group (i.e prejudicing them) is a natural tendency.
Further all those ideas one has about “people from a group” are invariably bollocks and often absorbed subconsciously through the same mechanisms as used by Marketing to influence people.
All you can do is be on the watch for you yourself making such unfair judgements on others due to your own mental simplifying and categorizing of people, and stopping it when you notice it and refraining from acting based on any judgements that cannot be traced to what that individual has done and said (all of which if Cognitivelly a lot heavier than “categorization and assumption”).
So de facto racism isn’t about holding prejudiced ideas it’s about a whole range of how much effort you make to treat people based on their individual actions and words alone and stopping yourself from using categorization to judge people (and even decide what to tell them and how to act towards them).
Note that I’m not trying to excuse racism here: I’m saying you can’t simply deem yourself “not a racist”, because it’s the result of natural human tendencies so ethernal vigilance is required not to act so, even if your intentions are pure.
All this to say that “racism” (or more generally categorizing people and making prejudiced judgements on them base on that category) really isn’t the right thing to claim has no middle ground, because it’s a range and a person’s position on it boils down to how much effort that person makes to try and stop themselves from letting the “conclusions” coming through such cognitive paths influence their words and actions.
Or to put things in another way - people who practice violent acts against others purelly based on the skin color of said others are very racist (extremelly so) and people who have different expectations on the behaviour, life status and even worth as a person (i.e. presumed good person or presumed bad person) of others based on their skin color are racist too, though if they don’t actually act on it or verbalized it, they’re way way less racist that the extreme ones.
I wanna do it even here. It’s that ok with you or are you too much of a pussy to fight back even in a virtual space where there is close to no risk for you as an individual? Or maybe you don’t want to fight because you don’t dislike this ideology so much…
Nono, I mean punching literal faces or relentlessly forcing people out of inclusionary spaces. Shun them as the Germans did with nazis post WWII, there is only good to be achieved with this tactic.
I would never punch my screen, I need it to shame nazis wherever I go.
Ah yes, let just allow a bunch of violent extremists bring their radicalising ideas to the mainstream through the use of logical fallacies and of fake news in an historical period where the investments in schools and higher education are stifled by most of the world governments, I’m sure nothing bad will happen.
Am I right, Florida? And what about you Texas, do you also think I’m right? Italy and part of Germany are sure I’m right, so this must be a great idea.
There are mountains of historical evidence and examples to suggest that these people are not behaving rationally or even willing to be persuaded. You can’t reason someone out of a position that they didn’t first reason themselves in to.
Some won’t be persuaded, some will. Plus, when there’s a bunch of people in a room, there’s a collective will to find consensus and be liked. People who didn’t reason themselves into their position will move their views closer to that of the collective to be more comfortable. At the same time, if they are being banned and restricted, there’s an instinctual will to fight back. E.g. if someone is angry at me or hostile towards me, it almost doesn’t matter if I agree with them, I’m likely to oppose them.
Oh yeah, let’s talk about millions of American voters (to make an example) being fucked in the head by the alt-right as “someone”. Just a few people being duped and convinced to fight for an exclusionary ideology, what could go wrong? They surely would never try to organise a coup to forcibly take control of our governments, right?
Such a great position to hold, if you are deaf or blind
Plus, how would you have handled a swarm of uneducated swines refusing to partake in the most common cure to a viral disease, transforming themselves in the biggest biological threat to our societies? As a centrist I’m sure you would have fought to find “common ground” with the virus…
Jan 6th is the result of exactly the thing I’m warning against. If people are forced to create their own isolated groups, the views that make them isolated will only strengthen. If they are out in the open, it’s an opportunity to bring them back into the mainstream. If antivax views weren’t being removed, way fewer people would believe in them.
The problem with isolating as you intend it is that the sole web isolation Is not enough. They need even more isolation from any aspect of civilized society to learn their lesson.
Bar them from schools, hospitals, streets, public spaces and see how quickly their number will decrease, both for changes of hearts as well as for natural causes
I think my position cannot be defended when my interlocutor does not engage with a civil and honest debate, using smears, fake news and logical fallacies to cover his lack of ground to sustain his position. Furthermore, the only viable way to maintain a power structure based on these assumptions it’s to defend it via the use of brute force. Once these people will gain power there will be no way to avoid their violence repressing any opposition to their ideology, as we are seeing in all those states I cited in my previous reply which are now passing laws repressing the access to voter rights and limiting the people ability to join advocacy groups and activist parties.
So, no, I don’t think my position is weaker than that of a nazi but I do recognise the need to apply the same violence they would use once in power to deny them the chance to make their ideology a reality for all of us.
Intolerance should be fought with intolerance since it does not understand any other reasoning outside of pure physical strength.
Any tactic that they can use to argue, you can use too. Plus, you have the truth on your side. Why wouldn’t the optimal view win? The justification “they’d do it if they were to come to power” can be applied to any group and leads to authoritarianism. Trust that people are, in total, not idiots. There will always be some dangerous people, but that’s unavoidable.
Again, you are arguing to the opposite result of what an in depth analysis of the current world situation would lead to.
First of all I am not going to engage a debate in a dishonest way. Call it my upbringing, my character or whatever you like but if I do engage in a discussion with someone, like I am with you now, I do it with the premise that I don’t hold the truth in my hands and that I can always be persuaded to change my mind if presented with a correct reasoning and with truthful data. This alone does not allow to follow your magnificent suggestion to use dirty debate tactics and false information to fight a wave of bullshit I would be subjected to should I entertain an exchange with a fascist, a nazi or a communist.
Secondly, it is impossible to fight in a logical way an argument which has been implanted in people minds through emotions. The only thing which can counter this seedling is an even stronger emotion and, as Germany has reached us with its re-education campaign following WWII, shun and shame are two perfectly fine instruments in this effort.
Thirdly, there is not an hypothetical in my phrasing (if they were to come to power) because they ARE already in power in states like Texas, Florida and other nations around the world and we can clearly see that, in order to preserve this democratically obtained power, they are dismantling the same democracy which gave them this power in the first place.
Lastly, your free use of terms such as “some”, “someone”, “a few” does present the issue as if it touched to a small number of people. May I remind you that 74 millions people voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 elections? Are they all fascists or nazis? Impossible, but still they are all ready to give a fascist the keys to the white house for a second term, so they are all part of the problem.
A problem which, I reiterate, cannot be solved by simply sitting down and calmly discussing with someone asking for the eradication of a minority for the betterment of his own life.
Abso-fucking-lutely not. Nazis were not present during the German people re-education campaign following WWII and still the German people were able to be taught about the horrors of nazism quite well.
To shun and shame someone it does not have to be present during the discussion, you can just point at it from a distance and explain the reasons behind the social stigma from afar.
If you take away the nazis chances to promote their ideology in the “marketplace of ideas” you are not giving them more power, you are taking the little power they have away from them and you are forcing them to be enclosed in their safe space where they won’t have any possibility to reproduce. Once they will die out of exhaustion or old age no new generation will be left to keep on their fight.
Nazi Germans were not present after WW2? That’s a crazy thing to say when they were the ones who elected the Nazi party in the first place.
We should probably establish who we are talking about here more precisely. Are we talking about literal Nazis who kill people or are we talking about those who are angry at minorities and dislike Jews? Is it even everyone who voted Trump? If it’s the latter, you’re gonna find that you can’t just use force, the % is too large.
Given that this seems to be more of an interrogation rather than a discussion I will return to answer your questions when you will start answering mine.
How would you have handled the Corona virus situation in respect to the anti-vax crowd? Would you have left possible viral carriers free to roam inside your society or would you have placed restrictions on their rights? Should you have chosen the former option how would you have handled the backlash of the weakest people in the population unable to take the vaccine? In case of the latter option which restrictions would you have put in place for these anti-science people?
Still waiting for a reply to my questions. Is it possible that everyone shilling for fascists is not able to have a normal discussion while being the most pro-debate person on a face value?
EveRybOdY dEseRvEs tO Be diScUsSed WitH
Bitch, I’d love to discuss with you but you run from our debate at the first chance
What you were talking about is a possibile solution to the climate crisis we are living through being discussed in the appropriate sites and by the appropriate people. I fail to see the extremism you are talking about, unless you consider the climate crisis an extrmism but this would qualify you as a complete moron…
Mate fucking what??? Did you just say blotting out THE SUN is a legitimate solution??? Not only is this literally not possible with today’s technology it would cause far more harm than good. The guy was a trump supporter who was saying that as a reason for not voting for Biden. No, blotting out the sun is not a possible solution nor is it being discussed by anyone who’s not insane. “Biden blotting out the sun” is the type of far right extremist propaganda I was pointing out. I don’t know how this isn’t obvious
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was talking to a climate scientist with years of experience in the field.
Again, I’m not saying this could be a viable solution as I don’t have the competences nor the entirety of the data at my disposal to technically evaluate its feasibility. Furthermore, this is not (yet) a confirmed plan nor is a currently implemented program, it is one of the many solutions being evaluated by EXPERTS in dedicated settings to try solving a crisis which may very well bring our species on the brink of extinction in a matter of decades. And I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust scientists and their expertise when talking about complex issues such as the climate crisis.
To me what is insane is that we have to be talking about such radical solutions to face an issue which may have been started to be challenged 50 or 60 years ago had the 7 sisters not lied to the politicians and the general public from the '60es.
If the far right extremists are taking the solution out if context presenting it as if we are talking to create a Matrix-like world is of course the usual far-right method of lying to the public presenting an issue in a partisan and extremist way and it’s a problem of their electors if they aren’t able to see beyond the lies they are being fed by these ignorant morons.
First, it assumes that all views are equally valid and worthy of debate, which is not the case. Some views, such as fascism, are inherently antidemocratic, violent, and oppressive, and do not deserve a platform in a free society. Fascism is not just a different opinion, but a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to exalt nation and often race above the individual and to forcibly suppress any opposition. Giving fascists a platform to spread their propaganda and recruit followers is not only irresponsible, but also dangerous, as history has shown.
So, what do you propose to do with fascists, racists, etc? Kill them? Debate is an opportunity to get those people, who are probably very dissatisfied with life, on the right path. Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised. Every view, however dumb it may be, is worthy of debate or of at least being seen (people are free to ignore it). Not all views are equally valid, of course, but the validity of views is determined precisely during debate and argumentation. I don’t support fascism, racism, etc but if there’s a shortcut to remove those views from the public, the same shortcut can be used to remove anything! That’s a clear route to authoritarianism.
Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised.
Yeah, but stormfront hasn’t had nearly the effect that allowing Nazi’s to post on reddit/twitter/etc has. You have to understand you can’t unpack on ‘humiliate’ these people. Look at Steven Crowder, absolutely humiliated and shamed as he ran away from any debate with Sam Seder. And what happened to his views? Just as high as they were before. The only thing that hits these people is getting them off large platforms.
As soon as they have a voice, it looks like an equal voice. Look at the absolute travesty that was the climate change ‘debate’. Giving climate change deniers a seat didn’t persuade everyone against it, it delayed the acceptance of fact be years.
I propose to kill them socially. Shun them from any collective gathering and let them live at the edge of society as they wish. Are you antivax? Very good, no medical treatments for you. If you don’t believe in vaccines I don’t see why you should be using antibacterials or chemo treatments.
You don’t like the laws protecting the right of minorities? Don’t ask for law enforcement to show up at your house should you ever be robbed or attacked. Either you respect the law or you don’t ask for its support when it’s convenient to you.
Are you a dickhead to others and cannot live normally around people different from you? Go live in the woods with someone akin to you and you alone.
We would very quickly loose all the deadbeats who are a menace to a civilised society and we wouldn’t even have to get physical with them.
But it is you, with your authoritarian way, which would force them to follow medical advices and practices these people do not want to follow. I personally am only giving in in their worldview and I am allowing them to live with the consequences of their actions.
Besides, I see that you are completely ignoring all my questions and point against your reasoning so I’m left to wonder what is this conversation bringing to the table. As far as I can see little to nothing, we do have a problem but you are just arguing to keep the status quo as it is. Let me remind you that this status quo has brought us to the situation we are in now and that, to avoid worse outcomes, we do need to change something in our society. Leaving everything as it is wouldn’t help in solving any issue as we are bring shown by the situations developing in red states and in countries around the world, so what would you want to do to improve the situation?
As a practical example, how would you have handled the COVID crisis and the anti-vax population? Give me a straight answer and no word salads please
Second,the argument ignores the fact that debate and persuasion are not always effective or possible when dealing with fascists. Fascists are not interested in rational dialogue or evidence, but in emotional manipulation and intimidation. They use lies, distortions, and appeals to fear and hatred to sway their audience. They also resort to violence and terrorism when they feel threatened or challenged. Trying to debate fascists only gives them more opportunities to spread their lies and hatred, and to silence or attack their critics.
Third, the argument overlooks the harm that allowing fascist views on a platform can cause to the people who are targeted by them. Fascists often scapegoat and demonize minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, Jews, Muslims, and other groups that they consider inferior or enemies. By giving fascists a platform, we are exposing these vulnerable groups to hate speech, harassment, discrimination, and even physical violence. We are also normalizing and legitimizing fascism as a valid political option, which can erode our democratic values and institutions.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn’t legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.
Dawg this is like the fifth comment of yours I’ve seen defending fascists and wanting to give fascists a platform. No one wants your hateful, evil views here. GTFO.
And that’s a very bad thing, right? We should like fascits more, maybe they will then become our friends and we will all be able to live together peacefully in a perfect society.
Dawg this is like the fifth comment of yours I’ve seen defending fascists and wanting to give fascists a platform. No one wants your hateful, evil views here. GTFO. You guys already have a fascist social media platform. It’s called Twitter.
Well, you have to at least try. It will be effective to some extent. If they use distortion or intimidation, reveal it and make them look dumb. Emotional manipulation can be used by all sides. Of course, if they resort to violence, you are free to supress violence with violence.
Are you 12? Never dealt with fascists and bigots in real life? Debating then legitimizes their beliefs as valid and presents said views as just an alternative view, rather than the hateful, vile thing these beliefs actually are.
“In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
Maybe you didn’t notice but the civil war has already started. Just because you don’t see police forces and the army marching in the street it does not mean that there isn’t a war being wedged against minorities and the rule of law. And you are fighting for the bad side should this be not clear. The side which attacked Capitol Hill to keep a fascist orange in power might I add
Third, the argument overlooks the harm that allowing fascist views on a platform can cause to the people who are targeted by them. Fascists often scapegoat and demonize minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, Jews, Muslims, and other groups that they consider inferior or enemies. By giving fascists a platform, we are exposing these vulnerable groups to hate speech, harassment, discrimination, and even physical violence. We are also normalizing and legitimizing fascism as a valid political option, which can erode our democratic values and institutions.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn’t legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.
What makes you think that these people, who are far and away more passionate and deeply entrenched in their belief can be convinced by giving them a platform? When we can’t even talk you out of not giving them any.
We should not legitimize these views by giving them a chance.
What would convince them? If they spend time on sites that are set up specifically for people with their views, they don’t get challenged much. On the other hand, if they talk to the rest of the world, there’s a carrot and a stick. I’m not saying don’t argue with them or don’t shit on them. I’m just saying don’t ban them unless they are calling for violence.
When we can’t even talk you out of not giving them any.
🤣 The difference is that my position is based on logic and theirs is based on emotions. Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there’s no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet. If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.
Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there’s no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet.
That also sums up my position.
If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.
First of all, I don’t think that’s true. If we ban advertisments for Coca Cola, we just push the problem under the carpet, and Coke fans will only accumulate?
That, of course, is nonsense. When everyone else is allowed to do normal marketing, while you are not, your product, idea, or ideology will slowly start to fade, fizzle, and die out. I mean, if what you are saying is true… Do the Nazis also think so? Do they understand your argument? Do they think that their groups, their views, and their representatives should remain banned? After all, your argument goes, this is what will make them “accumulate”.
For some reason the Nazis themselves don’t seem to want that. They want to be on national television. Literal Nazis want antisemitism on all channels, and holocaust denial taught in schools. They apparently don’t understand your argument, that ideologies accumulate and win, when you suppress them.
I suspect that Nazis are correct when they themselves reject your line of reasoning.
I’ve followed this philosophy in the past in communities I’ve moderated. Every single time, it has only served to taint the community with bad vibes and the fascist provoking trouble didn’t learn a single thing. Never again. Kick them all out, I’m not sacrificing the quality of my own spaces for the sake of making them a little bit not so much pieces of shit.
Suppressing different views on a platform doesn’t make them go away
We’re not talking about ‘different views’, we’re talking about violent, bigoted, misogynistic, racist views that advocate for the removal/killing of people based on what they were born as. There’s no ‘middle ground’ or ‘debate’ to be had with someone who holds those views.
They can be de-radicalised sure, but not by a bunch of strangers on the internet.
You’ve got a lot of replies, so this probably isn’t needed, but debate and persuasion only works if the views they hold are reasonable and if they came to those views through reason. It also legitimizes their views. Often “debate” is used as a tool to appear like they’re the more reasonable person by being the one who always asks questions, but they never answer anything. They always attack and they don’t defend any view (because they are not reasonably held, just useful), so they look like the more powerful persuasive point of view.
Basically, argument only works with reasonable people. The alt-right generally are not reasonable people and will use your arguing to make you appear stupid and them appear powerful to recruit more people. Don’t argue with the alt-right. Only humiliate them in the hopes others see how bad they are.
It doesn’t even need to be an active effort of persuasion, just having them exist closely (in a somewhat censored way if everyone has them muted/defederated) is also good.
There was a recent study that paid trump supporters to simply watch CNN instead of Fox and they got pretty good results on moderating them down. You can’t discount how people, to some degree, absorb the views of those around them. Even just seeing reasonable takes can sometimes get the gears turning in someone’s head that could result in them thinking differently days or months down the line. I can say I’ve had my mind changed in similar ways, although I’ve never been a radical bigot.
Sure but they clearly aren’t swayed by logic, facts, etc. Because everytime they’re proven wrong, they run to twitter/Reddit where people who tell them what they want to hear are platformed.
Pre-this they had websites like Stormfront or whatever, but that was it. Small websites with small user bases. Now they have access to millions of people, and their lies are awfully nice sounding if you’re a (usually) young, white, male who is struggling. It’s not capitalism’s fault, it’s that damn immigrant down the block. It’s not their shit attitude that drives women away, it’s “feminism”. Then they grift and weaponize these kids, and they self-reinforce through the massive platform they’re on.
All of the ‘debate’ and talking hasn’t stopped Peterson from convincing tens of thousands, if not more, people that women should be given to them by the government. I’m not sure this internet debate is actually causing people to realize when they’re wrong so much as give them a bunch of “that’s ok, it’s those damn libruls!” back pats when they get eviscerated in yet another post online.
Dude, they’re gonna exist anyway. Banning them does not change them. It just … mutes them from you. They’re going to go to their next lemmy/reddit/twitter/neighborhood/bar/whatever and say the same things.
Radicalizing them and getting away from them, or if you’re a very great diplomatic person and persuasive and charismatic to change their minds, is the best you can do. But banning them, just makes them make their own echo-circle ANYWAYS. You’re not changing anything. You’re literally making things worse by banning them. You just make your place seem “safer”, but these people are gonna co-exist in a another circle anyways. You’re not banishing them from existence.
HEY GUYS LET’S ALLOW KLAN MEMBERS, NAZIS, AND AL QUAEDA IN HERE BECAUSE THEY EXIST ANYWAYS SO WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A MAINSTREAM PLATFORM SO THEY CAN SPREAD THEIR SHITTY VIEWS AND TRY TO RECRUIT MORE HATE MONGERERS.
Do you see how fucking stupid you sound?
Bigots, Nazis, and hate mongerers of all sorts do not deserve to be heard or seen by civilized society. They deserve to be excluded, banished from society, and preferably taken out back to put the rest of us out of their misery.
Please be more respectful to my opinion. I’ve got mine you’ve got yours. I didnt call your opinion stupid and neither I won’t. Don’t start a hostile conversation. I’m not here for that.
Yes, allow them doesn’t mean allow them to say whatever they want to say. Hatespeech like “I hate you because you’re white/black/chinese/whatever ethnicity” or “you’re a white nazi fuck” or “you’re a black scum” is obviously non-constructive hate-speech that does not provide any value. It only makes everything around you worse and brings more chaos and protests and riots.
Allow them to co-exist means allow-them to co-exist peacefully, by common rules that do not provide hate-speech to each other and provide our opinion in a respectful manner. Unlike you do for example. You literally shout to give your opinion with CAPS LOCK and just called my opinion stupid . Do you know how you sound to a reasonable person? Aggravated. Disrespectful and most of all uneducated. Because you do not know how to provide your opinion in a respectful manner. I’m not trying to insult you, it’s just that’s how uneducated people say their opinion. By shouting at each other. And the result? Is nothing. Just more frustrated people around you and you go home, play at your PS5 Shadow of the Colossus once again, and take your anger on the console and next day begins. But the anger still lives inside you and maybe to the other person you just spoke to as well. You achieved nothing constructive, you’re just goading.
Anyway. Someone living among us doesn’t mean living with their rules or saying whatever they want against anybody. Obviously Nazi-sht (yes it autocorrects it lol) and non-constructive conversations help nobody. Just like your attempt at calling my opinion stupid.
Someone living among us doesn’t mean living with their rules or saying whatever they want against anybody.
Lol and lmao, go tell this to the people living in Florida and Texas my dude.
You centrists giving the same respect to any ideology passing before your eyes are really the most uneducated and useless people when talking about how to solve the extremism problem in our societies. You just argue to keep the status quo as it is or, even worse, to give more right to expression to people who would happily take this right away from you and everybody else should they reach any power at all.
Please keep your opinion to yourself, there are people working to solve problems, they don’t need folks like you in their lives.
You’re not changing anything. You’re literally making things worse by banning them.
I think this is the misunderstaning here. There is no “changing anything”. This is not the purpose of the exercise. The purpose of keeping certain views out of public discourse, is to limit their exposure, in the same way that quarantine limits exposure to infection.
You can have a Nazi who sneezes his ideas into the minds of everyone on national television. That will infect a lot of people. Or you can have a Nazi who has no outlet, but meeting in a basement with his 5 friends, talking about Nazi things among themselves. Those are two extremes. Which is better? What situation should we aspire to?
Of course we are not banishing Nazis from existence. But we are banishing Nazis from looking very cool on national television. If you let them, they will try to do that. Should we let them? What is the benefit in letting them do that?
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason into.
Like the only way to deradicalize someone has been if someone close to them IRL talks to them or if some figure that radicalized them got absolutely embarassed publically for their views. Social media has done nothing but radicalized these people further.
It’s not reasonable in the slightest. Were talking about Nazis here. Their is no debating with them. While you wait patiently and try to explain your point they’ll be taking advantage and advancing their agenda. An agenda, I’ll remind you, where they literally want a large portion of society to be exterminated.
Cool. Let’s double down on dogma and orthodoxy. That’s sure to fix it. Let’s also be sure to remind people that disagree with us that they are in fact, bad people.
Now that I have solved All The Problems imma go outside.
It’s not about disagreement. Disagreement is when you think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream when obviously vanilla ice cream is superior. Promoting hate groups and genocidal monsters is not just a disagreement.
Because it’s important to be able to discuss ideas and disagree about things, and lemmy is a place where I hope to do just that. I can’t do that though if we collectively conflate the badness of ideas with the apparent badness of the people who hold those ideas. Ideas don’t have feelings, so let’s be as scathing as we see fit towards bad ideas, without trying to supress their existence, or create idea tribes.
In the context of the original post, sure, I can discuss shortcomings of communism with you all you want, but as soon as you start to glorify monsters like Stalin or Mao or other mass-murderers that just hide behind communism, I’m gonna block you.
Agreed, Stalin and Mao represent some spectacularly bad ideas that have been undeniably harmful, and I haven’t seen a convincing argument in their favour. Bulk banning bad ideas as “hate speech” bothers me greatly though. I much prefer a situation where each individual can just block the things they don’t want to see.
Let’s also be sure to remind people that disagree with us that they are in fact, bad people
Yes, fascists are bad peoples.
User who do hate speech are also bad people.
The society already decided how to handle it: the law doesn’t try to persuade these peoples but punish them.
Doubling down on punishing fascism and hate speech is not dogma or orthodoxy, but having ethics.
We have better ideas, they have worse ideas. Right? So let’s promote our good ideas and argue against the bad ideas. Turning idea-having into a kind of values-laden team sport isn’t useful.
If their ideas involve harming people or, y’know, genocide, then yes, their ideas are bad. People shouldn’t have to argue their case for why they shouldn’t be killed.
Agreed - terrible ideas. And we can all individually choose to ban people espousing such nonsense in the interest of protecting ourselves. I’m only objecting to that decision being made on my behalf. It’s not effective as a strategy to reduce the spread of these bad ideas, or as a way of demonstrating how much better the other ideas are. Not sure why this is such a controversial point - used to be a fairly mundane position to hold.
Except historically that isn’t true, giving them a platform has consistently resulted in fascists unifying disparate groups, spreading their views via lies and manipulation, and being viewed as more legitimate just because they have been given a voice, even if just by default. They then leverage that platform for their own purposes, degrading actual free speech. If you give people who are actively working to erode free speech a platform, then they will take that platform and dismantle it piece by piece. So if you want it to remain an actual free speech platform, you have to disallow groups that seek to destroy it. The decision isn’t being made on your behalf, it’s being made on behalf of the platform itself, and the people who would be harmed by fascist movements gaining more momentum. It would be like building a little bug house made of wood, and then allowing termites to move in. Except at least termites serve a purpose in nature and aren’t acting maliciously, unlike nazis.
Obviously, bans work on a website. We’re talking about a country though. It’s a closed space.
Are we talking about literal Nazis that kill people or just those who dislike minorities? Maybe even everyone who voted Trump? If so, you’re gonna find that it’s impossible to solve the problem by pure force because that’s half the population!
Post WW2 it worked because, in fact, they lost the war.
Debate and persuasion are great- until they have someone better at debating and more persuasive than you. There’s a reason why Goebbels was so powerful in Nazi Germany.
I’m saying then you gotta get better at it. Your proposal, violence, works against a small number of people. I’m talking about a massive chunk of the population. Not literal Nazis who go around killing people, but everyone who dislikes minorities. You can’t just force them to think what you want, the % of the population is too large.
There’s no guarantee they won’t have someone better than you. You can’t be assured of that. All you are doing with a debate is giving them a chance to legitimize their position.
Authoritarianism? No. Because it’s a problem with a single person in power or a small group. Here, I’m talking about the large number of rather passive opinionated people.
Last time my government said that “The solution is not force, its dialog and debate” was a year ago when trying to dialog with terrorists, it definitely did not end good…
I’m in favor of liberty of expression, but there are really some humans that are insane…
Mmmm. No. Because those people will never follow the rules, will never act in good faith. Could Poland in the 30s hope to ‘sit down and have a good debate’ with the nazis? Fuck no. The nazis then are no different than the nazis now, it’s just that the ones we have today are stupid as shit.
You stomp out Nazis and extremists like the cockroaches they are. They need to know they don’t have a seat at the table . They don’t get to express their worldview in public spaces. They should always be reminded that we bent over the fascists once before and we will do it again. The only good fascist is a little bitch fascist that’s afraid to leave their house in case they catch an elbow. Make Nazis afraid again.
Except the nazi playbook literally involves invading spaces that support free speech and commandeering them in order to silence other groups and give themselves a platform to radicalize others more easily. If you truly value free speech then you don’t want to give nazis or neo-nazis a platform.
Look up the paradox of tolerance. It’s not about ideas, it’s about the battle of “free speech” and how tolerating everything leads to nazism/fascism, if it’s prevelent enough in a society. Not all speech should be protected, basically. If you agree to let nazis have their platform as a right then you will lose to them in the end.
In a battle ground of ideas, Nazis cheat. That’s the problem. Their methodology fundamentally involves making sure that the “battle ground” favours them above anyone else.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
It’s not like breaking the rules in monopoly, but abusing the tools of discourse to deceive, manipulate, and bring people down a pipeline.
For one, they lie. They lie, lie, lie. Nazi’s lie more naturally than they breath. What they want more than anything is a platform to spread those lies to people who are vulnerable to those lies. Hitler didn’t seize power, he was elected into it.
They want a platform, any platform, for mainly 2 reasons, neither of which are for the sake of logical debate or upholding freedom of speech:
to spread their propaganda, which again is full of manipulative lies that feed on pre-existing biases. People don’t become radicalized from nothing, they’re fed a specific narrative that leads them down a road of reasoning that feels, to those people, like it makes sense, until they’re in too deep to be willing to consider that they’re wrong.
to UNIFY disparate groups that share their views or are at least willing to brush elbows with the nazi party to achieve their ends. This unification of disparate groups can lend them a lot more strength and influence than they’d otherwise have if they were kept separate. They want a platform that let’s them, essentially, stand up on stage with a microphone going “alright, hands up if you share some of these views and are willing to go along with the rest as long as you get what you want in the end”. Now they won’t state the worst of their views outright, they’ll just couch them in nicer terms, but people who share them will recognize them. And even those who don’t agree with the extreme versions of those views are just targets ripe for radicalization.
So then not only do they have a platform, but they have larger numbers flocking to this platform, which gives their voices more weight, and makes them feel more supported in their views. It makes them seem more reasonable, more legitimate. It makes them more appealing. They don’t just stand up at the podium and say “gas the Jews”, because they’re not being honest. They say stuff like “I just think we should be concerned about how many Jewish people are in positions of power, using that power to their own ends. I just think it’s strange, that’s all. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating violence. I’m just asking questions, I just have concerns.” and they’re not advocating violence technically, yet. Not in public at least. And if you say" hey that sounds awfully anti-Semitic" they deflect. “it’s just an observation of a fact. Apparently facts are anti-Semitic now”. They have any number of excuses ready for why their views don’t actually count as being anti-Semitic, and if you say otherwise, we’ll, you’re just trying to silence them. Because that’s the thing, once they’ve established themselves, they can start saying that anyone calling them out is against free speech, and use that to start shutting down dessenting voices. They don’t actually care about discussing their views, most of the time they know that their views are extreme, that’s why they couch them in nicer, less honest terms all the time. They don’t care. They just want to gain as much influence and power as possible, and they’ll use any platform they can get their hands on to do it. If you aren’t aware of their tactics and how they work, then it can be difficult to spot what they’re doing, and most people haven’t done research on the subject and thus won’t recognize the dog whistles and manipulation. And their targets aren’t always the Jews, sometimes they’re other groups, like trans people, or left wing groups, or the gays, etc. They might even pick and choose based on whatever gets them more traction at the time. Jews are just their most well known and popular target. But the nazis ultimate goal as a movement/idiology isn’t specifically to get rid of Jews, it’s to gain power. The Jews were just an easy target at the height of their power.
Some examples of dog whistles that have been particularly relevant in recent years include calling an entire demographic “groomers” or “pedophiles” and associating then with pedophilia. Claiming that they’re just concerned about protecting a specific vulnerable demographic (this demographic may or may not actually be vulnerable) from a perceived threat. Their favourite demographic is commonly women, children, or in the case of more racist actors, they may be trying to protect their heritage, their genes, their population, their jobs, etc. People who tout the great replacement theory are heavily intertwined with nazi ideology for example, if they’re not just outright nazis. The target of their ire doesn’t really matter, they just need some sort of enemy or boogieman to unite people against, including people who might not otherwise cooperate or associate with them. See how nazis have been cozying up with terf groups, or religious groups, or anti-abortion groups for example.
They especially like to take advantage of economic or political strife to get their feet in the door. That strife creates desperation, makes people more susceptible to propaganda that promises a solution and gives them an easy enemy to fight against and a strong group to follow and team up with. Then that group promises that they’re the ones who see the dangers of said enemy, and will thus be the ones to actually do something about it.
Hitler didn’t get popular in a day. He had to build his credibility over time, and giving someone a platform makes them appear more credible no matter how ridiculous you think their claims might seem. And if they catch the ears of enough important people, then they can really utilize their influence.
They aren’t coming to these places of free speech to debate in good faith, they’re coming to find targets, victims, and likeminded people who will group together with them. They’re coming for visibility, and to have more ears to spread their lies to. And those lies can be very convincing to people who are in an easily influenced state of mind, like after a crisis, or an upheaval in their way of life, or if they feel like they’re threatened in some way. They’re master manipulators, gaslighters, and abusers. Maybe not every individual member, but the movement as a whole isn’t the obvious guy carrying a nazi flag and yelling “death to all Jews” in front of government buildings on the news. More often than not those guys are used as a smoke screen, so they can point at those guys and say “see? I’m nothing like him, I’m much more reasonable. So obviously, I can’t be a nazi.” even though they absolutely agree with those guys and feel the same way privately.
Providing a platform for free speech and debate only works if everyone who comes to that platform also believes in free speech, and is acting in good faith. Nazis, as a rule, do not act in good faith. Their goal is to commandeer your platform to gain power and erode the rights of others until they are the ones standing at the top and controlling what is allowed to be said. Any rare case of someone who aligns with nazi views but actually wants to debate and believes in free speech is, in the eyes of nazis, a recruit waiting to happen. Letting those people expose themselves to more organized nazis is basically throwing them to the wolves and asking for them to be radicalized.
There’s more, a lot more, too much for me to really go over in a single comment, so I recommend looking into the methods that the nazis have used both in the past as well as recent years. You will start seeing a concerning pattern in their behaviour and methods, as well as in the typical outcome if you let them weasel their way onto your platform.
My first instinct was ignore your giant ass comment, because it’s probably full of crazy.
Then I thought “You know what, it’s Lemmy. Fresh start, and people seem to be more genuine here. Let’s be kind and actually properly read and reply.”
So I read your comment, and my first instinct was right. Jesus fuck mate, go touch grass. Go get laid. Get some help. Do something, besides hanging out in whatever insane echo chamber you’re in, because that’s not helping you. That giant comment of yours is not normal, not in size, and not in content.
Also, you’re basically repeating yourself over and over again, rewording the same few sentences in different ways, and padding the length like a highschooler with a 3 page essay to write.
Oh I’m sorry, I forgot people like you only understand buzzwords and article titles. I didn’t consider dumbing down my response detailing the intricacies of a complex political idiology that has a long and complicated history, but I guess I just overestimated your intelligence. My bad!
Yeah I recognized them from their transphobic comments in another thread. Transphobes and nazis, name a more iconic duo. Still, better to have the info out there than not, for anyone else who might benefit from it.
@BelieveRevolt You too, get in here, I ain’t writing this much for one person to look at.
Okay, you’re repeating yourself a lot in that comment, but I’ll go paragraph by paragraph, and reply individually. I have nothing better to do until my next meeting anyways.
Oh let me count the ways.
For one, they lie. They lie, lie, lie. Nazi’s lie more naturally than they breath. What they want more than anything is a platform to spread those lies to people who are vulnerable to those lies. Hitler didn’t seize power, he was elected into it.
Cool, I don’t see how lying makes Nazis unique, but sure. Also not seeing how that would let them win.
They want a platform, any platform, for mainly 2 reasons, neither of which are for the sake of logical debate or upholding freedom of speech:
to spread their propaganda, which again is full of manipulative lies that feed on pre-existing biases. People don’t become radicalized from nothing, they’re fed a specific narrative that leads them down a road of reasoning that feels, to those people, like it makes sense, until they’re in too deep to be willing to consider that they’re wrong.
to UNIFY disparate groups that share their views or are at least willing to brush elbows with the nazi party to achieve their ends. This unification of disparate groups can lend them a lot more strength and influence than they’d otherwise have if they were kept separate. They want a platform that let’s them, essentially, stand up on stage with a microphone going “alright, hands up if you share some of these views and are willing to go along with the rest as long as you get what you want in the end”. Now they won’t state the worst of their views outright, they’ll just couch them in nicer terms, but people who share them will recognize them. And even those who don’t agree with the extreme versions of those views are just targets ripe for radicalization.
For number 1, you’re basically saying everyone is already a pseudo nazi
Number two, Nazis are diverse? And they lie to unite them?
So then not only do they have a platform, but they have larger numbers flocking to this platform, which gives their voices more weight, and makes them feel more supported in their views. It makes them seem more reasonable, more legitimate. It makes them more appealing. They don’t just stand up at the podium and say “gas the Jews”, because they’re not being honest. They say stuff like “I just think we should be concerned about how many Jewish people are in positions of power, using that power to their own ends. I just think it’s strange, that’s all. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating violence. I’m just asking questions, I just have concerns.” and they’re not advocating violence technically, yet. Not in public at least. And if you say" hey that sounds awfully anti-Semitic" they deflect. “it’s just an observation of a fact. Apparently facts are anti-Semitic now”. They have any number of excuses ready for why their views don’t actually count as being anti-Semitic, and if you say otherwise, we’ll, you’re just trying to silence them. Because that’s the thing, once they’ve established themselves, they can start saying that anyone calling them out is against free speech, and use that to start shutting down dessenting voices. They don’t actually care about discussing their views, most of the time they know that their views are extreme, that’s why they couch them in nicer, less honest terms all the time. They don’t care. They just want to gain as much influence and power as possible, and they’ll use any platform they can get their hands on to do it. If you aren’t aware of their tactics and how they work, then it can be difficult to spot what they’re doing, and most people haven’t done research on the subject and thus won’t recognize the dog whistles and manipulation. And their targets aren’t always the Jews, sometimes they’re other groups, like trans people, or left wing groups, or the gays, etc. They might even pick and choose based on whatever gets them more traction at the time. Jews are just their most well known and popular target. But the nazis ultimate goal as a movement/idiology isn’t specifically to get rid of Jews, it’s to gain power. The Jews were just an easy target at the height of their power.
Again, banging on about lies, and anyone who mentions Jews in that way gets banned (Or at least they should be) The tactic is literally just asking leading questions. 387 words for that? Learn to write concisely.
Some examples of dog whistles that have been particularly relevant in recent years include calling an entire demographic “groomers” or “pedophiles” and associating then with pedophilia. Claiming that they’re just concerned about protecting a specific vulnerable demographic (this demographic may or may not actually be vulnerable) from a perceived threat. Their favourite demographic is commonly women, children, or in the case of more racist actors, they may be trying to protect their heritage, their genes, their population, their jobs, etc. People who tout the great replacement theory are heavily intertwined with nazi ideology for example, if they’re not just outright nazis. The target of their ire doesn’t really matter, they just need some sort of enemy or boogieman to unite people against, including people who might not otherwise cooperate or associate with them. See how nazis have been cozying up with terf groups, or religious groups, or anti-abortion groups for example.
That ‘demographic’ are drag queens and teach young kids that being feminine is about over done make-up and dresses. It’s completely antithetical to feminism, and is dangerous to young minds. When we don’t want our kids being exposed to misogyny, y’all cry oppression and act like you’re entitled to our children. Caring that much about access to kids sounds like pedophilia to me. And yes, children are a vulnerable demographic, what the fuck are you on? Also, only dogs can hear dog whistles. It’s basically saying “My opponent didn’t actually say this, but it’s convenient for them to have said this, so I’ll pretend they did anyway”
They especially like to take advantage of economic or political strife to get their feet in the door. That strife creates desperation, makes people more susceptible to propaganda that promises a solution and gives them an easy enemy to fight against and a strong group to follow and team up with. Then that group promises that they’re the ones who see the dangers of said enemy, and will thus be the ones to actually do something about it.
Literally every political group ever does that. “Oh here’s a problem, and to solve this problem, elect us!” That’s not unique. And you’re still banging on about lies.
Hitler didn’t get popular in a day. He had to build his credibility over time, and giving someone a platform makes them appear more credible no matter how ridiculous you think their claims might seem. And if they catch the ears of enough important people, then they can really utilize their influence.
Sure, but that’s not unique. No politician is popular immediately, and they all try to bend the ears of important people. You’re not cheating by doing that, you’re supposed to do that. 52 words wasted.
They aren’t coming to these places of free speech to debate in good faith, they’re coming to find targets, victims, and likeminded people who will group together with them. They’re coming for visibility, and to have more ears to spread their lies to. And those lies can be very convincing to people who are in an easily influenced state of mind, like after a crisis, or an upheaval in their way of life, or if they feel like they’re threatened in some way. They’re master manipulators, gaslighters, and abusers. Maybe not every individual member, but the movement as a whole isn’t the obvious guy carrying a nazi flag and yelling “death to all Jews” in front of government buildings on the news. More often than not those guys are used as a smoke screen, so less obvious nazis can point at those guys and say “see? I’m nothing like him, I’m much more reasonable. So obviously, I can’t be a nazi.” even though they absolutely agree with those guys and feel the same way privately.
Right, you’re basically saying they’re lying and being manipulative. Again. 175 words wasted.
Providing a platform for free speech and debate only works if everyone who comes to that platform also believes in free speech, and is acting in good faith. Nazis, as a rule, do not act in good faith. Their goal is to commandeer your platform to gain power and erode the rights of others until they are the ones standing at the top and controlling what is allowed to be said. It doesn’t matter how much you try to point out flaws in their logic, or provide actual rational arguments. Engaging with their talking points is meaningless. They’ll only move the goalposts, or use the most vague convoluted stances that aren’t easily engaged with or debunked. Or they’ll just claim that you’re wrong or lying. To them you’re just a tool they’re using to get what they want. By engaging with their ideas, even to point out their issues, just make them seem more legitimate. After all, you don’t argue with a crazy person, or an evil person. There’s no point in reasoning with people who can’t be reasoned with. Therefore, Nazis must be reasonable to some degree, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth debating or arguing with them, or giving them a platform to do so. Any rare case of someone who aligns with nazi views but actually wants to debate and believes in free speech is, in the eyes of nazis, a recruit waiting to happen. Letting those people expose themselves to more organized nazis is basically throwing them to the wolves and asking for them to be radicalized. Very rarely are these people successfully deradicalized in a public forum, and it’s much easier for the Nazis to convince them that they’re right actually than it is for others to convince them that they are wrong and that their views are bad. You will have a better chance of deradicalizing them in private.
So basically, you’re anti-free speech because Nazis are manipulative? Now there’s a hot take.
There’s more, a lot more, too much for me to really go over in a single comment, so I recommend looking into the methods that the nazis have used both in the past as well as recent years. You will start seeing a concerning pattern in their behaviour and methods, as well as in the typical outcome if you let them weasel their way onto your platform.
More? Man, learn to write concisely. You took 1,496 words to write: “Nazis cheat by being manipulative”
Oh I see now why you’re so adamant about giving nazis a platform, you identify with a lot of their views. You spout a lot of the same lies, whether it’s about drag Queen’s or trans people (I recognize you from your bigoted comments in another thread). Just goes to show how effective those lies are on people like you, assuming you aren’t maliciously spreading them that is. Hanlon’s razor and all that.
Oh my sweet summer child. Look up Magnus Hirschfield and the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. Transphobia and homophobia are a fundamental aspect of nazi idiology, and always have been. It might be prudent to take a good long look at your views and where you got them from. Anti-trans groups and nazis have been holding hands for a long, long time.
Any censorship always boils down to there being somebody who defines what “Far”-anything is.
Judging by the political speech of the “mainstream” in lots of countries (you know the ones: members of parties which have alternated in power, as duopoly with one other “mainstream” party, for more than half a century, with corruption cases blowing up left and right or just a subverted Judiciary and Press), “far” is anybody who says “we should have a true Democracy were all votes count the same, Political decision making is transparent and the Judiciary and Press Pillars of Democracy are Independent and work”.
I frankly don’t really know if or were a line on speech should be drawn, but I am absolutelly certain the whole thing will be subverted to silence way more than merely nazis. I mean, all it takes is to look at what the “terrorist” label and even anti-terror legislation are used for nowadays (for example members of the Greenparty in the UK were under surveilance approved through anti-terror legislation).
All this to say that your take on this seems dangerously simplistic in light of the history of abuse when it comes to limiting speech.
That same liberal trash-think is what enables left leaning ideologies to have their own platforms despite the consistent problematic history with minorities.
Are you willing to admit that an ideology and an implementation are two different things? Right-wing capitalists cheat minorities out of literally everything constantly, and on an ongoing basis; up to and including their very lives.
So, that’s not really the burn on leftist ideas you think it is.
Are you willing to admit that it’s enough of an argument for the right to ban it using the same powers you are proposing here? That’s why it’s problematic and they’ve used this playbook before.
Smaller communities with little in the way of minorities are hardly great examples. Arguably, their inability to get along with other ethnic groups and subsequent splits in their creation supports the opposite idea.
The fact that minority communities split off to form societies with left policies in no way supports the idea that they treated minorities within their own group better. Giving more economic power to the majority (even in a true democratic socialist system) simply means that they hold more power over the minorities. It is absolutely what has happened in every example that’s scaled and I can point to multiple genocides to support it.
It is why most intellectual left academics focus on anarchism which has it’s own issues in terms of rights protections, productivity, and central coordination in a system without a market.
Just like fascism needs a unified society including corporatocracy to succeed, so too does left ideals need resource control. The flaw is baked into the system at it’s core and nothing eliminates people’s natural tendencies to be exclusionary. Every society deals with it. Fascism deals with it by eliminating it. Left societies deal with it through resource control. Liberal societies enable base protections of property that show clear indications and recourse when rights are violated.
There are clearer takeaways and examples if we focus on one ideology within these groupings ie Nazism vs Francoism, classic Leninism vs modern anarchist thought, or classical liberalism vs neoliberalism.
Ultimately, if a country like the United States of America were to magically change to a classic communism model overnight with no bloodshed, you didn’t make it less racist. You just handed the majority more power over the minority. If your worldview includes that education would make the difference, it could and should under any model. 90% of the time when true left leaning folks say they want change in the system, it’s because they want to force through their ideals, not that there’s anything built into their proposed system to actually keep it that way.
This is largely why the American left shifted to a reform mindset in the '60s. Not only were they not getting the results they wanted with their approach, they were watching the atrocities happening in the East combined with the civil rights movement and decided that maybe they shouldn’t be fighting to give more power to the majority without some kind of economic check on power. It’s why you started seeing institutional changes combined with legal protections, education, and social shifts instead of radical changes. There is no radical change that can fix things, it takes a wholistic approach.
All of this is drivel. None of your situations or theoreticals make any sense. You are so politically confused.
nothing eliminates people’s natural tendencies to be exclusionary.
If this was your entire argument you could have just said it. Now we can just disagree on this one pivotal point and move on. People aren’t inherently racist or “exclusionary.”
Politics is not binary (everything not my opinion is Nazi). Your claims here don’t actually say anything other than you refuse to actually look up the history and philosophies of liberalism and left movements.
Well, at least you have focused in on the thing that almost no one will agree with you on and is demonstrably false through hundreds of years of research.
Because misery loves company. People like to feel like they belong to something and if they already harbor some type of hate towards a minority demographic it’s very easy for them to sympathize and congregate with like minded groups. Ever seen American History X?
The thing about having them in plain site, is that it makes it easier for people with mental illnesses to find them, be brainwashed and join them. I just wondering if driving them back under a rock and out of public eye makes it harder for their numbers and ideals to grown and thrive.
I was not suggesting that we abandon people with mental illness. I’m saying it’s probably not a good idea to give a public platform to nazis and white supremacy. Sure they can set up their own Lemmy instance and talk about their irrational nazi bullshit to each other but the rest of us should immediately defederate and block them.
If the dev team totally jumps the shark users can always fork the code from one of the earlier releases, gaining the benefit of all the work Lemmy devs have done already.
Strictly speaking if people are upset enough about this they could fork today.
A sleep scientist/professor named Matt Walker has a podcast about, you guessed it, sleep. He talks about this and how it’s very unfair to people who are biologically programmed to get tired later.
He goes on to describe scientific proof of the effect this has on their sleep and the impact to their health. It’s sad really, but his hope is to raise awareness and acceptance of the night owl’s schedule.
Humans are terrible bioreactors. It’d be the world’s worst energy source! Not green in the slightest considering how inefficient we are at converting food into treadmill energy, and how much resources are required to make our food.
It's not only about being tired enough to fall asleep early. If I stick to a 10pm-6am sleep schedule I feel exhausted during the day, and by early afternoon I'll be falling asleep. It's like being jetlagged permanently; my body simply doesn't want to keep to that schedule. It's not just an "oh, you need to stick to the schedule long enough to adapt and get into a proper routine" situation either - it's something I struggled with for years while I was in school and university, despite getting enough sleep.
It's amazing how much better and more energetic I feel - physically and mentally - now I'm able to keep to a sleep schedule that suits me. Obviously exercising is a good thing, but early/delayed sleep phase syndrome are real things.
This. I work physically, get up just before 6 am, return tired as fuck and can easily go lights out at 8-10 pm half of the year. Doesn’t help. If I wake early, I feel tired all day.
Yeah, whenever I get up early, like 5 am, I wind up feeling sleepy and groggy all day and need a nap when I get home. Yet I can get up at 7 and feel fine all day, not need to go to bed till 11 pm.
I can’t fall asleep at 22:00. But my ideal schedule if I work permitted it would be 02:00 - 10:00. When I’ve kept this schedule before it’s literally night and day how better I feel.
I could go to sleep however early you like but I’d still be wrecked at 06:00.
Typically around 04:00-12:00 for me. Fortunately, I have a job that fits nicely around that, so I'm in a pretty good place overall, but when I do have to try to shift to more "normal" schedules it really wreaks havoc on my energy levels and mental clarity.
I've tried all sorts in an attempt to make a "normal" schedule work for me, like sleep monitoring, therapy, sleeping pills, and just being really over-the-top about my sleep hygiene (like not allowing screen usage for X hours before bed, no drinking or eating X hours before bed, etc). I can sort of make a "normal" schedule stick but I never feel good for it. And it takes constant work because my body naturally wants to gradually drift back towards a 4am sleep time, and I find going to sleep earlier than previous nights very difficult so once it starts slipping it usually takes an all-nighter to get it back to where I want it.
Like I said, I've generally got things pretty good right now with my job and lifestyle working around my sleep schedule. But it'd certainly be a lot easier if society didn't think I was lazy and was able to accommodate me (and other people with less "normal" sleep schedules) a little more.
I think this is a good point, even if unpoppular. Physical activity can help a lot with sleeping. Colleagues, please, notice there’s “many of us”, not “all of us” in the comment before you downvote.
I think part of the unpopular reception is that those of us that suffer intractable sleep issues are told this constantly by people who just don’t understand it or are just out to shit on people they think are lazy.
From my parents convinced that I was useless and lazy, to co-workers who are sure I’m just too stupid to be able to sleep well, to partners I’ve had in the past… Always explaining to me how I’m doing something wrong, and surely if you just try to sleep you can. No. No I can’t. No matter what I do, even sleep aids are only effective for a week or two at the most.
It’s insulting to constantly hear people tell me that I just need to do this, or that and I’ll be able to sleep. Yes, I see it says many of us, but decades of being shit on for something we can’t control takes a toll.
I’ve struggled for 30 years to sleep ‘acceptable’ hours. At best, I can wake up early if I have to, and I do a lot because my child’s school starts way too damn early on the weeks she’s with me, and I’m on-call every other week when she’s not. That means I get 3-4 hours sleep most week nights. I’m too old for this shit, but I have no choice and no options. We know that not sleeping enough can have severe effects on physical and mental health, but if you aren’t on a ‘normal’ schedule that goes out the window.
I’m a night owl and a morning person who works on a farm/cattle ranch. I had a 27 hour shift for the first time last month and I was kind of ecstatic about it. I felt proud when I got home and crashed. I also have a lot of willpower though so it’s easy for me to push through work stuff with very few freaks.
I guess this is my way of saying that everyone is different.
Welcome to farming. During harvest, 36 hours straight isn’t uncommon. And driving back and forth lifting and lowering a combine header is far from the sort of thing that keeps one alert.
That’s insane. He’s literally saying “early bird gets the worm” is true and we should punish the early bird. When the obvious solution is to set your damn alarm earlier.
Or figure out something that doesnt require you to be up that early?? There is science out there that there are genuinely “morning people” and “night owls”, setting an alarm is a fine thing to do but it literally is in opposition to some people biology. I have been fortunate in my line of work (nursing, where shifts are usually either 7am or 7pm start times) to find a shift that starts and noon and ends at mid night, perfect for me.
Yeah exactly, there’s plenty of demand and opportunities for 2nd shift or 3rd shift work out there. Just because there’s no demand for 3rd shift bank tellers doesn’t mean there’s a problem.
Christ I hate you people. You think everyone is a morning person, some people are just lazy about it. You are literally incapable of imagining that other people are not like you.
Yes I know many people are lazy, and the last thing anyone would call me is a morning person. But I am motivated to earn money and make my business succeed which means making decisions that financially benefit the company first.
Buses, that makes sense. But never in the history of bike lanes has replacing a car lane with a bike lane meant as many cyclists using that lane as cars did before. Replacing car lanes with bike lanes in no way helps efficiently move people.
It’s better for the environment, so I support it, but let’s be real here.
Did they add a bike lane? Or did they replace a car lane?
I can 100% guarantee that any place that has removed a car lane and replaced it with a bike lane has people moving less efficiently. The math is inescapable.
You can’t guarantee anything of the sort, but fyi many of the routes are from road lanes, it’s London after all not much room for lateral space, but many places have put them at the side of the roads.
Well, never is a bit of a strong word here. Copenhagen and Amsterdam have something to say about that. Now I’m not a fuckcars person, but I do see the value for those places. I am also aware that it works there because of multiple factors that do not necessarily translate well to other places, not just plopping a bike lane and hoping people won’t just use it for parking their cars. Oslo, for instance does not have the same infrastructure for bikes as Copenhagen does, presumably because they get worse winters?
I’ll say this, though, I was extremely surprised to see a traffic jam on the bike lane and no jam on the car lane.
I’m a privileged business owner, I’m open when I say I’m open. I’m not going to start a nigh shift just because someone wants to work one. they only way I would is if some government entity punished me and forced me to do so.
If some humans can handle lactose and others can’t. Some suffer from migraines whilst others don’t etc. you don’t think it’s possible that we also have different circadian rhythms.
Perhaps you could exercise some critical thought. Maybe go read any of the various studies on sleep and make an informed decision rather than a knee jerk reaction.
Also, positive intent. Just assume people are being truthful for the most part. Life is easier if you’re not looking to shit on people.
as CEO? any other C-suite position? Because a publicly traded company’s #1 duty is to generate profit for share holders. “touchy feely nice nice” policies go as far as they can before they start impacting profit.
So if I set my alarm earlier than I will turn it off and wait for my emergency alarm to go off.
I should got into bed earlier: well it might work but I am just not tired then. If I go to bed at 10 or 11 pm I will just stay awake for hours in my bed.
Luckily I have wfh and don’t have to attend meetings before 10 am. Sometimes I get out of bed 10 minutes before 10 and I still feel tired.
Adapting a system to suit more people when it exclusively suits you will always feel like oppression. In reality it is letting others enjoy the privilege that you already enjoy
Night shifts are the only night owl specific concession and society as a whole of very much does not run like that. Flexible work schedules are the outlier by a wide margin.
This attitude is maddening. I am diagnosed with delayed sleep phase syndrome that will turn into a non 24 hour rhythm if I let it. I’ve worked with sleep doctors all over the country, most recently Duke.
I’m lucky that my work lets me start at 11am, I don’t get enough sleep those days but better than it could be.
Unfortunately I’m on call every other week, so forcing my clock to reset isn’t an option. It takes me 6 to 10 weeks to get to societies ideal sleep schedule, and a single night of interrupted sleep to undo all that work
The weeks I’m not on call are my weeks with my daughter, who has to be at school at 730 and there’s no bus for her to ride.
Either week, my schedule is fucked and I’m in a haze all the time. Helpfully anyone who finds out about it just tells me to excercise more (makes no difference, ive done a lot of testing and exclusion), stop caffeine (tried it), stop using screens of any kind after work (been there), or any other thing that they think I am doing wrong and causing the problem.
I did not expect to rant that much… I completely agree, science means nothing in the face of feelings and preconceived notions.
I feel ya. I’ve got the same thing. Luckily I’m still young and don’t have kids so I can at least adjust my schedule consistently, but man it sucks having to get up at 6 am on the weekends. The real frustrating bit is that I could totally get up 2 hours later if only I could WFH consistently. But corporate doesn’t like remote work so I have to go into the office at least 2 days a week to sit at a computer all day and program. Wonderful world we live in
Well, there are virus as any kind of device that runs any logic, the thing here is that is harder to get hacked than with this kind of tools that Windows uses.
So yeah, I don’t need many apps that my Mac has and could be used to hack me with 0 click interaction or with valid Windows certified programs. Still, the “no virus” is not the only reason, updating a Linux system is just a few seconds and your work could have their own repository mirrored and monitored.
In other comment you said something along the lines of “just hire an expert”. They charge way more by the hour.
Maintaining a distro for this very reason will never look ‘cheaper’ for executives. Trust me. They rather pay you to see stuff that has CLEAR and FAST deliverables, that’s what they do what they do, make/save money; take shortcuts.
Well, I think they are expensive because they are actually experts, not like random IT hired personal that (in my case) couldn’t even understand how OAuth works.
“no virus” is because it’s literal extracted from the text, not my words. I explain then what I understand with saying “no virus”, as any device can have virus, JavaScript runs on Linux, Windows and Apple. It’s common sense. No need explanation.
I know about this issue, I have read about it already. No one uses this unless noobs watching YouTube tutorials.
Cannot be compared to the vulnerabilities I pasted (0 click exploit). Any system can be hacked, Linux is the most used OS and still have fewer viruses issues as others, but it still has as any system has.
I said distro instead OS, Linux is the most used OS, many people behind working in secure the Linux environment. The example of this exploit also exists on Mac and Windows for years, and it will always happen.
An admin user will know what they are doing, and I doubt they will install a package from an external source downloaded randomly on internet, for the non-admin users, without sudo they can’t install/infect that malware on your Linux.
I said distro instead OS, Linux is the most used OS,
Wrong, Linux totals 3% of the desktop market which is what’s being discussed in the original post.
many people behind working in secure the Linux environment.
Many people work on securing Windows so your point is…?
The example of this exploit also exists on Mac and Windows for years, and it will always happen.
Whataboutism.
An admin user will know what they are doing, and I doubt they will install a package from an external source downloaded randomly on internet, for the non-admin users, without sudo they can’t install/infect that malware on your Linux.
Wrong. This is so wrong. The most common and effective attacks start with phishing people who think they know better. A user downloading a zip or rar file is enough, they don’t need to be an admin or have sudo rights.
Seriously just stop talking about a topic you have zero knowledge on. I suggest you do a SANS course if you’re actually interested in learning.
WTF, you look like having a bad day, because of my lack of English knowledge doesn’t give you freedom to insult me.
EDIT: I think you are just insulting me, but if Linux is the most used OS means the support should be awesome… worldwide support… while this malware could happen on Linux but also on Apple and of course on Windows, there will be always malware… so at least let’s make one really good as it is right now Linux (with support for old computers, means it’s not forcing users to keep upgrading their hardware), and that’s the reason it is the most used, fits everywhere. Windows only have the monopoly and Apple the “think different” thing (and they give special focus for designers and is Unix, sadly docker is still virtualized).
The linux kernel is not completely secure by default, neither is any specific distribution. No internet connected device could possibly be “set and forget”. Security can not be taken lightly
When it comes to workplaces, you can expect people to deliberately craft a virus and/or try that break into your system specifically. A lot of the world runs on linux, a lot of hackers try to break in to this world.
For personal use it may be true enough to be fine in practice, but it’s a very dangerous thing to believe for a professional setting with probably expensive equipment and valuable data.
Yeah. I know that. But that’s in theory. And it’s more hacking, not a virus.
If that’s really true, it’s surely possible to find an example of a virus that did it’s thing (spread) and do a bit of damage somewhere. And not just say hypothetically it’s true.
I know Linux can be hacked, because I had a webserver hacked. And i see all the logs and the hundreds of login attempts per second and automatic exploits in my logfiles. I have a good idea why most of the Linux boxes get hacked. And all I’ve ever seen were not updated server software resulting in rootkits. 0% is viruses in my experience. Rest is proper issues and maybe the bad guys have been quicker than you. But it’s mostly targeted and rare. And nothing compared to the stuff the windows guys had to deal with during the last year and switch off things until it had been patched properly. We mainly do our updates. And every few years there is a major screwup and you type in a few commands in the terminal to hotfix something. But that’s mainly it. And you can’t make it about any hypothetical issue. While there are supply chain attacks for example, my mom who is using Linux to write her letters and print forms is unlikely to need to learn about that. I told her she doesn’t need antivirus and viruses and trojans are more an academic thing with Linux. She doesn’t need to worry. I also talked about targeted attacks and being a valuable target. But that’s besides the point here. Hence my question and me wanting to stay on point.
Please just prove me wrong. I’m serious. All I could find are some harmless viruses from 2003 that didn’t even spread enough to have reliable numbers. Ransomware that affected ‘tens of users’. And you got the easy position. I advocate for Linux on the desktop. And it’s impossible to prove something is secure. I always have to go into detail, explain viruses, architecture, package managers etc to get my point across. You got the easy position. All you need is to find one counterexample.
And arguments are always the same. I do the whole talk and then say you don’t need antivirus because in real-life there are no viruses. And people ask me ‘but what if tomorrow there is one’. And sure. Nobody believes me when I say I’ve had a quick glance into the future with my crystal ball. But what kind of argument is that? What if I’m struck by lightning on the way home tomorrow if I take the bus instead of the car? I guess I’ll just die then. Many people have been under the influence of ‘windows-truths’ for too long and can’t imagine another world. Some people didn’t listen to the first part of my talk. And some just want the computer to work and a simple answer. I get all of that. But it doesn’t make something true or false.
[Edit: Sorry, had to post this again. I deleted the previous comment by accident instead of editing it what I was trying to do… And Lemmy doesn’t seem to federate deletions that quickly. I’m still learning things here…]
I’ve read that list. There’s not a single name that rings a bell. Which one of those had any consequences in real life and is more than an academic study?
(And besides that: Sure. It’s funny to make every program output your name. But it’s pretty harmless and not on the same level with viruses that do proper damage to a computer infrastructure. I wouldn’t lump all that together. That’s not right, either. And misleading.)
I don’t understand. You made the claim Linux viruses exist. Why is it now my job to disprove their existence?
It’s like with God, Vishnu, Thor, … You claim existence, you show me.
If there are that many experts around. Why can’t they do more than link a Wikipedia article that doesn’t (yet) contain the information I’ve specifically asked for? Shouldn’t they know at least something themselves? At least know 1 name from the worst offender? Why does the other half of experts not know the distinction between virus and other forms of malware? And that it makes a difference here?
I see that people disagree with me. But I seriously doubt that there is a single expert around.
I swear I’m not trolling. If you’re an expert, just give me the name. I’ll even try to look it up myself and if it’s a virus and spread across a few hundred computers around the world and maybe more than 2 or 3 companies and I can find maybe a newspaper article that says it did some harm, I promise I’ll accept that and change my opinion. At least tell me you’ve learned in uni that Linux viruses definitely exist in the wild, but no studies have been done because of X or Y. And we have no numbers. I would think that’s very curious because there are so many linux servers out there, but I’d at least have something to work with. (And don’t take things out of context.)
A virus is a specific type of malware but for the general public is broadly synonymous with malware. Ask the average user, and the commenter in the OP screenshot, what the difference is without looking it up and they can’t tell you.
A virus doesn’t need to be spread broadly for it to be concerning, impactful or dangerous. Often these attacks are very carefully targeted at the victims.
A vulnerability is generally exploited by a virus to inject code by either modifying memory or files the target program relies on. One such vulnerability was
With this vulnerability it was possible to modify any file on a Linux device, meaning viruses would be simple to implement and deploy. Many android devices are still vulnerable.
To think that all possible vulnerabilities have been fixed, or are known to linux developers, would be extremely naive.
Furthermore a virus is often targeting a specific application and while OS level controls restrict the avenues of attack it doesn’t prevent flaws being introduced by developers.
You’ve already been given a list of viruses for Linux, if you’re genuinely so concerned with defining them by impact you can look them up. You have the information needed to do this yourself, and it is not my responsibility to educate you, though I do seek to counter misinformation where possible.
Well, the first article pretty much says what I’m saying. In theory there can be viruses. In the real world they have pretty much no effect. They are more a curiosity than something that really exists and has had consequences. It even says you’re installing antivirus because of the windows clients, not because there were linux viruses.
The second article also is about a security vulnerability and talking about potential consequences. Not a virus that uses this as means to infect people. Not actual consequences.
We’re going in circles. I’m sorry.
And a virus and a vulnerability in some software (or kernel) that can you get hacked are two entirely different things:
They affect different parts of your infrastructure. It is unlikely that someone executes random binaries on your webserver. It is very likely that someone wants to listen to Spotify while editing 150 excel spreadsheeds. So it’s likely your employers execute stuff on their workstations. Also you wouldn’t install a browser in an AWS cloud instance to look at lewd websites. You’re going to use Chrome on your workstation. Viruses affect other and distinct parts of your infrastructure.
You protect for them by different means. Antivirus helps with viruses. For targeted attacks on your webserver, you have firewalls, filter requests, keep your software updated. And don’t do silly stuff. I’ll admit rootkit detection is kind of similar to antivirus. There is some overlap, for example you should also keep Chrome updated on your employers workstation. But updates won’t help you against a virus editing a file on the network share to replicate. You do vastly different things to protect against the different security threats that your company faces.
All the threats have different consequences. Some things just try to wreack havock in your company. Some things you’ll barely notice but hackers are stealing information. Some things try to extort you. Either by blackmailing you to pay to get your data back, or so it doesn’t get leaked. The next few workdays after that happened will be very different, depending on which of those possibilities happened.
So while talking about cybersecurity. Why would I lump all that together and strip the words of their meaning? And in this case on top: One thing is something that actually happened. The other things are just words about something hypethetical. I’m aware you have to protect against potential threats. Nonetheless both things are something different.
Regarding your advice: Yes. I’ve looked it up. I found no viruses that had any significant real-world impact. Hence me insisting on it. I said in my first comment I want to see impact. Not an academic study. Because context matters. We’re talking about someone advertising Linux to an undetermined group of people. These people are concerned with implications for them. If they need to worry. Not if in theory anything can happen. That doesn’t help you choose between two options. And we’re talking about ‘simple truths’. They’re kinda always false. But people want to hear them. They want it condensed into one sentence. Because they own a company that manufactures car tires and they don’t want to get a 20 minute lecture about computer attack vectors. They want to hear if they need to worry about their Linux server. Is it safe or not, do I need to pay someone to install Sophos? And be done with it.
You’re twisting my words so they lose meaning. And change the context. And then posting articles about something related but not the thing.
Please read my first few comments. I’ve talked about it and that’s not what I said. I have found no viruses conforming to what I’ve clarified in my very first comment. I’ve also explained why it’s important to differentiate. I have found things alike. But never the thing. If you twist my words enough and change the context, it would almost seem like I’m contradicting myself, yes. But you’re the one twisting things around until you’re right.
And why are you just now talking about that? Nearly every single comment of me starts right with a sentence that clarifies what I mean?
For the record: I’m not the one changing the meaning of the word. I use it like in the definition. You’re the one extending the meaning arbitrarily.
I think I’ll just wait and see if some expert comes along and gives me my single example. If that doesn’t happen I’m going to stick to my opinion: They exist in theory, but not in practice. And vulnerabilities and rootkits exist, but a vulnerability isn’t automatically called a virus because those are different things.
To end with some more friendly words: I’m pretty sure some people are confusing the words ‘malware’ and ‘virus’. Malware is the umbrella term. I’ve already admitted there is malware. For example the Mirai worm i think had affected hundreds of thousands of IoT devices (speaking of fire and forget embedded linux). And I’ve seen wordpress plugins with vulnerabilities and actual rootkits on webservers myself, as I told earlier. But I’ve also said in this context the distinction matters.
People would read the second message, type the yes prompt, break their system. But still claim that it was linux’s fault, and that the OS doesn’t work.
Message two can also be caused by packages (or rather, package creators) with delusions of grandeur that only think that the system will stop working without them, so they rig things to threaten to uninstall the system.
Or else someone has created too heavy a dependency on something that ought to be removable, but isn't thanks to malice or incompetence (or both).
We still mock Microsoft for putting too heavy a dependency (or at least removal FUD) on whatever web browser they bundle with their OSes (first IE, now Edge), and here we might have a package creator trying the same damn thing.
Honestly I once did this to my desktop environment because I saw a huge list of packages and ignored it because I thought they were packages that could be upgraded, not that it was going to uninstall my fucking desktop lol
I installed Linux a few weeks ago and it was on Tuesday I wanted to add some programs I had installed (it was mGBA and melonDS) to my steam launcher, I went through the hassle of making a . desktop file for both of them (I was dumb and used a Ubuntu based distro, so it installed as a snap, which sucks hard on a hdd) and then it wouldn’t launch, I searched up again (I was using chatGPT for all of this, I asked it a lot how to do stuff, it’s like this was it’s purpose beacuse it always worked first try), did the chmod x+ command and then I was done
When I clicked on new app image, the OS told me, that program /name of app/ will be launched, I clicked "Continue" and it runs! No meddling with "chmod" or anything like that.
Same, I love AppImages for that. I just wish they also had way to contain configurations instead of putting it on the system. That would make it even more portable.
also for non-KDE, non-Gnome systems, there’s appimaged – requires a little more setup, but handles the set executable, automates the AppImage integration (.desktop files and menus), keeps a watch on specific folders for new AppImages, and provides a way to check for updates
I’m saving this. I don’t use any appimages (except a cracked Minecraft bedrock launcher but we dont talk about that one), but I’m still going to save this.
There is no install needed, you can just edit permissions and make the file executable and then when you open it or click it the app runs.
What won’t be created by default is an application menu to run it from whatever desktop environment you use. You can create those if you wish. You can create a launcher in the menu manually, or you can use a tool called AppImageLauncher to create these for you.
I found since people are used to app stores, I’ve had a much easier time convincing people to try out Linux. My mom even said that she always wished her windows PC had a proper app store.
I think it’s still important to explain the key difference between an “app store” and a package repository: the latter isn’t a “store” because everything’s free.
Well hey, as long as these participating devs maintain that their software remains FOSS, I’d pay up. They do a lot of good work, can’t do it all for free.
I don’t think getting instagram, or photoshop off the microsoft store is giving anyone a virus. And I’ve never gotten a virus from it in the few times I’ve used it.
Yes, I read that. A couple thousand people out of billions of users were affected, and the problem was resolved. It’s really not as big of an issue as you’re making it out to be.
Of course, and much of it is on the app store now (which I rarely use myself), but for someone like OPs mom who just wants an easy app store, well there is one.
Honestly, if all you’ve ever experienced in regards to terminals is windows CMD, then you really haven’t seen much. I mean that possitively. Actually, it will give you a far worse impression on what using a Linux / Unix terminal can be like (speaking as someone who spent what feel’s like years in terminals, of which the least amount in windows CMD).
I suggest to simply play around with a Linux terminal (e.g. install VirtualBox,.then use it to install e.g. Ubuntu, then follow some simple random “Linux terminal beginner tutorial” you can find online).
My local deluser checks if the user has any active process. I tried deleting all of the data by hand, but the process is still assigned to a user name and id.
I’m not sure if this one can error still can be replicated.
All iOS browsers have to use Webkit (or did last time I checked). So there’s not much of a point of running Firefox on iOS. It’s basically the same browser no matter what browser it says it is.
I still firmly believe there is at least one sane engineer there who’ll discourage this, knowing this will drive the last few tech-savvy users and their family members and close friends away and I will die on this hill
Google is in the process of undermining the effectiveness of uBlock Origin and other adblockers on Chrome and other Chromium browsers. I believe that change comes into effect this year.
But even before those changes were announced, uBlock Origin’s creator and main dev has stated that uBO is most capable on Firefox.
Idk if this is a hot take, but imo the war in Ukraine is pretty clear city while the Palestinian and Israeli conflict his an infinite list of wrinkles and nuances.
It’s far less controversial to say the former is Russia’s fault than it is to say the latter is either Palestine’s or Israel’s fault.
Palestinian conflict is very simple: an army vs civilians. Only gonna end when all the latter are dead.
Should we ever try to sanction that army? Never! Should we try sanctioning US for killing million iraqis who had not a WMD? No! Should we sanction Nato for bombing the wealthiest african estate libya to it’s ruin? Ah wait, WE are Nato. Can’t shoot own ankle.
Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say, I will not entertain that. I am happy to respond to any arguments you make or answer any questions otherwise.
Yeah mostly because isreal/ Palestine conflict is much older then russia/Ukraine so a lot of things happened. But at it’s very core they both started because of the same claim : russia claimed used to own Ukraine so they want it back. The jews used to own Palestine so they want it back. So if you support Ukraine and isreal you’re just a hypocrite
I haven’t seen anyone here “support Israel”. Almost everyone agrees that the Israeli State is not free of guilt, far from it.
What people really disagree over is whether that alone makes Palestine right (nuanced) and whether it justifies Hamas’ actions (unhinged but unfortunately semi-common take on here).
What nuance is there be had about this? Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid state that deserves what should’ve happened to America when those settlers were doing it. That’s like saying “the civil rights conflict has an infinite list of wrinkles and nuances”; in that it’s objectively wrong.
Enough with the fan wars. Let’s be perfectly honest for once. Windows, Linux, MacOS - they all suck. Sometimes in similar ways, sometimes in different ways. But they all suck.
Windows users - I get you, you use it because it sorta works 40%, of the time and sucks in the way you understand.
Linux users - I get you, you know all of the arcane incantations you need to quickly install, update, and troubleshoot your os in a terminal window. It works - once you apply your custom bash script that applies every change you need to get everything exactly how you like it. But again, it sucks in the way you understand.
MacOS users - well I don’t really get you. You know what you’ve done.
We deserve better than this, guys. We deserve an os that just works, is easy to use, easy to configure, doesn’t require an IT degree to use, and that we can recommend to our grandma without a second thought.
Personally, I love that there are so many choices. And, while I don’t like Apple products, I’m glad the choice exists, so that people who do like them (like you) are able to enjoy them.
Macbooks just make really nice ssh terminals for accessing your Linux dev environment. Though these days there are decent options for Linux terminals with a similar form factor, they just don’t tend to be much cheaper.
Originally but afaik they rewrote basically the whole OS over the years and nothing of the original BSD remains. That’s what I heard but I never verified.
It’s barely recognizable if you look at it as BSD. People like to say that ChromeOS is not “acktually” Linux, but MacOS is waaayyyyy further from BSD than ChromeOS is to Linux.
Okay, this quote from the Wikipedia page made me laugh.
TempleOS received mostly “sympathetic” reviews. Tech journalist David Cassel opined that “programming websites tried to find the necessary patience and understanding to accommodate Davis”.
@eochaid@OsrsNeedsF2P yeah… I’m sorry but that’s like saying all screwdrivers suck. If you don’t take the time to learn how to use a tool you will always have a negative experience using said tool. You are never going to find an advanced technology that’s been dumbed down to the point where you can’t break it.
Except that there’s a ton of actual competition in the screwdriver market that has forced innovation and improved screwdriver functionality that it is essentially “solved”.
Even cheap screwdrivers are easy to use and will do the job, they just might break after a few years. Expensive screwdrivers add extra features and are built to a higher quality. You can absolutely look up reviews and find “the best” screwdriver.
You also don’t need to learn to use a screwdriver. They’re all built to be self explanatory. If they have advanced features that need explaining, they’ll include a manual that explains each feature at a high school reading level because that’s their target market.
Also, there is no locked in loyalty to screwdriver brands. If a brand releases a shit driver, they’ll get roasted. If a new contender puts out a screwdriver that’s better than the rest, tradespeople will flock to it.
I would love it for OSes to be treated like screwdrivers are.
Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but the OS I recommend for grandparents and parents is ChromeOS. It’s so locked down that it’s almost indestructible, and they almost never need any specialized software that you’d use Windows/MacOS for. If you’re savvy enough you can also use Linux on it in a container, which is how I prefer to use it for day to day stuff (in my case, data related workflows).
Yep. I’m in IT, so every time my parents’ computer “does something weird,” I get a call. Bought them Chromebooks a few Christmases ago and the calls have all but stopped.
As much as i dislike google, chromebooks are perfect for anyone tech illiterate that just need a simple web browser that works. Every family member I’ve recommended a chromebook to has not needed additional tech support for it, which IMO, is a truly impressive accomplishment on google’s behalf.
Lol Linux is easier than Windows, you don’t need to know any troubleshooting secrets or bash. Even the installation is easier
How many people do you know with Android phones that know bash?
Terminal isn’t any more necessary on Linux than Windows but the commands are simpler
The downside of Linux is that it’s free, that means they can’t afford to pay manufacturers to include their OS at the same scale as Microsoft. Thus Windows will have more users and be a more profitable ecosystem to target software for
Equating Android and desktop linux isnt very accurate. Terminal on android is very limited compared to linux. Many common softwares are still installed with commands and occasionally need maintenance and most are done via commands.
Recently helped a few setup ubuntu as dual boot. Installation isnt always smooth and most accompanying software stores are buggy or dont have many commonly used softwares.
Been using Ubuntu on my desktop for a couple of years, following a couple years use of WSL (so I’m very comfortable using the terminal etc)
Off the top of my head, some of the stuff I ran into almost immediately:
the package manager has been essentially unusable - the home page will work okay, but trying to view or install any applications through it, it just hangs forever. So I just go and use apt-get, but that’s not what I’d call ‘easier’ or ‘just works’
Firefox windows regularly break - the contents of the page still work fine but I can’t resize or move the window, have to close it and open a new one. This happens multiple times a day
only way I could get the discord app installed was with a .deb (since the package manager didn’t work), so as soon as it’s out of date I just get a message saying “you need to update”. So I have to use it in the browser
speaking of discord - I like to use push to talk. Guess what, push to talk is impossible with Wayland. Supposedly this is a feature, not a bug
also couldn’t get vnc working to remote home while travelling, due to Wayland. Maybe if I persisted with troubleshooting I could have got it to work, but it took me 30s on windows.
installed zoom - it won’t launch from the gui, I have to launch it from the terminal. Also, ‘join this meeting’ web links don’t work, I have to copy paste them into the app
There’s plenty more quirks I run into all the time but thats just shit I run into with a clean install and very typical hardware.
I love interacting with Linux through the terminal - I hate interacting with it through a gui. That’s not my definition of easier lol
The OS I direct the technologically-illiterate to when I don’t plan on supporting it myself is invariably iOS. Boomers don’t need anything more anyway.
When I worked as a IT Tech at a University years ago we had a lot of MacOS users who believed they could just pick it up and use it like their iPhone. It was absurd how well their marketing worked because those users either forced themselves to learn it or dropped it and went back to Windows.
I know a lot of iOS users who have iPads and iPhones but still have windows PCs because they don’t have to worry about compatibility issues.
I’m one of those guys, IOS phone with windows PC. There really isn’t much out there that is as convenient as IOS, but theres no way I would use a Mac, as compatibility issues and more expensive hardware will ultimately hurt functionality.
It sucks in the way you understand and know because nothing else even exists. No one is interested in having to cater to their walled garden unless there’s money to be made. Meanwhile both Linux and Windows have many open source projects and hobbyists working on things. So you might get a mac driver for something you buy but most of the time macos is an afterthought at best in many hobby projects. Also lol mac gaming is a joke. Even Linux is getting better support now than macos in that regard since the Steamdeck.
I haven’t used macOS in years, so now it might actually be the golden pie in the sky “it just works” OS that Apple’s fans have always pretended it was. But Apple’s condescending “we know what’s best for you” attitude that they take into iOS (and nearly everything else they do) puts me off from giving them a second chance.
Yeah it was just a joke because I love to piss off the MacOS guys. But its like a brotherly teasing. Like, I love you guys, but I gotta rib you, you know.
I think Apple’s biggest sin is that everything works as long as all of your hardware, software, and co-workers have an apple emblazoned on their back. But the moment you have to work with anything or anyone that doesnt use Apple, you have problems. And Apple seems to encourage this because it gets their users to dread working with Windows or Linux users.
The sad thing is that I like a lot of their software. But using their OS is like having Steve Jobs standing over your shoulder and smacking you on the head when you try to shift outside of their intended workflow. I keep running into situations where Windows and Linux would let me go left or right (after finding a hidden and misnamed switch or running a well researched and crafted bash command), and MacOS just put a roadblock on the left because fuck you we said no.
I know that my ideal of a perfect OS is unrealistic. MacOS is more stable because it’s more rigid. Windows and Linux prove that the more flexible you are, the harder it is to use. But settling for one option and looking down at everyone who chose different isn’t going to help. We should all keep criticising our chosen option and root for others that are criticising their own. Because it seems like Apple, Microsoft, and the Open Source community are all in a rut, safely ignoring basic fucking usage issues because of an implicit assumption that their user base isn’t going anywhere.
I live in a mixed OS household. My wife and I both use windows and Apple machines for various purposes (my wife’s work requires both, my mac is just for dabbling) and I have some linux boxes for streaming or storage or whatever. And while that gives me the benefits of all three, I also have to deal with the problems of all three. And its a lot, guys. Not to mention they all refuse to work together.
It depends. It could also be a better idea to introduce a sort of “IT driver’s license” for everyone to have basic understanding/skills to use their devices. Sure, modern software stacks are ridiculously complex and no one understands every detail down to each machine code/assembly instruction, so there’s always a big amount of abstraction or simplification needed, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to request that someone with literal zero knowledge whatsoever should be able to perfectly use an OS or device. That’s also not even possible. I see it with my mother, she started from zero knowledge but she had to learn some basics to be able to do the few things she needs to do. Of course she uses Linux. No prior Windows knowledge means a much easier start with Linux of course. She wouldn’t have been able to use Windows either with zero knowledge. So this is a point that some forget: even Windows users need knowledge to be able to use Windows, and they probably already earned that knowledge in much earlier years. This Windows knowledge also works against you building up Linux (or even OS X) knowledge because Windows works quite differently from a Unix-like OS. This is not irrelevant: a Windows user who spent like 30 years in Windows has a much harder time learning Linux, than someone who didn’t have that. But, again, not really the fault of Linux that you indoctrinated yourself with Windows-only MS product specific knowledge over the last decades. This is probably the biggest problem there is, because almost everyone on the planet has already acquired some amount of Windows knowledge in the past. This works against you when trying to switch. Windows knowledge is mostly Windows-specific. When learning about IT, you should make sure that you learn things in a preferably OS agnostic way. Which is also the reason why schools etc. should never teach “using MS products”. They should always teach fundamentals, irrelevant of what you use afterwards. And those fundamentals should of course not be taught using commercial products, but rather open source software.
Then there are some fantasies which MS and Apple could establish in the broader population which aren’t true, for example that CLI/terminal usage is archaic and has no place on modern desktops anymore. CLI usage will always remain as a fast alternative to a lot of tasks which are hard or even impossible to do via GUI. Even MS has realized this and introduced Powershell, a new terminal, and winget, for example. As well as WSL (which was originally and still mostly is being used to have access to powerful Linux-based CLI utilities). Yet still a lot of people seem to think that CLI is obsolete or that it’s “hard”. Sure, if you do some scripting or complex one-liners, it can be too hard for someone without strong IT knowledge. But most commands are really basic and easy to understand. Even my mother is able to use basic commandline utilities, and she even prefers it sometimes over clicking around in the GUI. To claim that this is impossible or too hard to learn for a Windows user is, I don’t know. At least untrue. Probably even an insult to your own intelligence. And the main reason why most Linux users suggest doing things via commandline is that this is an almost distro- and desktop-independent way of doing things.
Also, not a big fan of the “fan” label here. Regardless of whether or not you like Linux (I like Linux as an OS more than Windows, because I think the Unix-way is better, but it’s also about so much more), I see a neutral, free/libre open source (FLOSS) operating system as the base for our digital lives as a necessity, and so I see Windows or OS X as intrinsically worse. I don’t see it as a kind of war between different products on equal footing. One product denies you any rights and control (and in more recent times, also extracts even more value and data from you than just the price you paid for the license to use it), and one that gives you full rights and control (and pretty much never extracts any more from you). It’s not OK that we use our devices for so many things in life nowadays, that all aspects of your life are being done via digital means nowadays, and yet the most popular operating systems are still 100% proprietary black boxes fully controlled by big US companies. This needs to change, and it should have happened a long time ago already. And Linux is simply the most mature and most well supported FLOSS operating system out of all of them. I actually wouldn’t care if it would be FreeBSD or OpenBSD or whatever instead, but I see Linux as being the most mature, well-supported and mainstream-viable option here. I only care that it’s not a damn black box I don’t have any real control over.
We need (almost) everyone on such open technologies like Linux, because the future (or even present) for Windows users looks like this: no control, no privacy (plus AI being trained on your work/data as well), big vulnerability when (not if) MS gets hacked (and they’re a huge, juicy target, and we already saw them being compromised twice in the last couple of years), pricey subscription to MS’ services which continues to get pricier once you’re successfully vendor-locked-in (once all your servers, desktops and data is in MS’ cloud, you won’t be able to easily leave their services anymore, so they are free to increase prices until it hurts you). Even if you happen to like the offering MS gives you, does that really seem like “the future” of computing to you? To me, that’s backwards. Or mainframe history repeating itself. Moving into proprietary clouds with vendor-lock-in only really benefits the cloud provider, which is why they want all users to join the “party”.
I’m not a big fan of Stallman in general, but his fundamental propositions e.g. that FLOSS software is intrinsically better than proprietary black boxes, is true. I wonder how long we still need as a society, to arrive at that realization. I assumed that the Snowden revelations as well as the desaster that Windows 10 was for privacy, would have already started a change in thinking about such things. But that probably wasn’t enough (strangely). I’m not sure what else would need to happen, but I guess something like first MS shoving all their users into their cloud, and then MS being hacked (again) but this time with malicious auto-updates being pushed to all MS software users as well, impacting tons of businesses. Then, maybe, people will start thinking whether this was such a great idea to begin with to play along with what MS envisioned as the “grand future”. Unfortunately I see parallels with the human behavior concerning climate change here as well. It’s like we have to first destroy our climate and suffer the consequences, before we realize it’s a bad idea and we should do it differently RIGHT NOW. We are just incredibly short-sighted and we only learn AFTER disasters, which were even announced long before. It’s tragic.
And for those people who know or think they could start using Linux but still use Windows because it’s more “aesthetically pleasing” or whatever else irrelevant aspect they make up to “justify” still staying on that sinking MS ship in 2023, please reconsider your priorities.
This is a pointless argument even saying that everyone sucks, linux runs worse on the desktop because it doesn’t get even 1/10th the investment from consumer hardware manufacturers compared to windows or mac to make it compatible. nevertheless linux is undoubtedly less difficult and more efficient to integrate than windows, for example the steam deck is done very well but it could be done better since KDE, wayland and arch do not have the same number of employees as microsoft.
If I learned one thing, when talking with people about stuff like that: Most people unfortunately don’t care. Many don’t even have an ad blocker to begin with.
I know you are right about all of this, and yet I will still watch shows like the old Addams Family while I’m doing something else just to have a distraction
I still have a couple shows I enjoy despite the laugh track… Just in general I would prefer not to watch them, and I’m unlikely to give a new show half a chance if it has one.
“rolling laughter” is a technique you have to learn as a live performer for a reason. TV shows at the time had to bridge the gap as the 80s/90s invention of stand up as an art form set the tone for how comedy should be.
It’s not that it was always bad, it’s just that culture changed. Same as how a Jacobite audient would find it real weird we watch theatre inside(!), sitting down(!!) and not talking during the show(!!!).
An episode of the IT Crowd had a B story that was kinda transphobic. It was minor enough and the show was popular enough he probably could’ve easily just apologized and that would’ve been that. But instead, in 2013 after said episode was brought up and criticized for being transphobic to the creator, said creator tripled down and became a full on anti-trans “activist” who makes even JK Rowling seem benign by comparison.
It doesn’t seem to be streaming anywhere, so anyone who doesn’t have an excessive amount to spend on a TV series won’t be giving any profits to the creators.
Look, I was among the glorious warriors who installed Firefox on his parents/grandparents PC and replaced its shortcut’s image with IE’s one (because old people hate changes and won’t accept it easily)
Oh again! They keep changing my Google internet!
Yes grandma, it’s Windows… (« It wasn’t Windows » says the narrator in a deep and mysterious voice) Do you want me to install Linux? It’s free and open source and…
Keep that commie thing away from me, I like that meadow picture…
You know you can change th…
Don’t you dare!
Anyway. We did it. We killed IE hegemony. It’s up to the new generation to take the baton and fight against the tyranny of Google.
The idea of installing Linux on a grandparent’s computer is just asking for trouble. I convinced my father in law to give a Chromebook a try since he mostly just uses his computer to get online and boy, was that tricky. The average person has no idea what an Operating System is and will call you the minute they can’t install a new program for some reason.
I had a very successful experience! My grandmother had no idea how computers worked at all, so I set up a very stripped-down Ubuntu that didn’t even allow multiple windows open. I could easily remote in whenever she had an issue.
She used it to check her email, read the news, and watch Obama’s weekly address until the week she died. (Unrelated to the computer)
I feel like there’s a curve of where this could work. For the extremely technically illiterate or technically literate, you’d be ok. But for the middle chunk of the population, it’d be more confusing than it’s worth.
The people who don’t care and don’t have an adblocker aren’t and weren’t ever the target. The people who are being targeted have an adblocker, and they’re all moving to FireFox.
What Google is getting out of this most of all is future compliance as new users coming to Chrome will never know a world in which ad blockers were freely available on Chrome, as well as dog whistling this to other corporate browser vendors.
Don’t forget they’re pushing chrome on the whole internet. Websites are already telling Firefox users to fuck off if we aren’t spoofing chromium and it’s only going to get worse after this.
I was there, too, but it didn’t bother me as much when I was fresh out the oven. Maybe now that I’ve gotten old and crusty my cynicism just makes all the reposts seem a little stale.
I’d buy winrar just because it has served me very well and all for free, for at least a decade even if I use mostly 7zip now. They earned that license fee
If you don’t want to spend as much time waiting for things to uncompress. Or if you want your compressed files to be smaller (and also compress faster).
In this context (IIRC) smart means “if this zip contains a single folder with contents, directly extract that folder, but if the zip contains files and/or folders, extract all that to a new folder named the same as the zip file”.
Some people zip folders while some people zip the files in a folder. Smart extraction just handles both automatically.
7zip doesn’t work well with win11. Read somewhere that the developer refuses to do something about it, but no idea. Went with nanazip, which is derived from 7zip
Seems to. MB3 and you have Extract which does a folder name and places them in that, or Extract Here which puts all the files in your current directory
lemmy.ml
Top