🇧🇷 Latino-Americano. Estudante de Física. Marxista.
A propósito, eu uso Arch.
🇻🇦 Latinus-Americanus. Discipulus Physicae. Marxista.
Ipse Arch utor per viam.
I agree that is a extreme example. That’s precisely why I started with keyboard shortcuts. I don’t think anyone is required to know LaTeX and Markdown, but it seems to me that fewer and fewer younger people know them. If there are fewer people who know the basics, there are proportionally fewer people who know the advanced ones.
In my country, this generational divide doesn’t make much sense. But comparing those born in the 90s and early 2000s with those born from the late 2000s onwards, there is a fundamental difference: there was, even in the public education system, a variety of computer courses available to many people. With the arrival and hegemony of the app model, which is designed with the idea that it is intuitive and does not require anyone to be taught how to use it, computer courses have been disappearing. As a result, millions of young people use computers daily and have no knowledge of simple concepts such as shortcuts Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, let alone advanced features of Office suites, not to mention that they have no idea what LATEX and Markdown are.
Untrue, I was born in 2003 and torrenting go brrrrrrrrrrrr
And when you say collective action is the only way, which, if I am not mistaken is a core authleft belief.
It’s a core Marxist observation, based in history. Every system that has ever fallen has fallen because of the organized action of a class or a set of classes, not necessarily in a party, since the very notion of a party is extremely recent, but organization in some form. It’s a process that is always violent, usually doesn’t happen all at once and may not be definitive, but that’s how things have happened so far. There’s no evidence that it will happen the way you think it will, but honestly, good luck with that. It would be great if we could move to a fairer system without all the burden of having to organize and having to respond to reactionary violence in the same level.
I do take special exception with your notion that these egregors come into being out of conscious and renewed informed consent.
I don’t know exactly what in my answer led you to the conclusion that I think so, but that’s not the case. In my opinion, these “egregors”, which I call ideologies, arise according to the need that material conditions require. As material conditions change, mainly because of the sophistication of the means of production, new ideologies emerge from the new socioeconomic conditions produced by this change.
Every aspect of human society exists because we, as a society, believe in them, including society itself. The very tools we use to measure the world beyond man are human fabrications. However, the maintenance of a social model does not necessarily depend on all its members believing in or agreeing with it, only on continuing to work for it. Cultural, social, and physical constraints exist and are very real. For example, it was common a few years ago in the “Free Palestine” online community to say that Israel is not real, but this statement has never stopped any of Israel’s oppressive actions from happening. Understanding that all systems are fabricated is a fundamental step towards the possibility of replacing them with better systems, but for this to happen, realization needs to evolve into organized action: the only tool capable of changing the world. And yes, it is only possible to replace one system with another, and it is not possible to live without a system, because what makes us human is precisely this characteristic: we created the social system to overcome the evolutionary system.
And to rationalize the world we live in, we create rules to legitimize our other creations. We can use any factors to generate these rules, but to avoid chaos, we agree, in materialism, to use historical, cultural, and economic factors to justify the control of a territory by a nation state. Considering these factors, in a comparative sense, the control of the United States over any of its constituent territories is much more illegitimate than the control of Tibet by China. Does this mean that we should dismember the United States and return its territories to their original owners? No, it means that someone who believes that China should grant independence to Tibet should also advocate for the dismemberment of the United States. Since in this case the decision came from the United States government, which, I imagine, has no intention whatsoever of dismembering the United States, we can conclude that the only motivation for this is to antagonize China, and it does not stem from a concern for the right of peoples to self-determination.
In fact there are NO countries in the world immune to the “you displaced a previous civilization” argument. They’ve all done it.
Yet, some did it much more recently than others, and many of the peoples they stole from still exist and are still being exploited (not China-Tibet case). At the very least, one would expect countries not to go around questioning the legitimacy of other countries’ territories when their own have no legitimacy at all.
CN lawmakers pass bill that questions US’s claims over Hawaii
Imagine if that was the headline…
The problem is that any claim by the United States to any territory is infinitely more absurd than China’s claim to Tibet. I used Hawaii as an example, but it could be Puerto Rico, Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico, all the way to the entire country that has been despoiled of its indigenous population.
Dude nobody is praising North Koreans and Chinese for their war of aggression and mass murder.
I wasn’t talking about North Korea and Chinese actions, I was talking about US’s actions. This astronomical quantity of bombs were deployed by USA’s air force. And you are praising this war when you say it was “nice”.
Also please stop your implied racism against South Koreans by undervaluing their freedom.
Here you are just being absurd. Who’s being racist? Who values the self-determination of a people? Who condemns the direct interference of a foreign nation in a civil war or who approves it? China only sent soldiers to the war when the “UN army” had already occupied almost the entire peninsula. And yes, I value life over freedom: while there is life, there is hope of achieving freedom, without life, there is no possibility of being free.
Not true at all with the rest.
Yes it’s true, at every one of this wars the media and government talked endlessly about how each of these countries was ruled by a terrible dictator and it was almost the America’s divine duty to intervene. The Iraq war in particular was full of videos of Bush talking about how inhuman Saddam was and how the “weapons of mass destruction” (which were not real) in his hands would cause a terrible tragedy. In the end, the only tragedies were the proxy war between Iraq and Iran, led by the United States when they were friends with Saddam, and the Iraq war.
There is a measurable scale for how good a democracy is. Starting with the obvious “Is there freedom of the press?” and going to stuff like: Is every vote weighed the same? Is it easy to vote?
This scale is ridiculous and does not reflect the real meaning of democracy.
Not democracy because votes are grouped by states?
Not because the votes are grouped by state, but because:
In addition, since it is impossible to elect (to the presidency) someone who does not belong to one of the two parties, one would expect, at the very least, that the primaries would be democratic. They are not. Superdelegates are not elected.
How idiotic can you get?
Here you are, being rude again, for no reason at all. Even Jesus Christ lost his temper, and I am a far inferior person to him. I have no intention of continuing to argue with someone so uncivilized.
No. That that is almost never the US justification for war.
This has been used as at least a minor motive in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, to name a few. The consequences are there to be seen.
But yes, saving South Korea from being ruled by the North Korean dictator was a great thing.
At least 3 million of people died in that war, mostly civilians, mostly targeted by USA’s bombs (six times more bombs than during the entire Pacific War in a much, much smaller area). No matter what your opinion of the North Korean regime, to praise this war is to praise mass murder.
So that is the same as “fascism”.
Not “same” as fascism, but not democracy at all.
Because you are not comparing it with the absence of democracy, You are comparing it with a perfect democracy. The absence of a perfect democracy is not a “joke”, it is the difference between fascism and non-fascism.
What is democracy? It is the political system where the people govern, directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as “incomplete democracy”: either the people govern, or the people do not govern. Absence of democracy means no democracy at all. And for me “no democracy” it is as bad as fascism.
Nice, I will try that
Are you going to do anything about it if someone doesn’t respect the permissions you’ve laid out?
No, but I hope that someday an IA spell the license for me to have a good laugh.
I use both. Proton pass is good because you can create, free of charge, up to 10 aliases for your proton mail account.
Nice loaded question.
Let’s “unload” then. If organizing fascist militias in your own country makes you fascist (I agree with that, by the way), why doing the same in other countries don’t? (if you think it’s are still loaded, you may not answer)
I would just like to remind you that you have been running away from the central points of my arguments since the beginning of this discussion, it was you who distorted my speech as if I had said that I did not consider January 6th a fascist movement and an attempt to overthrow the government, and it was you who inserted my country when it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
Here’s the thing, I don’t defend the current political system of my country at all. And when my country was not being interfered by yours, it was interfering at the behest of yours. And not even in the darkest hour was it funding fascist militias in other countries.
Let’s agree with you that the Republican Party did it. But back to my starting point:
So you are only fascist when you organize (and fund) fascist militias in your own country? Are other countries fair game?
Lol, so you’re saying lying in order to stop the will of the people is not considered overthrowing the government?
Lying is totally a right by the First Amendment, no matter what your goal is with it.
Trying to stop the certification of an elected official, raiding the capital, building a gallow to hang the VP, not to mention trying to activate the national guard to stop the certification process. Not fascist at all, according to you.
I didn’t say in any moment that I don’t acknowledge the Republican Party as fascist or the January 6th as a fascist movement. What I implied by
people that call themselves Republicans
is that you can’t say that the “Republican Party did this” when “who did this” were a bunch of civilians who weren’t being run directly by the Republican Party. Nor did I say that I don’t consider January 6th an attempt to overthrow the government. My parenthesis
(Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you’re lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
talks about considering evidence of “trying to overthrow the government” other actions after January 6th.
American values of democracy and freedom
The same values that are used as justification by the two parties to invade/intervene in any country that has something that interests the US?
And seriously, what democracy? In which you “elect” the president in an indirect system that does not necessarily elect the most voted by the people? In which it is practically impossible for a candidate other than one of the two parties to contest?* I call this a joke of a democracy.
*: That is, who wants to run must pass in the “anything but democratic” primaries.
The USA’s government? You can say that people that call themselves Republicans tried that in January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, not that they’re still trying that. (Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you’re lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
But talking about other countries governments, you know, that ones that you should not intervene, since they aren’t in your country, both parties have a history in overthrowing. For the rest of the world, both parties are fascists in this metric.
You mean like the US? Who achieved the feat of persecuting a foreign journalist as if he were an American citizen?
EDIT: I know that Mullvad is also critical of american surveillance, but I find it very funny that when in the West they call a state democratic that does exactly the same (or worse) than a state in the East that they call “authoritarian”. It really reveals how empty of meaning this word is. “Ah, but these Western states have ‘democratic institutions’.” News for you: the states you call “authoritarian” have them too. In both cases, they can be and de facto are dictatorships.