There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

_cnt0

@[email protected]

Master of Applied Cuntery, Level 7 Misanthrope, and Social Injustice Warrior

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

_cnt0 ,

The only thing that bothers me about terms like “trans rights”, “women rights”, … is that there should be no need to prefix “rights” with anything but “human”. And human rights should apply to all humans indiscriminately, obviating the need to label any subset of human rights that shouldn’t exist. In my book, the slice of bread should read:

Humans have human rights. Trans people are humans.

And in a better world every bit of that should be so obvious that it wouldn’t need mentioning at all.

_cnt0 ,

That stance is fair enough. Though I’d like to point out that language can shape perception. And using terms like “trans rights” suggests that trans people are sufficiently different from “normal” humans that they require special rights. But, in my humble opinion, it would be so easy to formulate human/basic rights in a way that no subset specific rights are required, that the entire notion of X rights seems alien to me. Let’s assume we have four tiers of laws (true for some nations): constitutional law, common law, policy, and judicial precedence. Imagine the following subset of constitutional law:

  • Constitutional law applies to all humans residing in the jurisdiction of the nation.
  • Nobody has a right for unhurt feelings.
  • Nobody shall perform an act solely for the purpose of hurting someone else’s feelings.
  • Everybody has a right for individual bodily autonomy.

There’s no mention of race, religion, gender, … Yet, I’d argue that, for example, trans people are fully covered and protected by the wording. Required exceptions, for example limited accountability for minors, can easily be put into common law. If it becomes evident that some minority is factually disadvantaged, that could be addressed in policy without any need to extend the law because that is neutral and all-encompassing.

I feel like “we” (politicians/societies) are talking way too much about special laws for trans people, women, … when we should fix the root causes of overly specific laws/constitutions.

TL;DR: humans are humans, and imho human law should be for all humans and avoid special treatment of any subset, but be worded in a way that any special need is met as best as possible.

_cnt0 ,

What about trick implies treat?

_cnt0 ,

Yes, they do.

_cnt0 ,

This comment section is a prison. I’m not stuck here with you, though. You’re stuck with me!

_cnt0 ,

Friendship improves happiness and abates misery, by the doubling of our joy and the dividing of our grief. Now, insert your recreation rod into my receptacle.

_cnt0 ,

After Camus and Sartre, I threw in some random Cicero (first half) and then something completely random (second) because I should hate to be predictable.

_cnt0 ,

Overall I’m pretty happy with myself. The only thing I’d improve is my weak jawline. But, you’ll be the judge: https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/4f6643b6-3eef-4ad7-8069-e7063ec89c81/dfkcyb7-ad285166-f59c-49d7-b8e3-df8643f4ec85.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzRmNjY0M2I2LTNlZWYtNGFkNy04MDY5LWU3MDYzZWM4OWM4MVwvZGZrY3liNy1hZDI4NTE2Ni1mNTljLTQ5ZDctYjhlMy1kZjg2NDNmNGVjODUuanBnIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.ZpJXrI9dC2BQT7MSQsCB_La3MCyXCGyhrXwfNMbDGdY

_cnt0 ,

I wasn’t going to. But maybe if you think I was, then I should.

_cnt0 ,

Hätten sie lieber die Spanische Inquisition?

_cnt0 ,

Wat? Kaum drei Haare auf’m Sack und schon ein’ auf dicke Hose machen hier, wie?

_cnt0 ,

Haben wir noch Apostrophs? Keinem mehr? Gar keinem? Zwei noch?

Jetz’ gibt’s Maul!

_cnt0 ,

github.com/hakluke/how-to-exit-vim

_cnt0 ,

It looks like it’s “garbage” quality.

To be fair, that’s also true when running natively under Windows.

_cnt0 ,

I regret to inform you, Sir, that you are horribly mistaken. My memes are most splendid!

https://feddit.de/pictrs/image/d5e56284-ef98-4a24-af12-2f1ecfd7eb97.jpeg

_cnt0 , (edited )

Now I want to know what a hornet would look like in this meme …

Edit: shout out to @ivanafterall for kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/…/3078354

https://feddit.de/pictrs/image/b4ac20a5-e52a-456f-bcb3-16493ae98559.jpeg

Troubleshooting an annoying behavior - Gnome/NixOS

You’re going to see some typing errors in this post, and thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat is intentioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonal. It’s going to make the post unpleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasant to read, but I assure you it’s more...

_cnt0 ,

Don’t bother, that’s normal /sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

_cnt0 ,

My two cents: Yes, it’s bad. The biggest hurdle to people not “intimately familiar” with their distro is A) what it’s using for DNS configuration and B) realizing that there are so many different ways in different distributions, and sometimes within one distribution, that you have to be very careful what googled results you follow. That many browsers do their own thing doesn’t help. I think the best way to solve it would be some desktop level abstraction like PackageKit where it doesn’t really matter what services does the resolving under the hood.

"Linux Desktop: A Collective Delusion" - an unhinged rant (tadeubento.com)

Linux has made significant strides, and in 2023, it’s better than ever. However, there are still individuals perpetuating a delusion: that desktop Linux is as user-friendly and productive as its mainstream counterparts. After a few discussions on Lemmy, I believe it’s important to provide a clear review of where Linux falls...

_cnt0 ,

Same with Dolphin. It can even remember credentials in a safe manner in KWallet.

_cnt0 ,

Be pro meatgrinder or we send you to the meatgrinder.

_cnt0 ,

No Christian in Nazi Germany was discriminated for being Christian. Hitler referred to himself as Christian, had a catholic upbringing and was never excommunicated, not even retroactively to this day. The two big Christian denominations received very favorable laws (see Reichskonkordat) which they are very fond of to this day. The antisemitism in Nazi Germany was an aggravation of centuries old Christian antisemitism which could be found all over Europe. All claims that any Christian was discriminated by the Nazis for being Christian is patently absurd. It was a deeply Christian movement with some occult/pagan elements (see Himmler & Co).

_cnt0 ,

Then what’s the point of saying “Christian German” instead of just “people”?

_cnt0 ,

Still doesn’t make sense to me. The way I’m reading what you’ve written is that you’re insinuating that peoples’ Christianity played a role in them being discriminated by Hitler and his cronies, which was never the case. Peoples’ beliefs played no role in political persecution and hence I don’t see the point in emphasizing Christianity here. He also had no trouble discriminating against Atheist, agnostic, Pagan, … people if they were politically opposed.

_cnt0 ,

Oh that’s great news, maybe you should go ahead and tell the families of the 2500 priests who were incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp …

… for opposimg the Nazis. They were incarcerated for political opposition, not for being Christians. The entire persecution of the Jews only worked because of the cooperation of the Christian churches with the Nazi state. There was no central birth register at the time. It was the church books that determined how (non-) jewish you were. Especially the Catholic church facilitated the fleeing of Nazis to Argentia and other places at the end of the war. Lots of the Christian churches actively supported the Nazis, many did not oppose them, and the few that did were persecuted for that; not for being Christian. This is all very well documented.

They will be so happy to know that they weren’t discriminated against for their religion. I’m sure those long term plans from the Nazi party to de-christianize Germany were just Nuremberg propaganda.

This is plain and utter nonsense. That article is pure garbage, misrepresenting what actually happened. Never did the Nazis (as a whole/party line) want to replace Christianity. They wanted to replace the existing denominations with one state run church, with a Nazi-flavored Christianity, but still Christianity. They created new versions of the Bible where they adjusted some parts to better reflect their ideoligy. When they failed to establish that, they intensified their cooperation with the existing churches. Again, this is all very well documented. These top secret documents don’t really provide any new information, unless, like that “news article” you lie about their content and misrepresent “replacing existing churches with a state church” as “replacing Christianity”. What a heap of garbage. You should adjust your bullshit filter and read some proper history books about Nazi Germany and the involvement of the Christian churches. There was just a tiny fraction of Nazis with Himmler on the top who would have liked Christianity gone, who were neither representative of the party line nor in a position to realize that. Representing anything they said as “the Nazis wanted to …” is disingenuous at best.

_cnt0 ,

Indeed.

_cnt0 ,

And are to this day not even considered a religious group, but a sect monitored by the intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) in Germany. In Germany in the 1930s, ~95% of the population were either Catholic or Protestant; other Christian denominations only accounted for .5% of the population. Don’t nitpick in the .5% when talking about Christianity in Nazi Germany. Red herring much …

_cnt0 ,

That’s simply not true. They didn’t target Catholics, they targeted parts of the Catholic church (the institution) for political opposition. That’s a very different thing.

_cnt0 ,

Maybe from a revisionist perspective. ~20% of NSDAP members were Catholic. Keep in mind that the NSDAP was founded in deeply Catholic Bavaria. ~400 Catholic priests from Germany ended up in concentration camps, out of 20.000. It was no attack on the Catholic church, but on individuals within the church who publicly opposed the Nazis. That’s political persecution, not religious persecution. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.

95% of the German population was either Catholic or Protestant. And so was the NSDAP and their voter base. It tilted more to Protestants, but Catholics were not excluded. The Reichskonkordat benefitted the Protestant and Catholic churches equally.

This is more of a reply to everybody and not just your comment specifically. Where do you people think the antisemitism in 1930s Germany came from? Hitler and the NSDAP came around and turned “everybody” into anti-Semites? No. The Christian antisemitism was already there and the NSDAP tapped into it. Especially, but not limited to, from the Protestant side: Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Pogroms had been taking place all over Europe for hundreds of years before the NSDAP arrived. The NSDAP “only” brought it to the next level. The entire anti-Semite NSDAP movement was deeply rooted in Christianity. If any Christian individual was persecuted by the Nazi regime it was for political opposition, not for their Christianity. If a fringe Christian sect was persecuted by the Nazis, they were persecuted by other flavors of Christianity! That the Nazis (who were by and large Christians) persecuted Christians for being Christians is complete revisionist nonsense!

Remember the past or you are condemned to repeat it!

_cnt0 ,

Well, they also didn’t during his lifetime, did they? And that while being aware of the Holocaust: smithsonianmag.com/…/researchers-find-evidence-po…

_cnt0 ,

Ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics.

Nonsense.

The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

Straw man.

Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

Lie: 20% Catholics in the party is significantly more than the one or two alibi open homosexuals in the GOP.

As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

Diversion.

All the numbers and historical circumstances I layed out are easily verifiable facts. Your compulsive urge to cling to a false narrative in the presence of irrefutible evidence and attempt to dance around that by picking out fragments of what I said and attempting to ridicule everything by extension is preposterous. And everybody with the reading comprehension of a high schooler should see right through it. I’m out of your bad faith (or ignorant) excuse for a conversation.

_cnt0 ,

And what did the Catholic church at least used to do with people denouncing their faith?

_cnt0 ,

It’s a classic: archive.ph/dRsjY

“Oh, move over,” Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry’s wang, tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"

_cnt0 ,

“AI” doesn’t understand how guns work. There’s a dial sight on the bolt …

_cnt0 ,

And the barrel extension/trunnion has dials too …

_cnt0 ,

It’ll likely go away with an update. But you can always check xsession log, dmesg, etc to see if there’s a hint on why the screen locking process is crashing.

_cnt0 ,

This doesn’t look like fabricated evidence at all. I am very happy with the fact checking of our media.

_cnt0 ,

Yah, I want to see high resolution scans of those documents, check the MIC and get a statement from the printer manufacturer what country the printer was sold to. Want to place a bet it was Israel?

_cnt0 ,

I have no doubt about Hamas fighters invading Israel. That is pretty evident. But this kind of “evidence” found on the fighters is pretty suspicious. It is as credible as the pristine passports of the terrorists found near the WTC after 9/11.

_cnt0 ,

I’m talking about the attack plan printout here. Not the attack itself.

_cnt0 ,

So you’re saying all printers in Gaza were bought by Israel, right?

_cnt0 ,

I’m not sure if you’re playing dumb here. What I’m saying is, that this looks like Israel is planting fake evidence to spin a narrative. That does neither mean nor imply that there was no attack or that that was not planned. The “40 beheaded babies” turned out to be bullshit and I bet this will too. Even if the printouts turn out to be genuine, the reporting on it seems to be disingenuous and tries to make Hamas, and by extension the Palestinian people, look even worse than they are to make the over the top retaliation more palatable to the world by dehumanizing the enemy.

_cnt0 ,

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to talk about here. Regional settings? Look, devices have serial numbers. Manufacturers keep track of where devices are sold to. It does not matter what route a device takes, only who pays for it. The number of devices in Gaza paid for by Israel is going to be very small. If a non profit in Germany buys a printer for a hospital in Gaza, that device will go through Israel before ending up in the hands of Hamas, and that device might or might not have Israel regional settings, that does not magically make Israel the buyer and does not alter the manufacturers or traders records who the device was sold to. It’s really not that hard to understand, is it?

_cnt0 ,

Cut the dull act; the answer is literally in my previous comment:

Look, devices have serial numbers. Manufacturers keep track of where devices are sold to.

_cnt0 ,

Fake evidence to spin a narrative??? We have all seen the result of these plans

We have have seen the result of some plan. I’m questioning whether it is 1) the plan that was depicted here and 2) even if it was whether the reporting on its content is accurate.

I like that you also moved to goal posts […]

Not really.

[…] since you clearly couldn’t stomach your own shit take on how the plans must be false flag plants, […]

Um, no. You do not seem to understand what false flag means, and nowhere did I suggest any false flag operation.

[…] but my favorite part was when you felt able to say that even if they were genuine, that SIMPLY REPORTING IT would be an intelligence attack on Hamas/palestine.

I did not say anything even remotely like that.

Like are you fucking kidding me??? Shall they only report on things that look good for Hamas?

They should report stuff they have fact checked and not transform ‘the general populace’ into ‘babies, kids, women, cripples, …’. The entire point/concept of terror is hitting soft targets. Reporting only on the ‘very weak’ caters to emotions, not transport of information. And why would they do that …

_cnt0 ,

Have you ever heard of propaganda and dehumanization? Have you also noticed how Israel has already killed at least three times more civilians in the past few days?

Hamas targeted residential district …

Hamas target school in … to kill children!!!

Spot the difference. What feels more like honest reporting and why would one choose the other option?

_cnt0 ,

Wait so if I understand you correctly: […]

You don’t.

even if these documents are genuine and prove that Hamas explicitly wanted to target children, it’s still a big media conspiracy to make Hamas look worse than they are?

No. But I don’t see that from those pictures. They targeted a residential area, which happened to contain a school (big surprise). Like with the “beheaded babies”, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. From the provided information I’m not convinced that Hamas targeted children specifically.

Targeting civilians is already bad. The way I suggest they spin a story is by setting the focus on children, babies, women, … to appeal to emotions rather than just reporting facts. And I think they do that to dehumanize Hamas and by extension Palestinians to justify the retaliatory atrocities of an even bigger magnitude in the eyes of the world.

It’s really not that hard of a concept to grasp … remember the babies taken out of the incubators in Iraq?

_cnt0 ,

You quite obviously do not understand how propaganda and dehumanization works.

That’s a child’s way of seeing things.

That’s rich coming from somebody who just said what you said.

_cnt0 ,

Obviously we have only testimonies of that from officers and volunteers and confirmation from Israeli authorities,

No, we have the testimony of one IDF member who promoted Palestinian genocide in the past. Everybody else who was on the scene and gave a statement could not confirm that one testimony lie. All the newspapers back-paddled on that story; maybe you should too.

What is there to benefit from faking such document? Is it not obvious that Hamas targeted civilians and children?

Yes. Children are civilians. The repeated claim is that children were not targeted as part of the populace but specifically. In the eyes of most people that would be even more sinister. And Israel needs Hamas and the Palestinians who supported them to look as bad as possible to distract from their retaliation.

Do I really need to spell it out like that?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •