It wasn't really meant to be, my opinion is that following the law for its own sake is a form of slave morality and a betrayal of one's own moral principles, but I guess the meme is vague enough to be interpreted any which way.
following the law for it’s own sake is a form of slave morality
People don't follow the law "for it's own sake". They have material reasons for supporting or transgressing, which they rationalize after the fact.
Sometimes it's practical (driving the speed limit or not based on flow of traffic) and sometimes it's formative (being hyper sensitive to street crime because you've got a memory of being robbed / reflectively shoplifting because you grew up food insecure). Maybe you're the victim of abuse or just OCD.
But there are broad social, historical, and economic reasons to support/oppose a given legal code.
I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn't even be needed. That's probably not achievable, but we can at least try to approach it.
I think the root of immorality is the prescriptive morality which is commonplace today. People only act pseudo-moral because either:
They are afraid of punishment (fully selfish reason)
God, the law, or whoever else said so (deferral to authority)
"Society would collapse" if they didn't (still a selfish justification)
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values. As soon as those reasons disappear, they see no reason not to act immorally. Alternatively, they follow this imposed morality so strictly, that they don't notice when it leads them to immoral actions (take for example religious fundamentalism or fascist regimes).
The solution is of course education, but our current education systems are terribly suited to producing moral people.
I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn’t even be needed.
Morals don't come ex nihilo. People develop them from social interactions and survival patterns, typically at a young age. The broad purpose of law is to set a publicly recognized boundary for universal conduct. It isn't to simply be mean to people, but to publicly declare what a community of people values as socially valuable.
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values.
People largely have a certain internal sense of social justice. But they have a limited capacity to engage with their neighbors from any kind of authority position. The internal morality can get twisted when you constantly see yourself as a victim and feel the urge to right some existential wrong. Portraying one group as a victim and another as an aggressor is a classic propaganda technique used to inflame hostility between neighbors and socially justify violence.
The solution is of course education
At some level, sure. But it is difficult to inoculate a public at-large from all forms of deceptive media.
At another level, the solution needs to be establishing a general level of public contentedness and satisfaction. Agitation is less effective in a social circle that isn't under high degrees of anxiety or fearful of deprivation. So long as we have the threat of poverty and stochastic violence hanging over people's heads, we're going to have the material for propaganda that agitate them into tension with their neighbors.
In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions. Punishment for its own sake is in no way good, it's a necessary evil to deter immoral people from committing immoral actions. If there were no immoral people, there would be no one to deter and thus no use for law.
Sure, internal morality can get twisted, but only when it's based in instinct (self preservation, subordination to authority, etc.), and that's what I mean when I say pseudo-morality. Rational moral principles, on the other hand, are relatively reliable, clear and consistent. The main moral frameworks (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) agree on most significant scenarios, the differences are in the specificities.
The scapegoat phenomenon you mention is a great example of instinct (the ingroup-outgroup instinct), being taken advantage of for political manipulation. Education should include teaching people to recognize these instincts and when they're leading them astray in rational thought.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn't enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play. For example the desire for status and power. This is what drives people to immorality even during material satisfaction. I also believe it is the main driving force behind capitalism.
In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions.
There's an element of that. Also, the idea that certain people need to be separated from general society as a precautionary measure. But I think there's also a broad concept of social justice. 2nd degree murder is a good example. Nobody really expects murder charges to prevent people from going into a killing rage. And there's no way to undo the damage inflicted. So punishment is intended as a kind of social vengeance, intended both to shame the perpetrator and to alleviate the desire of the victims to pursue their own vigilante justice.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn’t enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play.
I wouldn't say it is sufficient, but I would say it is necessary. A great deal of crime is the consequence of anxiety, in one form or another. Relieving the anxiety reduces instances of crime.
Sure, there are other instincts at work. But defusing these tensions will also require infrastructure, energy, and manpower. And so you can establish a virtuous cycle, wherein a professional class of social workers with the means and methods to deliver aid also become a vehicle of economic activity that reduces poverty and contributes to the benefit of the community.
Like the fact that someone can get shot for offering to get their neighbour high, while companies can litteraly operate like crime syndicates with minimal repercussion
might be a cause for people thinking the law is just opression instead of a guideline that can be actually used
Olá pessoal. Uma das questões importantes que temos percebido entre as pessoas que iniciam suas instâncias, são as dúvidas sobre modelos de termos de uso e políticas de privacidade. Mesmo que plataformas como o Mastodon disponibilize um modelo, o conteúdo não está totalmente de acordo com a legislação brasileira. Por esse motivo, sistematizamos um texto voltado para a LGPD para a avaliação e uso da comunidade:
TERMOS DE USO E POLÍTICA DE PRIVACIDADE - PLATAFORMA XXX
Última atualização: \[Data\]
1. ACEITAÇÃO DOS TERMOSEste Termo estabelece as condições para utilização da plataforma XXX e as responsabilidades relativas ao conteúdo publicado. Ao criar uma conta ou utilizar a plataforma, você declara ser maior de 18 anos e concorda com estes termos e com o tratamento de dados conforme a Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Lei 13.709/2018).
2. TERMOS IMPORTANTESEstes termos incluem disposições que afetam seus direitos e responsabilidades, incluindo isenção de responsabilidade, limites de obrigações da XXX, sua responsabilidade por custos decorrentes de má utilização da plataforma.
3. SUA PERMISSÃO PARA USAR A PLATAFORMASujeito a estes termos, a XXX concede permissão para usar a plataforma. É necessário aceitá-los para utilizá-la.
4. CONDIÇÕES DE USOSua permissão para usar a plataforma está sujeita às seguintes condições:
Você precisa ter pelo menos 18 anos de idade
Você não poderá mais usar a plataforma se a XXX revogar sua permissão
Você deverá usar a plataforma de acordo com Uso Aceitável e Padrões de Conteúdo
5. USO ACEITÁVELVocê não poderá:
Infringir leis através da plataforma
Usar ou tentar usar a conta de outro usuário sem consentimento
Comercializar identificadores de outros usuários
Enviar spam ou coletar dados para listas comerciais
Automatizar o acesso à plataforma, exceto para indexação por mecanismos de busca
Usar a plataforma para envio de listas de distribuição
Sugerir falsa afiliação com a XXX
Criar hyperlinks para imagens ou outros conteúdos não textuais
Remover marcas de propriedade de materiais baixados
Burlar medidas de segurança ou restrições de acesso
Sobrecarregar a infraestrutura com solicitações excessivas
Praticar falsa identidade
Incentivar terceiros a violar estes termos
6. PADRÕES DE CONTEÚDOVocê não pode enviar conteúdo:
Ilegal, ofensivo, abusivo, de ódio ou assédio
Que viole leis, direitos de propriedade intelectual ou privacidade
Com código malicioso (vírus, spyware)
Para reservar endereços, nomes de usuário ou identificadores
Que revele informações confidenciais de terceiros
7. APLICAÇÃOA XXX pode investigar e processar violações destes termos utilizando todas as medidas legais aplicáveis, notificando e cooperando com autoridades quando necessário.
8. SUA CONTAPara acessar certos recursos, você deve criar uma conta com informações válidas, incluindo e-mail atualizado. Você é responsável por todas as ações em sua conta até seu encerramento ou notificação de comprometimento. Você deve notificar a XXX imediatamente em caso de suspeita e manter uma senha segura. A XXX pode restringir, suspender ou encerrar sua conta por violação destes termos.
9. SEU CONTEÚDOO conteúdo enviado pertence a você, e você decide quais permissões conceder. Você concede à XXX licença para copiar, publicar e analisar seu conteúdo na plataforma. Esta licença expira quando o conteúdo é removido e eliminado dos sistemas da XXX.
10. SUA RESPONSABILIDADEVocê concorda em indenizar a XXX por ações judiciais relacionadas a violações destes termos por você ou através de sua conta.
11. ISENÇÃO DE RESPONSABILIDADEVocê aceita os riscos de usar a plataforma e seu conteúdo. Conforme a lei, a plataforma é fornecida "no estado em que se encontra", sem garantias.
12. LIMITES DE OBRIGAÇÃOA XXX e seus fornecedores não terão obrigação por danos não previstos quando você aceitou estes termos.
13. ENCERRAMENTOVocê ou a XXX podem encerrar este acordo a qualquer momento, cessando então sua permissão de uso.
14. LITÍGIOSDisputas relativas a estes termos serão resolvidas em tribunais \[especificar foro\].
POLÍTICA DE PRIVACIDADE
15. INFORMAÇÕES COLETADAS
Informações básicas da conta: Se se registar neste servidor, poderá ser solicitado que introduza um nome de utilizador, um endereço de e-mail e uma palavra-passe. Pode também introduzir informações adicionais de perfil, como um nome de exibição e uma biografia, e carregar uma imagem de perfil e uma imagem de cabeçalho. O nome de utilizador, nome de exibição, biografia, imagem de perfil e imagem de cabeçalho são sempre listados publicamente.
Publicações, seguidores e outras informações públicas: A lista de pessoas que segue é listada publicamente, o mesmo se aplica aos seus seguidores. Quando submete uma mensagem, a data e a hora são armazenadas, bem como a aplicação a partir da qual a submeteu. As mensagens podem conter ficheiros anexos de media, como imagens e vídeos. As publicações públicas e não listadas estão disponíveis publicamente. Quando destaca uma publicação no seu perfil, essa informação também fica publicamente disponível. As suas publicações são entregues aos seus seguidores; em alguns casos, isso significa que são entregues em servidores diferentes e cópias são lá armazenadas. Quando elimina publicações, esta ação é igualmente entregue aos seus seguidores. A ação de republicar ou favoritar outra publicação é sempre pública.
Publicações diretas e apenas para seguidores: Todas as publicações são armazenadas e processadas no servidor. As publicações apenas para seguidores são entregues aos seus seguidores e aos utilizadores mencionados nelas, e as publicações diretas são entregues apenas aos utilizadores mencionados nelas. Em alguns casos, isso significa que são entregues a servidores diferentes e cópias são lá armazenadas. Fazemos um esforço de boa fé para limitar o acesso a essas publicações apenas a pessoas autorizadas, mas outros servidores podem não o fazer. Por isso, é importante rever os servidores a que pertencem os seus seguidores. Pode ativar uma opção para aprovar e rejeitar novos seguidores manualmente nas definições. Por favor, tenha em mente que os operadores do servidor e de qualquer servidor recetor podem visualizar tais mensagens, e que os destinatários podem capturar ecrã, copiar ou partilhá-las de outra forma. Não partilhe informações sensíveis através da plataforma.
IPs e outros metadados: Quando inicia sessão, registamos o endereço IP a partir do qual acede, bem como o nome da sua aplicação de navegador. Todas as sessões iniciadas estão disponíveis para sua revisão e revogação nas definições. O último endereço IP utilizado é armazenado por até 12 meses. Também podemos reter registos (logs) do servidor que incluem o endereço IP de todos os pedidos feitos ao nosso servidor.
16. FINALIDADES DO TRATAMENTOQualquer uma das informações que recolhemos de si pode ser usada das seguintes formas:
Para fornecer a funcionalidade central da plataforma. Só pode interagir com o conteúdo de outras pessoas e publicar o seu próprio conteúdo quando tem a sessão iniciada.
Para auxiliar na moderação da comunidade, por exemplo, comparando o seu endereço IP com outros conhecidos para determinar evasão de banimento ou outras violações.
O endereço de e-mail que fornece pode ser usado para enviar informações, notificações sobre outras pessoas a interagirem com o seu conteúdo ou a enviarem-lhe mensagens, e para responder a perguntas e/ou outros pedidos.
17. MEDIDAS DE SEGURANÇAImplementamos uma variedade de medidas de segurança para manter a segurança das suas informações pessoais quando as introduz, submete ou acede. Entre outras coisas, a sua sessão do navegador, bem como o tráfego entre as suas aplicações e a API, são protegidos com SSL, e a sua palavra-passe é codificada (hashed) usando um algoritmo forte unidirecional. Pode ativar a autenticação de dois fatores para proteger ainda mais o acesso à sua conta.
18. RETENÇÃO DE DADOSFaremos um esforço de boa fé para:
Reter os registos (logs) do servidor contendo o endereço IP de todos os pedidos para este servidor, na medida em que tais registos sejam mantidos, por não mais de 90 dias.
Reter os endereços IP associados a utilizadores registados por não mais de 12 meses.
Pode solicitar e transferir um arquivo do seu conteúdo, incluindo as suas publicações, ficheiros de media anexos, imagem de perfil e imagem de cabeçalho.
Pode eliminar a sua conta de forma irreversível a qualquer momento.
19. COOKIESSim. Os cookies são pequenos ficheiros que um site ou seu prestador de serviços transfere para o disco rígido do seu computador através do seu navegador da Web (se permitir). Estes cookies permitem que o site reconheça o seu navegador e, se tiver uma conta registada, associe-o à sua conta registada. Utilizamos cookies para compreender e guardar as suas preferências para visitas futuras.
20. COMPARTILHAMENTO COM TERCEIROSNão vendemos, negociamos ou transferimos de outra forma para terceiros externos a sua informação de identificação pessoal. Isto não inclui terceiros de confiança que nos auxiliam a operar o nosso site, a conduzir os nossos negócios ou a prestar-lhe serviço, desde que essas partes concordem em manter esta informação confidencial. Também podemos divulgar as suas informações quando acreditamos que a divulgação é apropriada para cumprir a lei, fazer cumprir as políticas do nosso site ou proteger os nossos ou os direitos, propriedade ou segurança de outros.
O seu conteúdo público pode ser transferido (descarregado) por outros servidores da rede. As suas publicações públicas e apenas para seguidores são entregues aos servidores onde residem os seus seguidores, e as mensagens diretas são entregue aos servidores dos destinatários, na medida em que esses seguidores ou destinatários residam num servidor diferente deste.
Quando autoriza uma aplicação a usar a sua conta, dependendo do âmbito das permissões que aprovar, ela pode aceder às informações do seu perfil público, à sua lista de seguidores, aos seus seguidores, às suas listas, a todas as suas publicações e aos seus favoritos. As aplicações nunca podem aceder ao seu endereço de e-mail ou palavra-passe.
21. SEUS DIREITOS LGPDNos termos da Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD), você tem direito a:
Acessar e corrigir seus dados pessoais
Solicitar a eliminação de dados desnecessários
Revogar consentimentos a qualquer momento
Obter informações sobre compartilhamento com terceiros
Solicitar a portabilidade de dados
Para exercer estes direitos, entre em contato através do e-mail: \[e-mail de privacidade\]
22. ENCARREGADO PELA PROTEÇÃO DE DADOSPara questões sobre proteção de dados, contate nosso Encarregado: E-mail: \[e-mail do DPO\] Endereço: \[endereço físico da organização\]
23. ALTERAÇÕESEstes termos foram atualizados pela última vez em XX de XXX de 2025 e poderão ser atualizados novamente. Publicaremos todas as atualizações na plataforma. Para atualizações com alterações consideráveis, enviaremos notificação por e-mail se você tiver criado uma conta e fornecido um endereço válido.
24. CONTATOVocê poderá notificar a empresa sobre estes termos, além de enviar perguntas, em \[e-mail da organização\].
A XXX poderá notificar sob estes termos através do endereço de e-mail da sua conta, ou através de mensagem na página inicial da plataforma ou na página da sua conta.
Com a mesma proposta de alinhamento e colaboração do modelo de termos de uso e política de privacidade, reunimos neste texto algumas regras comuns utilizadas nas instâncias brasileiras para quem estiver começando e gostaria de um ponto de partida:
REGRAS
Marco Civil da Internet, e LGPDA \[nome da instância\] respeita e está sujeita ao Marco Civil da Internet, à LGPD e às leis contra crimes digitais.
Você deve ter 18 anos completos ou mais.Ao se cadastrar na \[nome da instância\], você declara ser maior de idade. Contas de menores de 18 anos serão suspensas.
Proibição de Conteúdo Ilícito ou AbusivoÉ proibido compartilhar pornografia não consensual e Deepfakes maliciosos.
Proibição de Discurso de ÓdioMachismo, misoginia, racismo, xenofobia, transfobia, homofobia, Apologia a qualquer forma de opressão, exploração ou humilhação, defesa de governos autoritários, nazismo, fascismo ou nacionalismo extremista.
Proibição de DoxxingA publicação de conteúdo privado sem consentimento (doxxing) resultará em suspensão imediata.
Sobre Conteúdo Violento ou Chocante Sempre use aviso de conteúdo (CW). Imagens sensíveis devem ser marcadas adequadamente.
Contas Fake ou de ParódiaContas falsas (incluindo marcas ou celebridades) devem ser sinalizadas como paródia.
AcessibilidadeDescreva imagens e vídeos (use ALT TEXT) sempre que possível.
Conteúdo Gerado por IAIdentifique imagens criadas por IA com a tag #aiart. Inclua o nome da ferramenta (ex.: #midjourney). Adicione o prompt no texto alternativo (ALT).
Apresente-seAo criar a conta, sugerimos que faça uma apresentação sua e inclua a tag #Apresentação.
The dollar is heading for its worst year since 1973, falling more than 10% year-to-date while nearly every other major asset class explodes upward. Just last night, Bitcoin hit a new all-time high of $125,000, pushing its total market value to $2.
The General Services Administration is furloughing employees who are typically “exempt” from a government shutdown, because much of the agency isn’t funded through congressional appropriations.
GSA employees told Federal News Network these furloughs are happening contrary to the agency’s recent messages to staff, and run contrary to the agency’s longstanding practices during a shutdown.
Meanwhile, GSA has inadvertently sent notices to employees it laid off months ago, telling them that they are exempt and should continue working during the shutdown. A similar situation occurred in at least one other agency.
A GSA employee said the agency’s Federal Acquisition Service has furloughed staff who are funded through the Acquisition Services Fund, a revolving fund that includes revenue GSA receives for the services to provides to other agencies.
North Dakota lawmakers in 2023 first established the line of credit through the state-owned bank to allow construction on the $450 million library in Medora to continue if donations have been pledged but not yet received by the library foundation. The loan did not get used in the 2023-25 budget cycle.
Lawmakers voted earlier this year to continue that line of credit. Unlike a traditional loan, a line of credit allows the borrower to access the funds only as needed, saving money on interest, said Kelvin Hullet, chief business development officer for the Bank of North Dakota.
The library foundation began accessing the funds for the first time in July, with the balance now at $53 million, Hullet said Friday.
Scossone nel reunion tour degli Oasis: Paul “Bonehead” Arthurs annuncia l’assenza temporanea per curare un cancro alla prostata. Il chitarrista, tra i fondatori della band di Manchester, rassicura però i fan: l’obiettivo è tornare sul palco a novembre per i concerti in Sud America.
The Trump administration’s tariff regime and the elimination of fee exemptions for items under $800 is limiting resource sharing between university libraries, trapping some books in foreign countries, and reversing long-held standards in academic cooperation.
“There are libraries that have our books that we've lent to them before all of this happened, and now they can't ship them back to us because their carrier either is flat out refusing to ship anything to the U.S., or they're citing not being able to handle the tariff situation,” Jessica Bower Relevo, associate director of resource sharing and reserves at Yale University Library, told me.
After Trump’s executive order ended the de minimis exemption, which allowed people to buy things internationally without paying tariffs if the items cost less than $800, we’ve written severalstoriesabout how the decision caused chaos over a wide variety of hobbies that rely on people buying things overseas, especially on Ebay, where many of those transactions take place.
Libraries that share their materials internationally are in a similar mess, partly because some countries’ mail services stopped shipments to and from the U.S. entirely, but the situation for them is arguably even more complicated because they’re not selling anything—they’re just lending books.
“It's not necessarily too expensive. It's that they don't have a mechanism in place to deal with the tariffs and how they're going to be applied,” Relevo said. “And I think that's true of U.S. shipping carriers as well. There’s a lot of confusion about how to handle this situation.”
“The tariffs have impacted interlibrary loans in various ways for different libraries,” Heather Evans, a librarian at RMIT University in Australia, told me in an email. “It has largely depended on their different procedures as to how much they have been affected. Some who use AusPost [Australia’s postal service] to post internationally have been more impacted and I've seen many libraries put a halt on borrowing to or from the US at all.” (AusPost suspended all shipments to the United States but plans to renew them on October 7).
Relevo told me that in some cases books are held up in customs indefinitely, or are “lost in warehouses” where they are held for no clear reason.
As Relevo explains it, libraries often provide people in foreign institutions books in their collections by giving them access to digitized materials, but some books are still only available in physical copies. These are not necessarily super rare or valuable books, but books that are only in print in certain countries. For example, a university library might have a specialized collection on a niche subject because it’s the focus area of a faculty member, a French university will obviously have a deeper collection of French literature, and some textbooks might only be published in some languages.
A librarian’s job is to give their community access to information, and international interlibrary loans extend that mission to other countries by having libraries work together. In the past, if an academic in the U.S. wanted access to a French university’s deep collection of French literature, they’d have to travel there. Today, academics can often ask that library to ship them the books they want. Relevo said this type of lending has always been useful, but became especially popular and important during COVID lockdowns, when many libraries were closed and international travel was limited.
“Interlibrary loans has been something that libraries have been able to do for a really long time, even back in the early 1900s,” Relevo said. “If we can't do that anymore and we're limiting what our users can access, because maybe they're only limited to what we have in our collection, then ultimately could hinder academic progress. Scholars have enjoyed for decades now the ability to basically get whatever they need for their research, to be very comprehensive in their literature reviews or the references that they need, or past research that's been done on that topic, because most libraries, especially academic libraries, do offer this service [...] If we can't do that anymore, or at least there's a barrier to doing that internationally, then researchers have to go back to old ways of doing things.”
The American Library Association (ALA) has a group dedicated to international interlibrary lending, called the International Interlibrary Loan (ILL) Committee, which is nested in the Sharing and Transforming Access to Resources Section (STARS) of the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA). Since Trump’s executive order and tariffs regime, the RUSA STARS International ILL Committee has produced a site dedicated to helping librarians navigate the new, unpredictable landscape.
In addition to explaining the basic facts of the tariffs and de minimis, the site also shares resources and “Tips & Tricks in Uncertain Times,” which encourages librarians to talk to partner libraries before lending or borrowing books, and to “be transparent and set realistic expectations with patrons.” The page also links to an online form that asks librarians to share any information they have about how different libraries are handling the elimination of de minimis in an attempt to crowd source a better understanding of the new international landscape.
“Let's say this library in Germany wanted to ship something to us,” Relevo said. “It sounds like the postal carriers just don't know how to even do that. They don’t know how to pass that tariff on to the library that's getting the material, there's just so much confusion on what you would even do if you even wanted to. So they're just saying, ‘No, we're not shipping to the U.S.’”
Relevo told me that one thing the resource sharing community has talked about a lot is how to label packages so customs agents know they are not [selling] goods to another country. Relevo said that some libraries have marked the value of books they’re lending as $0. Others have used specific codes to indicate the package isn’t a good that’s being bought or sold. But there’s not one method that has worked consistently across the board.
“It does technically have value, because it's a tangible item, and pretty much any tangible item is going to have some sort of value, but we're not selling it,” she said. “We're just letting that library borrow it and then we're going to get it back. But the way customs and tariffs work, it's more to do with buying and selling goods and library stuff isn't really factored into those laws [...] it's kind of a weird concept, especially when you live in a highly capitalized country.”
Relevo said that the last 10-15 years have been a very tumultuous time for libraries, not just because of tariffs, but because AI-generated content, the pandemic, and conservative organizations pressuring libraries to remove certain books from their collections.
“At the end of the day, us librarians just want to help people, so we're just trying to find the best ways to do that right now with the resources we have,” she said.
“What I would like the public to know about the situation is that their librarians as a group are very committed to doing the best we can for them and to finding the best options and ways to fulfill their requests and access needs. Please continue to ask us for what you need,” Evans said. “At the moment we would ask for a little extra patience, and perhaps understanding that we might not be able to get things as urgently for them if it involves the U.S., but we will do as we have always done and search for the fastest and most helpful way to obtain access to what they require.”
A portal for current issues surrounding international interlibrary loan related to the U.S.
Below this description are 6 clickable images that link to key resources.
Libraries Can’t Get Their Loaned Books Back Because of Trump’s Tariffs
The Trump administration’s tariff regime and the elimination of fee exemptions for items under $800 is limiting resource sharing between university libraries, trapping some books in foreign countries, and reversing long-held standards in academic cooperation.
“There are libraries that have our books that we've lent to them before all of this happened, and now they can't ship them back to us because their carrier either is flat out refusing to ship anything to the U.S., or they're citing not being able to handle the tariff situation,” Jessica Bower Relevo, associate director of resource sharing and reserves at Yale University Library, told me.
After Trump’s executive order ended the de minimis exemption, which allowed people to buy things internationally without paying tariffs if the items cost less than $800, we’ve written severalstoriesabout how the decision caused chaos over a wide variety of hobbies that rely on people buying things overseas, especially on Ebay, where many of those transactions take place.
Libraries that share their materials internationally are in a similar mess, partly because some countries’ mail services stopped shipments to and from the U.S. entirely, but the situation for them is arguably even more complicated because they’re not selling anything—they’re just lending books.
“It's not necessarily too expensive. It's that they don't have a mechanism in place to deal with the tariffs and how they're going to be applied,” Relevo said. “And I think that's true of U.S. shipping carriers as well. There’s a lot of confusion about how to handle this situation.”
“The tariffs have impacted interlibrary loans in various ways for different libraries,” Heather Evans, a librarian at RMIT University in Australia, told me in an email. “It has largely depended on their different procedures as to how much they have been affected. Some who use AusPost [Australia’s postal service] to post internationally have been more impacted and I've seen many libraries put a halt on borrowing to or from the US at all.” (AusPost suspended all shipments to the United States but plans to renew them on October 7).
Relevo told me that in some cases books are held up in customs indefinitely, or are “lost in warehouses” where they are held for no clear reason.
As Relevo explains it, libraries often provide people in foreign institutions books in their collections by giving them access to digitized materials, but some books are still only available in physical copies. These are not necessarily super rare or valuable books, but books that are only in print in certain countries. For example, a university library might have a specialized collection on a niche subject because it’s the focus area of a faculty member, a French university will obviously have a deeper collection of French literature, and some textbooks might only be published in some languages.
A librarian’s job is to give their community access to information, and international interlibrary loans extend that mission to other countries by having libraries work together. In the past, if an academic in the U.S. wanted access to a French university’s deep collection of French literature, they’d have to travel there. Today, academics can often ask that library to ship them the books they want. Relevo said this type of lending has always been useful, but became especially popular and important during COVID lockdowns, when many libraries were closed and international travel was limited.
“Interlibrary loans has been something that libraries have been able to do for a really long time, even back in the early 1900s,” Relevo said. “If we can't do that anymore and we're limiting what our users can access, because maybe they're only limited to what we have in our collection, then ultimately could hinder academic progress. Scholars have enjoyed for decades now the ability to basically get whatever they need for their research, to be very comprehensive in their literature reviews or the references that they need, or past research that's been done on that topic, because most libraries, especially academic libraries, do offer this service [...] If we can't do that anymore, or at least there's a barrier to doing that internationally, then researchers have to go back to old ways of doing things.”
The American Library Association (ALA) has a group dedicated to international interlibrary lending, called the International Interlibrary Loan (ILL) Committee, which is nested in the Sharing and Transforming Access to Resources Section (STARS) of the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA). Since Trump’s executive order and tariffs regime, the RUSA STARS International ILL Committee has produced a site dedicated to helping librarians navigate the new, unpredictable landscape.
In addition to explaining the basic facts of the tariffs and de minimis, the site also shares resources and “Tips & Tricks in Uncertain Times,” which encourages librarians to talk to partner libraries before lending or borrowing books, and to “be transparent and set realistic expectations with patrons.” The page also links to an online form that asks librarians to share any information they have about how different libraries are handling the elimination of de minimis in an attempt to crowd source a better understanding of the new international landscape.
“Let's say this library in Germany wanted to ship something to us,” Relevo said. “It sounds like the postal carriers just don't know how to even do that. They don’t know how to pass that tariff on to the library that's getting the material, there's just so much confusion on what you would even do if you even wanted to. So they're just saying, ‘No, we're not shipping to the U.S.’”
Relevo told me that one thing the resource sharing community has talked about a lot is how to label packages so customs agents know they are not [selling] goods to another country. Relevo said that some libraries have marked the value of books they’re lending as $0. Others have used specific codes to indicate the package isn’t a good that’s being bought or sold. But there’s not one method that has worked consistently across the board.
“It does technically have value, because it's a tangible item, and pretty much any tangible item is going to have some sort of value, but we're not selling it,” she said. “We're just letting that library borrow it and then we're going to get it back. But the way customs and tariffs work, it's more to do with buying and selling goods and library stuff isn't really factored into those laws [...] it's kind of a weird concept, especially when you live in a highly capitalized country.”
Relevo said that the last 10-15 years have been a very tumultuous time for libraries, not just because of tariffs, but because AI-generated content, the pandemic, and conservative organizations pressuring libraries to remove certain books from their collections.
“At the end of the day, us librarians just want to help people, so we're just trying to find the best ways to do that right now with the resources we have,” she said.
“What I would like the public to know about the situation is that their librarians as a group are very committed to doing the best we can for them and to finding the best options and ways to fulfill their requests and access needs. Please continue to ask us for what you need,” Evans said. “At the moment we would ask for a little extra patience, and perhaps understanding that we might not be able to get things as urgently for them if it involves the U.S., but we will do as we have always done and search for the fastest and most helpful way to obtain access to what they require.”
Would-be condo buyers are spooked by high costs, including rising HOA dues and insurance fees–but the silver lining is bargaining power. The gap between sellers and buyers has shrunk since springtime, though, when there were 81% more sellers.
After arriving back at Heathrow Airport, Novara Media’s Kieran Andrieu shared his experience and explained why he thinks their mission was a huge political success.
After arriving back at Heathrow Airport, Novara Media's Kieran Andrieu shared his experience and explained why he thinks their mission was a huge political success.…
Florida officials received a hefty lump sum of cash from the federal government Tuesday to cover the cost of the Everglades immigration detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” As reported first by WPLG, the Department of Homeland Security revealed two days after the fact that Florida had been awarded the full $608.4 million stockpile of funds within the Detention Support Grant Program…
Regulations limit each system to just 800 watts, enough to power a small fridge or charge a laptop
What kind of clueless person wrote this. Whoever wrote this clearly has no idea how much 800W is in practice. Our fridge with an attached freezer (full size, 60cm wide, normal to large in Europe) never uses more than 70-90W, duty cycle is around 40%. So on average it uses 30W or so.
My gaming laptop is limited to 180W. Normally it uses much much less (50ish when actively used). My gaming desktop PC with 3 monitors uses 800W under full load, but that's with everything (monitors, amp/speaker, ...). Even with multiple PCs in normal (non gaming) use in the house, seeing over 800W isn't common. Or 10 laptops, not "a small laptop".
800W is enough to power our whole house unless we're cooking or taking a shower. I would argue in general, it will nullify noon-peak loads of an entire household, and whatever is left over gets added to the grid.
That said 800w will be the nominal amount under near perfect conditions, 80%- 90% of the time it won't be anywhere near that.
We (m and f couple) lived of grid for 10 years on a 2kW solar system and batteries with ease no generator for backup but a gas oven, 1 * induction cook top, 2x pedestal fans and 1 x celing fans, toaster, kettle, microwave and a no electrical boost solar system. Mid size diesel truck we used minimamilay (lived way out in the bush growing our own stuff etc) We're naturally energy thrifty though. At S30° latitide, awesome for solar.
We've since moved to S41°, terrible for solar in winter (short days and thats the wet season). We have 8kW solar but are on grid (feed excess solar into the grid) and charge our mid sized e-truck (use minimially) off solar, and have a heat pump for heating, so we use more electrons but no fossil fuel.
As I'd replied to a sister comment of yours, I didn't even consider that the author could be talking about actually available power, so that's on me. I did go re-read it and I really don't think that's how it is meant though. I do think they are just ignorant on this point.
That being said, "balcony solar" isn't limited to 800 W in panels. It's limited to an 800 W inverter, but 2 kW for the panels. So you can have quite a bit more capacity in solar compared to the inverter, which also means that worse weather impacts you less. When you got a full sunny day, you can have the full 800 W for much longer, if not most of the day, as it'll essentially be limited further down the chain. On the other hand I do think the most common size actually installed is much closer to also only have 800-900 Wp (basically 2 panels), which is the most commonly offerend (and presumably sold) kit size.
We also have roughly 8 kWp installed, and obviously on cloudy or dark winter days we're an order of magnitude away from that number. There are days where we break 40 kWh in production, and there are days where we barely make it to 1 kWh. That low is very rare, even in winter or on dense, cloudy days, so I'd consider 4 kWh a more realistic minimum value. We have relatively detailed monitoring of most (relevant) consumers, which is why I have a somewhat good idea of how much our house consumes in practice. Before this full size installation, we had a 2 panel balcony solar "test setup" for quite a while. It was actually quite a (positive) surprise on how many days we essentially covered the majority of our daylight usage with these panels. Obviously not for the big-ticket consumers, but even a washer/dryer will be mostly covered.
The plug and play solar panels described in the article do net feed back into the grid, that's why they're so simple to setup. You still need landlord approval to install them, because fuck your personal freedom if you live in Germany, but for the standards here, this is incredibly simple.
Sorry but the first part is just incorrect. They are indeed simple, which is why they do feed back into the grid. Not feeding back would take effort and additional hardware. But you're not being paid for what is fed back into the grid, making it free energy for the electricity provider (see my last paragraph below).
To explain it a bit: electrically, the external grid and the grid in your home are simply connected (assuming the breakers are closed). If you use more than you produce, whatever is missing "flows in". If you produce more than what you're currently consuming, whatever is left over just flows out into the grid. Even if this if obviously simplified, this "just happens" with no effort required, but the amount that flows in or out is easy enough to measure (which is what the electricity meter does that sits between the big grid and the one in your house). If you want to actually make sure you don't feed back into the grid, you would constantly need to monitor if anything is flowing in our out, and compensate with reduced (or increased) production. Even full size solar installations can't do this with perfect precision, even if you tell them to: you can only react to the flow you see coming in/out, if you turn a large heater quickly on and off and on and off, it won't have time to react quickly enough.
For the longest time (until early 2023 I think), you had to ask permission from your electricity network operator (is that the correct term? "Netzbetreiber"), because they would only allow you to install it if you had at least a semi-modern electricity meter that won't turn backwards. Because balcony solar always feeds into the grid, you'd effectively be paid the same per kWh as what you're paying yourself. You would effectively use the grid as a infinitely large battery.
Hi, I installed Linux Mint on a Asus Tuf Gaming F16 i7 13620H 4050 rtx, when I put it on suspension it takes a long time to wake up and the wireless becomes unavailable, I need to reboot to make it work again. I've already installed the latest drivers and updated the bios. I really don't know what to do, can it be a hardware problem? Thanks.
Is it a laptop? For some reason I've always had issues on laptop and suspend mode on linux, I think it's a commom issue. Which version of mint adn kernal version?
Hi Got a new latop with Realtek 8852 WIFI/BT module. I installed RTW89 using readme guide. It does work and I can connect to wifi, but wifi drops frequently/restarting. Bluetooth only works after r...
True, but i had similar problems in the past. I had 32GB RAM and when suspending it took years to boot and one day it didn't boot at all. A second hard drive with 50GB swap solved that problem for me.
The First Nation plans to formalize its partnership with the Fort Peck Sioux Tribes, in Montana, next week by signing a memorandum of understanding to advance the trade corridor and its infrastructure development.
The corridor intends to use traditional routes traversing Dakota territories in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and into the United States, reviving the historic Oceti Sakowin trade network, a historic alliance of seven Dakota, Lakota and Nakota Indigenous groups united by kinship, language and spiritual beliefs. The shared trade routes historically facilitated economic and military ties across their territories. “We have a lot of history, and even to this day, ties linking us to our relatives,” said Rodger Redman, chief of the nation.
Redman said this corridor is not symbolic, but rather an economic engine for the countries. Standing Buffalo is located in a region rich with critical minerals vital to global industries including renewable energy and technology. By owning the corridor, Indigenous nations can control the movement of these resources and expand economic opportunities for their communities.
Veteran Palestine campaigner #sarahwilkinson who was reportedly subjected to severe mistreatment in an Israeli prison, has now been detained by UK police at Heathrow Airport for interrogation. as the UK moves inexerbobaly toward a more aunthortarian state
Stripped of her phone and money, Wilkinson stands accused of documenting the Israeli genocide in #Gaza through her social media accounts. To make clear this occurred to Sarah LAST YEAR. I think Sarah is on her way to Turkey atm?
The UK fascists gotta get their licks in too it seems. After all they probably think she's a terrorist or something for daring to have the courage to speak out.
I couldn't even finish this report because I got too disgusted with what this fucking traitor (and his entire support network through Koch, Fox, Newsmax, Heritage, etc.) has done to the world.
It's particularly useful for doing research, as most major websites, that don't need accounts, work well enough (you will get CloudFlare Captchas). So research your VPN with tor browser, then use your commercial VPN to log in to social media sites that block logging in from tor, or watch your video content that will be too slow over tor. Both tools have a use.
Proton, in my opinion, make the best VPN for people who need both mobile device support and port forwarding so they can be a good citizen with all those linux ISOs they torrent. I don't use their desktop client (I prefer to rawdog OpenVPN and Wireguard) but people like those.
Proton's email is dogshit. Don't get me wrong, it is awesome for making burners that many websites don't insta-block (although that is shifting). But you don't own your data unless you regularly run their nonsense client to tunnel into their servers. So if Proton goes shit tomorrow? All your emails are gone. Not a HUGE issue if you regularly fetch those but... yeah.
I've been backburnering it for other reasons but folk like (Not That) Will Smith and many others have been very big supporters of Fastmail and, looking at it, it seems pretty nice. And it fits my use case of using an email address at a domain I own so that I can just move between services depending on pricing and how evil corporations are in a given month.
Just to elaborate a bit. Migrating from JohnSmith@gmail to JohnSmith@hotmail to JohnSmith_75151515@proton is a massive undertaking.
Migrating from John@SmithDotOrg hosted by Foo to John@SmithDotOrg hosted by Bar is potentially under an hour depending on how you manage that domain and so forth.
But you don't own your data unless you regularly run their nonsense client to tunnel into their servers. So if Proton goes shit tomorrow? All your emails are gone. Not a HUGE issue if you regularly fetch those but... yeah.
Tbf most people don't download offline copies, they just let all their email live on their provider's servers and never think twice.
Personally, I've used either Outlook or Gmail since 2000 and haven't ever had an issue getting access to my emails.
That is an important point. For all that Microsoft and Google do to enshitify email, all the spying, all the privacy invasions they do monitoring your every click, contact, and the content of every email, they are extremely reliable at storing those emails. If you move away from them, there is a non-zero chance that is greater than the above companies that your new provider will go belly-up and you lose access to email. So there is an incentive to download things, at least periodically, and store them somewhere. If you use a mail client, that's very easy. This is an aspect of tech literacy, like backing up your files in more than one place generally, that very few are taught.
The 3, 2, 1 rule of backups should be taught to school children. Instead, big tech go out of their way to abstract away the problem behind layers of infantilizing services. It works well, until it doesn't.
I mean that was the initial selling point for Gmail wasn't it? Don't worry about deleting or archiving anything, ever, you can just search for it... Basic file management skills sidelined.
As I said. Works great until it doesn't. In hindsight, Gmail has been extremely reliable for most people, but that wasn't true for some other Google services. I do think a lot of people have probably lost their email because of their password management skills though.
No one gives a single flying fuck about owning their email generally. The number of people who actually care about that aspect basically can be counted on one hand compared to the total number of even technical people who understand what that means.
Proton, Mullvad, PIA, are a few decent options. Be careful about anything that isn't widely trusted by the community as there are so many un-trustworthy providers out there that are basically shilling old-school spyware/malware. Also, for getting decent performance, they should also be using a modern protocol like wireguard underneath, not something like OpenVPN or L2TP or something like that. You will want port-forwarding if you use it for torrents, and that narrows it down extremely.
I'm pretty sure PornHub is just the most well-known example and they happen to own something like 5 others of the top ten most visited porn sites on the net.
If VPNs get outlawed for some reason in AZ, Tor is another option. Make sure you download it from their site sonce there are fake Tor apps in the playstores
Every single one of you idiots is fine with paying extra to access a free service. VPN! VPN! Gotta have a VPN to fool everyone!
You didn't need a VPN before, because religious nazis have to control every single fucking thing. Control that porn! Control that "R" rated movie! Control those words in songs! Control the words in books! All religious movements.
Stop supporting religions, you stupid fucks. Requring a VPN is just saying that poor people don't get free porn, because they can't afford a VPN. Which is yet another thing that religious dickheads do.
Most people are woefully unprepared to shop for a VPN from a reputable provider, meaning most people are going to end up subjected to even more surveillance and potentially attacks on their devices.
Most people also are not prepared to manage when to and not-to use it, so will get slower internet all of the time.
This will create lists of VPN users at both the ISPs and the VPN companies that will be usable by later christo-fascist governments.
This will ultimately get laws passed against consumer-facing VPN services, making it harder for people to protect themselves from other attacks.
More honey-pot VPN services will start up to support that list-gathering for future christo-fascist governments looking to build dossiers on as many people as possible.
I could go on and on. And nothing about the above has anything to do with porn.
I was with you until the last sentence. As someone who is not religious in the slightest, I have no problem with people being religious as long as it's not forced in me.
Nope, garbage shit for assholes who want to control idiots. And yes it is being forced on you, that's how Christian national terrorism works, if you don't think it is, I'm sorry, but you're also an idiot
My issue is that the ones who aren't bothering you with it are essentially not doing so because they know other people in their group are already handling that for them. Religions, especially those you named, come with a mandate to spread themselves and force others to comply with their standards.
It's kind of like a really selfish kid who would steal all your lunch every day, but he's not strong enough to do so, so instead he's just nice and kind and smiles at you and lets you be. But if he ever gets strong enough, he'll start taking your lunch every single day forever.
The religious people who aren't forcing it down your throat either (1) think someone else is doing it for them so they don't have to, or (2) don't think they could get away with it without being counterproductive to their cause, and are waiting for a more opportune moment.
These are people who believe that they factually know what constitutes objective good. Imagine if raping children was legal and you knew your neighbor was raping children. You might just leave him alone about it because, what can you do? But the moment you have an opportunity to vote for a law to outlaw it, the moment you have a chance to kill him and get away with it, etc. you'll try to act against him. Your polite indifference to him is a lie, because from your perspective he is committing an absolute and unforgivable wrongdoing that MUST be stopped. This is how religious people are to you, except for instead of it being about reasonable things like raping children, it's about stupid bullshit that makes no sense, like the fact you don't pray every day at a certain time, or the fact that you're attracted to the same sex, or the fact that you don't want the ten commandments posted in schools.
The problem is that by its very existence and prevalence you have to contend with religion's bullshit effecting your life.
So honestly you should be against people being religious and try and discourage it. Though yeah its not super helpful to look at individual religious people and hate them openly. That's a good way to just harden them right back against you.
Pretty much a default that religion, given the opportunity, will seek to push its rules and values on others. Doesn’t matter if it’s a medicine man or someone sitting on the local school board. I don’t have a problem with religious people in principle either, the problem is that even if you do meet a decent couple of people who appear to keep their religion to themselves there’s hundreds of thousands in their “club” that are going to fuck with things. Kinda like being in the republican party - even if they’re decent people, aren’t bootlickers, aren’t homophobes, etc… they still vote for, support, and associate with a group that does a lot of shitty things.
There is an important distinction between being religious and supporting organized churches. 'Religious people' aren't any more of a threat to you than gay people are. Churches, particularly the Catholic Church in Christianity, that don't even follow their religion's teachings, are the problem.
You don't need an organized group to have people who compromised on logic forcing their views on others. Sure, an organized group can be more efficient, but it is also more visible as a threat.
The solution to the root cause of this (asshole politicians) and all the other fucked up shit going on, is to vote. Vote for a candidate that won't do shit like this. If you want to do extra, donate time or some money to a candidate you like.
There is a difference between intellectual intelligence and emotional. People have needs that intellectual responses don't satisfy such as "what happens to us after death?", "how do I deal with the loss of a loved one?", "does anyone care about me?", "is there more to the universe than just random chance?", etc.
I get that. And believies can’t be based on reason. They’re just there. But it does generally require the ignoring of facts about the world around us. Like the same thing happens after death as before birth. You deal with loss by grieving. I don’t think they’re stupid, just regularly ignoring the simple answers to those questions.
No, the problem is accepting uncritically anything that comes from a self-defined leader, and, even in the absence of that, accepting that any critical input in a social system should come from people that have compromised on logic and reason at some level.
Our Democrat governor signed it. Why she signed this I still don't really understand. She's been using her veto power quite a bit and yet this one gets to go through. Ridiculous.
All politicians are united in their love of surveillance, as it allows them to subjugate the population via panopticon-induced threats. "We are always watching, so don't try anything"
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) said skeleton staffing means visitors will be "probably on your own" with limited facilities available to them.
The National Park Service (NPS), which oversees 433 sites, said on Tuesday it was keeping national parks partially open, but placing more than half its workforce on furlough, or leave.
Conservation groups and former rangers have objected to the sites being kept open during the shutdown, arguing that the decision puts both visitors and park resources at risk.
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano was named to the newly created position of CEO of the IRS on Monday, making him the latest member of the Trump administration to be put in charge of multiple federal agencies.
As IRS CEO, Bisignano will report to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who currently serves as acting commissioner of the IRS, the Treasury Department says. It is unclear whether Bisignano’s newly created role at the IRS will require Senate confirmation.
The Treasury Department said in a statement that Bisignano will be responsible for overseeing all day-to-day IRS operations while also continuing to serve in his role as commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
London’s Metropolitan Police arrested another 492 people over the weekend after a protest Saturday in Trafalgar Square, as the Starmer government accelerated its crackdown on opposition to the Gaza genocide.
The entirely peaceful protest was held to oppose the proscription of Palestine Action. It was organised by Defend Our Juries and attended by over 1,000 people. Of the arrests, 488 were for holding up signs declaring, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”.
Asked if this was a “dark step” to limit the fundamental right to protest, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood replied that that having a freedom “doesn’t mean you have to use it at every moment of every day”.
A country actively kidnapping people off the streets, removing due process and habeus corpus, deporting prisoners to random countries, building concentration camps, and deploying troops on the streets has a score of 84/100. Forgive me for not feeling particularly free with my score of 91.
Having a read of this I think it's fair to say boiling down a nation's "freedom" to a single number is a silly unacademic metric, before even getting into the likelihood of bias and manipulation.
If it looks like a ~~duck~~ fascist, swims like a ~~duck~~ fascist, and quacks like a ~~duck~~ fascist, then it probably is a ~~duck~~ fascist. Regardless of what a likely bias think tank's research may say.
They aren't now, either. 2024 was after the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, too, which was the biggest restriction on the right to protest in a long time and would be more significant than the change being discussed.
It's a bit worrying that people are just taking this incorrect headline from a propaganda rag at face value.
What? Are you saying that all protests have already been declared illegal? Go ahead and cite this declaration you just made up. And also explain the hundreds of thousands of protesters who have not been arrested recently on various causes, from pro-Palestine marches to anti-immigration ones.
If you haven't gone nuts and don't actually believe this thing that isn't happening has already happened, then the arrests of people are irrelevant because they're not part of proposed changes.
Folks who get really up in their feelings about the Trump/Harris election seem to forget that Harris was taking campaign advice from this guy. It's so easy to forget how absolutely poisoned so-called "Liberal Democracy" has become with a broad strain of fascist tendency.
On the one hand, you've got a guy who is looking to literally lay siege to cities in the US that didn't vote for him. On the opposite side of the pond, they're doing mass-arrests of anyone with a "Please Stop Killing Brown People" bumper sticker. And in the middle, a sea of smug dipshits posting "You got what you voted for".
Have you seen their fiction? Even in sci-fi, they're the center of the fucking universe. Galactic Space Empire HQ, located in NYC/LA/San Francisco of course.
As opposed to British fiction where everything os centered around London? George Orwell thought London would be the center of the Anglo-American axis back in 1948 while the British Empire crumbled around him.
Similar issue, yes. It's said that you should write what you know, my point is more that Americans seem incapable of producing fiction where the lower 48 aren't the nexus of the universe, not that the British weren't also doing the same thing centuries earlier.
Aliens sure seem to visit London all the god damn time in Dr. Who. People write literature about the places and people they know. Why would an American write a book about aliens visiting Berlin?
Also, how long ago do you think 1948 was? Because it wasn't "centuries" ago. And the most prominent American sci-fi authors do not have their stories revolve around the US. The Foundation, Dune, Star Wars, and the Expanse were all written by American authors and only one of them has any characters from the USA
1948 was before black people were given equal rights in the US, so as far as I am concerned it should have been centuries ago. Stop dick measuring with the previous garbage empire like their shortcomings somehow excuse your own.
edit:
Was it my support of civil rights or my pointing out how silly it is to compare yourself to a condemnable empire as a defense that made you mad?
I would love to discuss German, Indian, and Chinese sci-fi, but none of it seems to be very popular on the international stage so unfortunately we can't discuss it. The guy i responded to complained that American media focuses so much on America, while citing only Star Trek, but that's literally how media is in every country, so i cited British media because that's what i am familiar with as i am a dual citizen of both countries.
And perhaps associating the racist policies living people grew up with as something that happened centuries ago is why we can't make much progress today.
Where have i tried to use the British Empire to measure social progress? I mentioned an example of English literature where ot is comical to think England would be the nexus of power, which someone then said doesn't count because it was from "centuries ago". Now i don't even know what y'all are trying to yell about, as a thread about the British descent into fascism turned into American literature to whatever the hell you are even talking about at this point
Nobody's yelling, you are clearly having a minor meltdown.
Another user mentioned the valid point of American media being pretty self fellating when it comes to who is treated as the centre of civilisation, and you spat out your binky and decided to bring the UK into this. He responded that yes, Britain has been doing this for centuries (as empires tended to back before mainstream telecommunication), and you wilfully misunderstood his point, prattled on about doctor who and 1984.
I merely responded that measuring your dick against the British empire is a pretty fucking low bar, because that is what you did. I also reminded you that if you don't think 1948 was long enough ago (as you implied), maybe consider the social changes that have taken place.
You been running in circles answering questions nobody asked and misreading responses; a clear sign that you have gotten emotional and are not equipped to engage in this conversation as a reasonable actor.
The person you originally responded to was correct, you were wrong. Maybe learn from that instead of doubling down and randomly bringing the UK into it. To once again repeat, THIS particular thread is in response to someone correctly observing that American media is pretty self fellating when it comes to who is treated as the centre of civilisation.
Because lets face it, no matter how bad the UK might be, the US is in a far worse position right now. Crying about it and pointing fingers just makes you look petulant. If you can't deal with criticism of your country maybe you should stay out of discussions where it might come up?
Thanks! I have almost worked through my backlog of sci-fi books and have been looking for something new while i wait the next book in the captives war series to come out
Sorry I didn’t make any claims as to what constitutes a “full” democracy
I'd settle for what defines "democracy" at all. I've seen folks claim El Salvador is a democracy while Nicaragua isn't, entirely because the government of El Salvador is politically aligned with the US and the Nicaraguans are not.
IRV is just FPTP+
I don't really care what flavor of election system you think is the right one. However you square it, you can have shit candidates win popular mandates. There is no system that'll keep people you don't like out of office, shy of a dictatorship that puts you in charge.
There’s a reason why politicians keep suggesting it
I don't really care what flavor of election system you think is the right one.
You're against logic and reason?
However you square it, you can have shit candidates win popular mandates. There is no system that'll keep people you don't like out of office, shy of a dictatorship that puts you in charge.
I'm not interested in a system that will keep people I don't like out of office. I'm interested in a system that represents the will of the people, rather than the will of a select rich and powerful few.
If you're willing to care, you might find one.
Suggesting it? Thirteen states have now banned ranked-choice voting as municipalities decide on whether to adopt it
I don't see the problem here, like I said, it's worse than FPTP.
I met an Aussie in Thailand who claimed that ranked ballot elections are undemocratic, that recent Australian protests were not racist, that immigration was a huge problem in Australia, that Australians are not actually racist at all, and that recent Australian protests were about protesting Palestine, and not racist at all.
Im going tongo tin foil haters a bit with the implication:
If you have a faist government why not just bring back the royal family as the leaders?
I get that facism is different than monarchism but many of the key distinctions aren't that significant imo, in that they both lean heavily towards autocracy and both Aggressively punish dissent.
Palestine Action sprayed red paint on two Airbus Voyager aircraft to “break the chains of oppression” in Gaza — and drew swift condemnation from British politicians.
hand on hip and wagging scolding finger "Oi mate, yous can't soiy that, it's prohibited language! You're noit allowed to suppoht a group declared terrohrist feh sproiy paintin' a jumbo jet!"
Spraying military aircraft with red paint isn't terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. Who does it terrorize? And supporting an organisation whose members sprayed fighter jets with paint isn't terrorism either. There's no justification for the UK government's use of anti-terrorist legislation against these protesters.
By contrast, supporting a regime that has been openly committing genocide for years and uses torture and murder to intimidate its opponents could well qualify as terrorism.
And runs political interference campaigns at the highest levels of its allies to gain unlimited support. We label other countries foreign actors waging hybrid warfare for a lot less. It's crazy.
People that were against terrorism legislation argued this until they were blue In the face and people people told them don't worry, the government is totally not going to abuse these powers.
When Keir Starmer was a solicitor he defended people, successfully, for the same kind of thing. This isn’t terrorism, this is my government taking away our rights to protest.
People are ignoring their proscription to bring attention to the insanity of it and hope to force the government to back down. It’s mainly old people being arrested; including priests. I would do it myself but it’s hard when you’ve got work and being in jail would hinder that.
I'd argue that the Liberals are a little farther down the line. This administration isn't finished bullying women, intellectuals, non-Caucasians and the queer community to death, they're just getting started.
Happened in the 1910s, even. Hence the old quip about Bernie Sanders killing Rosa Luxemburg.
dumbass liberals eventually ended up lined up against the same walls the communists and socialists were lined up against
Or marched out into the snows of Russia to seize more Lebensraum for the imperial core. Or just bombed to death in Dresden or Berlin when the front lines collapsed.
If you’re a liberal today and defending this fascist suppression against Palestine Action: you’re next.
The hard math of living in a fascist state is standing up and getting shot today or ducking and hiding in hopes you won't get shot tomorrow.
Liberals made their bed back in 2009. We're all just living in the aftermath.
Met Police said many of those arrested needed carrying away after they refused to walk from Trafalgar Square – but Amnesty International says arresting hundreds of people at the demonstration is ‘not the job of police’
The WSWS described the 2014 Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine as a coup backed by the United States and Germany in which the Ukrainian far-right coalition of organizations Right Sector and political party Svoboda would have played a "crucial role".[13] Furthermore, the WSWS criticized the coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014 by the majority of German media outlets, describing it was one-sided and "anti-Russian propaganda". Thus, leading outlets such as Der Spiegel and Die Zeit would have been clamouring for military action against Russia and attacking the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, "who is portrayed as a new Hitler and an aggressor".
[14]About the shootdown of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, the WSWS stated that "Washington has presented not one shred of evidence that Flight MH17 was brought down by a missile either fired by the anti-Kiev forces or supplied by Moscow". Regarding the assassination of Boris Nemtsov in 2015, David North wrote for the WSWS that he was wondering if the United States was planning a coup to replace Putin with a "Western-friendly oligarch".[15] On February 22, 2022 the WSWS issued a statement opposing Putin's invasion of Ukraine, calling for the unity of Russian and Ukrainian workers against both Putin and NATO.[16]
Is it so hard to find a socialist organisation that isn't just simple contrarians?
I guess they at least oppose the (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine so they're not completely bonkers. Not Chinese propaganda level, but still disappointing.
I guess they at least oppose the (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine so they’re not completely bonkers. Not Chinese propaganda level, but still disappointing.
They frequently portray Ukraine as an aggressor in its war, rather than Russia (they call the Kursk incursion of Ukraine the "imperialist-backed incursion of Russia", and they write that Taiwan's ruling party DPP "must renounce its confrontational approach to China" in an obvious disconnection from reality that Russia started the war in Ukraine, and China is becoming increasingly aggressive against Taiwan including threats of an military invasion - Source, but you'll find ample evidence that this site is conveying authoritarian talking points in practically all its reports, and barely properly citing a source for their claims).
How did the DPP rise as “the opposition” in the late 1980s? What role did the KMT and US imperialism play in this development? What do social democrats and Stalinists mean when they say “peace”?
It's a good source if it reports on the fascist behaviors of the UK government. With this trend, how long do you think western media will be able to report freely on this stuff?
90% chance the mossad has a bunch of videos of Starmer and his cabinet diddling kids, or engaging in animality with pigs, whatever is the depravity du jour was in his heyday.
Meanwhile the nazis march against london with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon at the helm. 0 actual enforcement. The funniest part is Yaxley-Lennon was invited by an israeli minister to visit Israel...
Can you imagine travelling back to 1943 and telling people in the camps that their sacrifice would be the fertilizer of a new wave of the same ideological poison that deprived them of dignity and life. This is just heartbreaking... What's even the point of resisting anymore?
Indeed. My opinion stems from the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell's father was suspected of being a Mossad agent and Epstein himself had ties to some Israel government figures.
Resisting tyranny is how everything good in the world is possible. The way to have lives worth living is to defeat tyrants and their ideologies. We defeated the Nazis but not fascism. Now we have to defeat the ideological descendants of the Nazis.
If we don't defeat fascism, neoliberalism, and capitalism now the turn around time for the next fascist movement will be measured in years not decades. We have seen as much with the Biden administration. They failed to meaningfully hold Trump and MAGA to account for the insurrection or fundamentally fix the underling systemic issues that they are symptoms of and now we are living under fascist rule.
We don't have dignified lives or liberal democracies to go back to. The way to get something better is with socialist democracies where workers own corporations and the political process. Until then it's liberty or death. We benefited from a free democracy. If anyone is to enjoy that again we must resist now and until we are all free.
Starmer is terrified of Reform. So he's taken the really smart stance of pulling Labour to the right to court a demographic that would never vote Labour anyway, and in the meantime utterly piss off his core base.
Yeah, it's very sad since I think people are more willing to vote Labour if they were just better. Now their voter base is more likely to stay at home instead of going to the voting booth. Weird move by Starmer since he was in the march against the Iraq war himself.
It's so depressing. I remember the election that Ed Miliband lost, and how many of us were unsurprised that people found no appeal in Tory-lite as opposed to the regular Tories; Labour implicitly conceded to the Tories by affirming the idea that austerity was the only way to go. Now the same is happening with Reform.
If Labour really wanted to challenge Reform, they'd challenge Reform's base assumptions. They'd argue, for example, that reducing immigration won't solve the housing crisis or NHS wait times, because those essential services are suffering from over a decade of chronic underinvestment. They don't need to fight on Reform's terms, because if they do, Labour will lose — again.
A campaign by Israeli-backed British Jewish groups of anti-semitism slanders against Corbyn (so extreme that at one point a Jewish Holocaust Survivor was deemed an anti-semite to get at Corbyn by association) toppled him down from Labour Party leadership, to be replaced by these types, who as soon as they got control of the Labour Party started purging it of people who had voiced Leftwing ideas and support for Corbyn.
Essentially Labour was emptied from the inside and its shell was filled with supporters of a foreign ethno-Fascist regime.
Power Duopolies, such as those found in countries with First Past The Post systems, suffer from similar problems as the Power Monopolies in one party systems, such as how there is a path to power which is entirelly unaccountable to voters, of just taking over one of the Power Duopoly parties from the inside and then let the normal back-and-forth of the duopoly system - since people only ever have 2 options, naturaly the power goes back an forth as people vote for the "lesser" evil that then turns into the "greater" evil so they vote for the other "lesser" evil - bring that party back to power.
Funilly enough, in the UK that seems to have been done to both of the Power Duopoly parties, first to the Tories during the Leave Referendum and after that to the Labour Party when Israel joined with the Liberals (and I don't mean the LibDem Party, I mean Blairites) and even the Tories to overthrow Corbyn (who was openly a defender of the rights of Palestinians) and replaced him with the Liberals who then proceeded to make sure there was nobody left-of-center in that party.
If you look at the US, you see the very same phenomenon transforming the Republicans from a Conservative Party to a Fascist one, as well as how the Democrats have be thoroughly taken over by those serving the interests of Israel and of Billionaires.
I think that the less rigged a country's voting system is for "stability" (read: for making sure only the same handful of big parties has power and they seldom have to do it as part of a cohalition) the more robust it is to this kind of taking over of a large party as an unaccountable way to get power, mainly because more parties have to be taken over and people will migrate more easilly way from a party when it stops representing them (there is no such thing as tactically voting for the "lesser" evil in a Proportional Vote system).
In my own experience, if all the voting systems rigged to benefit size, there is a broader phenomenon of larger parties existing which which are usually in power (though often in cohalitions) and which attract the kind of people with no scruples who go into politics to become wealthy from selling access to power (i.e. the corrupt).
However in the two other countries I lived in beyond the UK, one of which had Proportional Vote and the other Multi-representative Electoral Circles (so, not as bad as FPTP, but still Mathematically rigged), I have not seen a case of the larger parties being obviously taken over as means to get to power like I saw in the UK, though I've seen smaller parties being created and/or supported by foreign money and then eating up some of the vote of the large parties.
Certainly were I am now - Portugal, which has Multi-representative Electoral Circles - of the two new Far-Right parties which were created not that long ago, one of which for sure got money from the Fascists in Brasil and the other also likely had funding from abroad (the campaign phamplets and other materials in their very first elections were both far too expensive for a small party and using the kind of design and slogan style one finds in International Marketing campaigns in huge contrast with other small parties), probably American (they're an ultra-neoliberal party created a couple of years after Steven Bannon came to Europe with money he openly said was to fund far-right parties), though there I don't know for certain. Both of those parties are taking votes away from the large rightwing party but also partialy from all the way into the leftwing (the more Fascist of the two is even picking traditional working class votes that used to go into a Communist Party)
Every party HS a different system. The conservatives have their MPs select two candidates in multiple rounds of voting to put in front of all their members.
Labour has a system where a candidate needs to have a minimum support from their MPs too but it's still an election from labour members and supporters. They rank their candidates I believe
This is so self defeating... Palestine Action should have never been declared a "terrorist organization" in the same category as Al Qaeda and Daesh. People see right through that and it causes a backlash. Nd the UK government doubling down on the backlash creates even more backlash. I mean anyone can see that at this point that the government has lost the political battle on this one and is just chugging through due to the sunk cost fallacy. This is only paving the way for the Right to do a comeback. Fucking centrist liberals man, god damn.
Not rioting is better. Peaceful protest, and thousands getting locked up, is what creates the conditions that might enable real social change.
If that doesn't work, then you have a proper riot (i.e. of the kind that isn't bread and butter to the powers that be). Edit - lot of downvotes here. You need to read a bit of revolutionary theory. No doubt there are Americans downvoting, who of course don't have a leg to stand on based on what they did with their exhorbitant ly privileged society./ YOu are showing your ignorance.
In a culture of peace, true justice could emerge; it would manifest as support of those who experience violence and rehabilitation of those that feel they need to turn to violence to get their way.
Justice and peace are usually not framed as concepts that exist in a vacuum which one chooses between, but rather as interdependent concepts.
I believe that when we choose violence and retribution over nonviolence and rehabilitation/restoration, our manifestation of justice reflects that.
MLK didn’t reject peace – he rejected complacency and false order. My belief in restorative justice and nonviolence is directly aligned with his legacy, not in opposition to it.
A culture of peace is proactive, inclusive, and cooperative. I am not the white moderate he spoke of.
Edit: Just still blown back from the notion that I'm somehow a white moderate for advocating for the same peaceful nonviolent action MLK was. Hit the books friend - you're wrong and here are direct quotes to clarify the situation for those reading:
“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
I'm not concerned about tranquility and the status quo. I agree with MLK that a riot is the language of the unheard. Just like him I still advocate for nonviolent action, while not disowning anyone - especially the unheard.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
I'm not saying the latter statement, not even a little bit - not ever. I am an advocate of direct, nonviolent action and positive peace, as opposed to the negative peace MLK criticized. I'm not attached to false order and I value justice over it. I am deeply concerned about justice and humanity and I don't advocate for moderate and ineffectual action that doesn't affect the status quo.
Just because I chose peace and advocated for a culture of peace, doesn't mean I'm ignoring the role of true justice creating true peace. There's a lot of nuance here and the question was a trap to begin with. If I could go back in time, I would've answered peace and justice and just left it at that.
I disagree. We're past the point where peaceful protests will create change. It's abundantly obviously that those in charge do not care. And they also got it in their heads that AI makes us less necessary.
If leaders and executives won't listen to reason, then it's time to instil fear into them. Remind them there are so many more of us than them, and that their positions are a service to us, not a privilege or an entitlement.
Angry rioters do fucked up shit. Watch LA 92. All that violence and anger turned in on itself, attacked the most vulnerable, weasled into racial divisions.
With a more organised direction for that energy, the city could have been paralyzed, rotten cops and the judges could have been run out of LA and real systemic change could have begun.
I mean sure you can use the chaos to try and get cover for something specific. But generally, people rioting are on-tilt and looking for easy targets that look like their oppressors. Then, everybody gets catharsis and the riot disappears.
It's just lazy. but, better than nothing, i guess.
Peaceful only works when the people in power have a conscience and are willing to come to a peaceful resolution. When they want to eliminate your ability to tell them no, then rioting becomes the path forward.
Although in the UK there was some old graffiti that said 'a nation of sheep, owned by wolves'.
I would say it is more 'a nation of sheep, governed by wolves, owned by pigs. We've all heard of wolves in sheep's clothing, well we have a lot of pigs in sheep's clothing. And the wolves and the pigs interbreed freely, so we have all manner of porcine lupine combinations.'
And what do you do when everyone who would dare to do anything is locked up by peacefully protesting? You're going to run out of bodies, before you realise you're fucked.
Not an american, you are still being silly. Also you sound american with all that rollover attitude to authority. They are outlawing peaceful protesting, the solution is not to keep doing the same thing but with more smugness.
Peaceful protests are most effective when they're backed by the threat of violence. It's not the keg that forces concessions, it's the fear of the powder within. The cops have no issue beating up defenseless victims in the name of "order". Only when they're at risk themselves do they think twice.
For that, the protests need to be large enough that escalation becomes an actual concern. Pre-gunpowder armies stacked their infantry deep, because more people behind you makes you bolder in face of the enemy before you. The larger the crowd, the more dangerous the potential rioters become.
Premature escalation might get the bold vanguard beaten and made examples of. Only when there's enough support to keep the momentum going can riots effectively serve as an "or else" to the peaceful demands.
Not American. You are wrong. We are lucky that many have more sense than cowardice because to do exactly what your opponent wants att any point in a rape is bordering malicious
As an American, it's super disheartening to read stories about European governments being fascist assholes as well. It's nice to imagine there's somewhere to go to escape it.
Yeah, which means they should know better more than anyone else. There's also the fact that the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow, so Europe alone doesn't get the blame.
I honestly believe the anti American sentiment from Europeans on the internet comes from them hoping the origin of racism and facism is connected more to America than Europe. European facism, racism, and sexism has done more damage than any other group on the face of the earth
B) The fact that an article on World Socialist Web Site is linking to posts by Amnesty UK and Defend our Juries (three organizations that should all know better by now) on Xitter.
Jesus
At an absolute bare minimum, the last two should be cross posting everything to Mastodon, and the first should be linking to the Mastodon accounts whenever available.
Oh, look! Amnesty UK has a Mastodon account that they're not fucking using, apparently never have.
I'm looking into installing a door lock w/ key pad at home for two use cases:
I'm out of town and need to allow someone to enter my home, in an emergency or for any reason.
Nice to have - "oh shit, did I lock the door" - ability to lock the door remotely from my phone, would also solve use case #1 by unlocking remotely.
If there are no privacy respecting / self hosted apps for remote control (use case #2), then a "dumb" electronic lock w/ key pad that enables me to set a PIN that I can give to a friend or neighbor in a pinch and then reset the PIN after I get home, that would be good enough. If no such keypad/electronic locks exist, then my backup plan is to just make a few copies of my key for trusted friends & family and/or hide a key, but I'd like to explore the keypad route.
I use a keypad lock that has z-wave in it and tie it back to home assistant. I access home assistant through my wireguard vpn and lock or unlock as i please.
If you find one, see if you can get it to work with Home Assistant. I already cross-posted this to the Home Assistant community, so they might chime in as well.
Anything connected to the Internet is inherently vastly less secure. Fortunately, your two usecases can be addressed with a "dumb" keypad lock with two features:
Multiple access codes. Set a different code for each trusted party, as well as an extra code that you can give out in case of emergency, which you can reprogram once you return.
Automatic locking. Set a timeout for the deadbolt to re-engage after a set period of time. If you forget to lock the door, it simply locks itself.
This is the route I took. All manual, multiple codes. There is a code for the gate, and a code for the door, per person I implicitly trust. With some 23 cameras on the property, I'm well aware of just about anything going down on my property while I am away.
LOL Well, it would seem like it works out that way but the only interior cams I have are in the living room and there is one in the lab. I'm not really into sex tapes. They always seem like a good idea at the time, but they have the potential to become quite litigious, and I try to stay out of courtrooms.
I've got one like this. A standard NON-CONNECTED keypad lock from the big box hardware store. I set a few extra codes and hand them out (and change hem) as needed.
Fair warning: anything like this that you may want to buy has almost certainly been defeated, especially anything that is a combo lock. The only systems I've seen that are actually somewhat secure are the types that have a separate keypad and lock mechanism, and require electricity in the door frame latch.
I prefer an old school security door with key for my home, any electronic doorlock is hackeable, more with online functions. Same as generally "smarthomes" are never private.
It's a 'dumb' solution, but you might be better off with a key safe. My mother in law uses one, and it lets the family have access if she's working or on holiday and something needs doing.
The PIN can be changed quite easily, and there's no chance of being locked out due to a power / battery failure.
Something that uses the Matter protocol might be what you’re looking for. My understanding is that they can be disconnected from the internet (only able to communicate with your Matter controller over your local network) and still work.
The comments are funny... I run Home Assistant (using ZigBee, so devices have no Internet connectivity) at home but I also lock pick, for fun.
Sure, your "smart" or "connected" gadgets can be hacked but don't get fooled by believing your "dumb" locks are safe!
As somebody pointed out check the LockPickingLawyer... but if you believe it's complicated buy yourself a lock-picking training kit for 30€. Sure you won't open "fancy" locks easily but you can open a lot of locks by training for like 1h. Get a kit, watch few videos, train while paying attention, repeat while watching a movie (basically blind picking) and you'll get surprised how quickly it comes. If you have very fancy lock (the ones that cost more than 200€) then you need better tooling, like 1000€ automated ones, but that still requires little skill and need a minute to pop a lock (so I heard, this I never tried).
So yes, please, do NOT buy a connected lock if you believe that's unsafe BUT also do not imagine you are safer with a "traditional" cheap one.
PS: full disclosure, I do not have a connected lock but it's not because I think they are more unsafe, just because I didn't bother. I'm not convinced of the utility for the price. That said if you have suggestions, I'm all ears.
PS2: as with similar questions on software, depends on your thread model. If you have to deter playful teenagers or drunkards, sure, it'll hopefully slow them down enough so that they give up. If you are facing professionals it won't matter either way, safer to get insurance for the outcome.
Much like securing your network and devices, unfortunately, there isn't anything that renders 100% protection. I'm fond of saying 'For each and every technology, there exists, or is soon to exist, an equal, yet undoing technology.' Technology doesn't stand still, but it always wields a double edged sword.
Indeed, and that's why I enjoy lock picking. You get to actually understand the technology and its limits. It's a playful pastime but IMHO it's an interesting reminder.
That being said... I do believe 1 protection exist and is close to 100% : computational complexity. The math behind encryption is the closest we have to a perfect lock. The fact that governments have to put artificial limits on it says a lot.
The Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has been detained by Israel and reportedly maltreated by her Israeli captors after she was kidnapped, along with hundreds of other activists, from Gaza’s territorial waters on Friday.
When did she do that? I've lways thought of her as liberal with rich parents who get's to do high-publicity protests that achieve nothing and distract from the economic problem.
That might have been the case some years ago when she was very young, but it is clear that her political consciousness has evolved significantly since then. How many of us can say that we held the same political views as teenagers as we do now?
Y'all got to take the word "distract" out of your vocabulary. Israel is not committing genocide to distract from the Epstein files.
I don't really know or care much about Greta Thuneberg. But I wouldn't criticize her unless my activism was objectively more effective than hers...and I don't think that describes either of us.
I mean she's great, gave a voice to what a lot of people have been thinking for decades before she was born. Maybe what most people think today. But there is really nothing that's effective. It's not dissing her, it's just that the machine is too strong and it's able to even use the opposition to itself for the machines purpose, like the article says.Usually. It didn't work with Greta, so she's just ignored.
I actually teach how to plan, execute, and assess political and social impact, beyond practicing it in my orgs. Are you aware there are plenty of disciplines working exactly on this? Your rethoric is just a way to justify your inaction. If nothing can change, it means you're exempted from your responsibilities. Too easy.
Your teach? Wow. I thought you are a psychic since you know everything about me from one Lemmy post lol.
I hope you aren't such s duche with you students. Anyway, in any case it makes sense to asses effectiveness every now and then. For academic purposes of nothing else.
We have also not abandoned many systems many times, that's not an argument. Show me the effect and disruption. I'm not against it, just right now there isn't much there.
You can say she was the head of that flotilla and without her it would be at least much smaller and you are right, but in this case, considering what Israel did to them and there is still a lack of any real effects.
It's incredibly hard to prove things like this so if you don't believe it you don't, but I don't think the effects are just meant to be directly bringing food to Gaza. If that were the only way to measure it you'd be right. But the only thing which could possibly stop Israel is strong political pressure from the West and we are getting closer to that, the world is angry about it in a way they weren't before. Even Germany, the most hard-line Israel supporter is changing its stance. These massive protests in Italy wouldn't have been like this otherwise. Yeah maybe I'm wrong because these things are nebulous and slow but that's how activism is and I think those things are real changes.
"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K Le Guin
It's been done before, even under more oppressive conditions. It can and will be done again.
I get it. You find it comforting to believe there's nothing you can do to change things, so you refuse to consume anything that would challenge that notion. Otherwise, you might feel obligated to do something you aren't willing to do, like join a cause or think critically about how you might make change.
I suppose ignorance is bliss, after all, but if you did want to challenge that notion, I'm happy to share the following:
The global change in public sentiment regarding Palestine and its occupation by a settler-colonialist force, including 60% of Jews in the US recognizing that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza (up from 27% in late 2023).
International governments recognizing the state of Palestine. A move, albeit performative, indicating that governments are feeling major public pressure to act. And that was before the solidarity protests and general strikes across europe that are breaking out today.
The successes of the BDS movement. Billions of dollars in divestments have been won from genocidal collaborators like Coca-Cola, Teva, Caterpillar, Microsoft, and countless more, even by governments and retirement indexes, along with 250+ wins in the US alone
Other campaigns; like The Oakland People's Arms Embargo, and the recently launched AIPAC Out!; uncovering Israel's American collaborators at every level, in a way that is accessible and therefore actionable to the public.
That's only what I could name off the top of my head
It is in this context alone that we see serious peace talks taking place, with Trump and other US negotiators getting directly involved, and Israel actually seemingly motivated to engage in negotiations on Hamas's terms (i.e. their demands for a permanent ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid, full IOF withdrawal, prisoners exchange, resisting the disarmament of their people, etc). That deal most certainly won't be enough, but it's a start. We both know that Israel wouldn't even come to the table without overwhelming pressure to do so. The cracks in the empire are showing and the empire is desperate to close them, but the thing about cracks is they tend to permanently weaken the structures that stand on them.
The term "liberal" is toxic. Liberal's are disliked by "the right" and by progressives. They are truly useless snowflakes that do nothing but virtue signal and sell everything and everyone out that threatens their convenience and comforts.
I don't think it is toxic, as much as it is almost always misused. Read the following and tell me how many people you know have been using the term correctly.
For leftists that's exactly who we're talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It's really only about property in the end.
I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.
The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.
The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.
They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.
Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.
I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.
Private property in this context means things which generate/are used to generate capital, not just any kind of object which people might have and use. The important distinction is that capital is social, it is a means of coercing others to do work for you. That's true for a factory, where people work for the owner, or for a rented property where the tenant must work to pay the owner. It's true in a way even for wages - when you spend money you are buying the products of people's labour (which under capitalism was not produced in a just way). It's not the case for your toothbrush.
The distinction that liberalism made was that everyone should in theory be allowed to own private property rather than royals appointed by divine right and hereditary nobility they delegated some power to. Not that in the 1700s we were suddenly allowed to have our own clothes for the first time in history.
Isn't it though? I didn't make my toothbrush. It came from the toothbrush factory. In fact, it's an electric toothbrush. Which presumably requires a lot of somewhat high tech inputs and resources to create. Would someone have developed this innovation without some economic pressure to do so? I'm not totally convinced. I think there is some role for capital in that sense. Maybe I'm wrong.
Thank you for taking my somewhat tongue in cheek comment so generously though. My humor is not always placed appropriately and doesn't always come across well, but it sometimes provokes people to respond, and I'm simply trying to learn and keep an open mind, and I appreciate your time and effort in sharing your knowledge.
This isn’t at all to say her original stance was misguided. It is to say that she recognises genocide and ecocide come from the same root. Systems of power that destroy ecosystems also destroy people, also destroy planets, also destroy worlds. She is in many ways simply displaying a logical consistency, as much as a moral one, about the interconnected nature of the evils that plague our civilisation. And this is where she broke with a liberal class who see evils selectively and in terms framed and dictated by empire.
hear hear! Too many people who love the “first they came for” poem who still think Palestine is a pesky wedge issue being used against their boys in blue.
And you got leftist piling on liberals for some reason
Edit: oh shit I'm in .ml my bad(not really) lol hey at least you don't ban dissent I guess
Edit 2: Leftists once again can't see the forest for the trees with your ideological purity test pitted against defeating a common enemy. For people so smart you really need to understand that your power lies with NUMBERS
Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are ... checks notes... circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured "ally"? Make it make sense
Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]
Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]
People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street
A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches?
You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons.
edit:
In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires
Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road?
I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism.
No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed
So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative
lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism.
Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.)
"Personal liberty" is what allows capitalists to exploit us. They have all the "liberty" you think you have. The "liberty" to put lies in the media, to pay you less than the value of your labor in order to extract a profit, to charge extortionist prices for healthcare and other basic needs, to influence politics and to crush competing public industries. These are all the things that "liberty" gets you under capitalism. "Personal liberty above all" != working class liberation.
Communism operates under what was referred to by Marx as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which we regard as complete liberation of the working class, because it allows the public to have control which is simply not possible under the liberal framework of "personal liberty for all". Under the liberal framework, even the smallest most democratic intervention is decried as "government overreach"; that is, if it is even made democratically possible in the first place.
Which isn't totally incorrect, because what you're talking about isn't "personal liberty for all". You exclude billionaires. Us socialists/communists exclude capitalists as a whole, because the sole interest of a capitalist is to enrich themselves at the direct expense of the working class and our liberty. Billionaires are certainly the worst and most visible offenders, but a materialist lens allows one to see that each and every capitalist serves interests that are fundamentally in conflict with those of the working class. To operate any other way would be to betray their own interests, and wouldn't make for a very effective result.
Liberation will only come when the working class has the power to decide collectively how our resources will be used, which will only come when we have majority control over the means of production, which will eventually lead to the capitalist class becoming completely obsolete. Liberation means being able to provide for our needs above anything else; for the sake of our humanity alone, and from the work that we are already doing; rather than our labor power being extracted for private gains and our needs provided only to the extent that it serves capitalists' profit motives.
Why is that? Have you ever spent time thinking about how that would be any more or less possible under the current system than, say, seizing the wealth of billionaires and socializing it back to the working class? How would the latter ever be possible by any means short of revolution, especially now if Trump gets his way? What will you do when the ruling class doesn't put that kind of relief on the table? How much oppression and destruction will you consent to, if you believe liberation is not possible and things can only get worse from here?
If you don't believe in it, you won't fight for it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That's exactly why our system does everything in its power; both to obscure revolutionary working class history, and to inflate the state's ability to repress dissent. So I'll repeat this until the day I die: it's been done before under worse circumstances.
Russians and Cubans were under brutal dictatorship. Haitians were completely enslaved by one of the most powerful colonial forces in their time. Vietnamese guerillas successfully fought off invasion by the single most militaristic nation in the world, and they aren't alone in having done so (see North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, so on). If I could speculate, I'd say China's political and economic situation in 1950 is a pretty reasonable outcome for the direction we're heading now in the US. Regardless of how you feel about what came after each of these struggles, the factual reality is that these weren't armies sponsored by any state. These were working class people fighting directly against the states that profited from their exploitation.
All of those people got organized and won liberation from their domestic oppressors, doing their part to weaken the empire, despite what would seem as insurmountable odds to a disorganized worker. It's on us now to organize ourselves against our own oppressors, to get them off both our backs and theirs, and we can't do that without maintaining optimism about our ability to win should we fight. We know that Fascism can only exist for so long until it cannibalizes itself. As a collective we are capable of beating it long before that comes to pass. If we allow the state to beat that optimism out of us then we are only greatly delaying our liberation and doing the ultimate disservice to our people.
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words." - Ursula K. Le Guin
I hear you and I don't want to diminish your hope because I do think the younger generation sees the benefit of it. I just think you'd have to convince the right it's a good idea
I don't think we should waste our time trying to convince fascists of anything (most of whom are the wealthy elites we outnumber anyways), other than by carrying out the consequences of their actions. Their interests are simply not aligned with ours.
That's okay though, because threshold number of people required to disrupt the system and make real change is much smaller than you would think. All it takes is coordination between those of us that believe in upholding the dignity of the working class, and we gain that coordination by organizing and spreading class consciousness.
The thing is that most of the everyday people in the US already agree with us. Even Republican voters. Most people believe that housing, food, and healthcare should be affordable; that there should be real solutions to homelessness and crime; even bodily autonomy (pro-choice, gender affirming care) is popular among the people. It's just that neither party puts up real solutions, both of them make excuses for why those things are not possible, and the Republicans are really good at making up scapegoats and creating non-solutions that sound really good to someone already conditioned to accept them, which the Democrats generally play along with and split the difference rather than putting up any real challenge or counter-argument.
As for the aesthetics of socialism, even Castro eventually had to spell out that it was, in fact, socialism that was responsible for all the gains they had made since their revolution - that the bogeymen they were so afraid of were simply projections made by their former oppressors. Working class consciousness doesn't have to be 100% before anything can ever happen. It can grow as a result of our success after the fact.
::: spoiler Excerpt from Fidel Castro's Speech on Marxism-Leninism
Formation of the ORI
These forces were called upon to unite in a single organization, and we organized the ORI. It was not easy, it was also a lengthy process; but, in the end, we organized the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations.
Sectarian attitudes are gradually disappearing; so are the attitudes of exclusivism. In the same way, people are no longer being excluded because they are socialists, and, consequently, sectarianism and similar attitudes are disappearing. Some attitudes of extremism are also disappearing. Extremism, which is often called "the measles," should, of course, not be confused with revolutionary firmness. Extremism is another manifestation of the petit bourgeois spirit in the revolutionary movement which we must fight against just as we have to fight against sectarianism.
There are many things our people have already had time to learn. They have had time to get rid of some of the prejudices that many people had who depicted socialism as something terrible something inhuman, something harsh, something enslaving, which is exactly all that imperialism is and which it accuses socialism of being.
Well, we are in a socialist regime. How different is this socialist regime from everything that had been said about socialism So much so that even those who have had problems, like the reactionary clergy, who have had problems with the Revolution, can't blame the socialists for them, can't say the socialists tried to close the churches, prohibit and persecute religious ideas. On the contrary, Aware that religious sentiment is a part of the feelings of some people, revolutionary power must respect the religious sentiment of that part of the people. It does respect it, and gives it every facility. It was those who waged war on the revolutionary regime who said that they would be deprived of parental authority over their children. And the people have learned the truth. Who were they who took away parental rights? Saboteurs who murdered young men and women, counter-revolutionary criminals who murdered a 16-year-old teacher and deprive his mother forever of parental rights, of affection, of warmth and the hope of having her son at home again.
Not only did they murder him; they tortured him. Why did they torture him? Did they torture him, as the Batista secret police used to do, to force a secret from a revolutionary? No, they did not torture him to get any secrets out of him. They tortured him because they were sadists, because of their love of torture, because that boy was there teaching. What secret could he have had? Thus, it was not to squeeze out any secrets. They stabbed him fourteen times. They stabbed him simply to torture him, to fill him with anguish, to make him suffer, to sow terror in the hearts of all mothers. We found out that what robbed people of their parental rights was exploitative - capitalism, which dragged peasant girls away from the countryside to put them to work as servants, to force them into a life of prostitution. We found out that it was capitalism that condemned the daughters of workers and the daughters of peasants to that fate. And it turns out to be precisely socialism that wipes out illiteracy, that educates a million Cubans, that makes plans to rehabilitate prostitutes, to teach typing and shorthand to domestics, to wipe out unemployment, to bring teachers to the remotest corner of the country, to fight and die defending the country from the claws of imperialism, to bring hospitals, to bring roads, to organize social activities, to organize children's activities, to organize youth activities, to develop culture and to struggle for the happiness of the people. That is what we have given our people.
Socialism behaves very generously toward its enemies -- too generously. The social system which captured over a thousand mercenary traitors -- paid by and serving the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon, and who came here escorted by foreign ships -- the system that captured 500 counter-revolutionaries -- among whom were many murderers who had already committed blatant crimes against the peasants -- without even applying the maximum penalty on them, the social system that sees with anguish its calm and generous attitude repaid by the cowardly and vile murder of a 16-year-old youth -- that is socialism.
In other words, with all its power, socialism does not abuse it. It is calm. It is conscientious. It struggles to overcome all its defects. It struggles to overcome-extremism, sectarianism, abuses, injustices, simply because it is socialism, simply because it is what Marx and Engels conceived of, what Lenin and all the revolutionaries fought for -- a better life for man, a happier life for the people, a freer life for the people, that replaces the regime of class oppression, the regime of an exploiting class over the workers, with a workers' democracy. In Marxist terms, this is known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (applause).
Liberal ‘leaders’ abandonment. There needs to be an understanding that leadership is no longer following the will of the people in the United States. On either the left or the right. This fact is more of a cause of why things are so crazy than anything the people are doing or wanting
The liberal establishment always abandons effective fellow liberals. Sanders, Mamdani, Thunberg…they’re actually trying to do something. That makes the established neolibs look ineffective and upsets their donors. So they turn their backs on the rabble rousers.
The current anger with Sanders appears to be, from an outsiders pov, that he didn't criticize Israel by calling it a genocide soon enough.
That appears to be it.
I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.
I'd prefer it was immediate, and it's gross that it took him so long, but all the other stuff isn't cancelled out by that. He's still a net positive. And he DID criticize earlier than any other us politician I can think of, and sure it Could have been even earlier and harsher, but like. Fuck. If you hate politicians for being open to changing mind based on new evidence, or reforming beliefs you don't like, or admitting mistakes, you are AGAINST them being rational and it plays right into the hands of neoliberal propagandists.
There's more, he criticized protests against ICE in LA turning into riots, and had some nice things to say about Kirk after he was killed.
That said I think it's really unproductive for people to turn on him after he was a big spark in a movement and is still outspoken. He has irritated me a few times lately but he's still one of the most influential leaders.
I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.
even if it's clear that he's been doubling down on that mistake when presented with the evidence and then only switched it's become clear that the tide has begun turn?
that's what i'm getting at, he's lying (either to himself and/or to the rest of us) and will go with whatever will cause the least friction; aka a follower, not a leader.
They specifically mentioned the liberal establishment. You're talking about criticism from people that probably abhor the liberal establishment even more than they do progressive liberals like Bernie.
Also I think this kind of criticism is important and I don't know why it bothers people so much. It's okay to be critical of things you ultimately support, either for ideological or simply for tactical reasons. It's called critical support, and I think people should do it more often. Even if the criticism isn't ultimately supportive, that doesn't mean all of a person's hate is directed in that single place. There may be more than just the surface level WHAT, like the WHY of it all and what that implies, that you are missing (or dismissing).
You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, and refusal to engage in critical analysis - pretending any politician can do no wrong (or the contrary case; can do no right), getting defensive, and outright rejecting any investigation to prove or disprove your conclusion - does not fall into the category of 'standing for something' to me but rather overzealous team sports.
We have to practice more critical thinking, despite how badly our political class does not want us doing that. Whether it helps any specific politician win an election or not (which you can still do even with criticisms). Especially considering that it's this kind of criticism that has made it untenable for a growing number of politicians to deny the genocide in Palestine; it's pretty clear that the only needle that uncritical support will move is that of the progressives, towards the liberal end of the spectrum. After all, it's our criticism of the current system and its complicity in human suffering that makes us progressive in the first place.
He didn't "change his mind based on new evidence", public opinion just shifted to the point where he couldn't get away with not calling it a genocide. The whole time he has always taken the most Israel friendly position he can get away with without losing credibility. Hell, in the very first line of his statement calling it a genocide he still insisted on repeating Isreali lies about October 7th.
Imagine not being able to imagine any political spectrum beyond one that has Neo-liberalism at one end and moderate Soc-dems at the other. Communists? Anarchists? Fascists? Never heard of them.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
It's sort of like Malala, and how she remained committed to socialism and Islam. I think ten years ago for a while the western boosters who brought her to international attention thought she'd flip and be a useful stooge. When she turned out to not be, we heard less and less of her.
Same deal with Greta Thunberg, who is something more dangerous than someone who can be bought: she's someone who is principled for climate justice and human rights.
She definitely had peaked before then, and already had started to lose some media favor due to her criticism of capitalism w.r.t. climate change. So yeah, it's not all due to Gaza, but Gaza was still an infection point.
The left is pretty much splintered into different types of ideologies, levels of hostility towards conservatism, and having wildly different objectives to accomplish, so they could not agree with each other and thus rarely ever win over the right.
The right-wingers? They have unanimous hatred towards the left and seemingly united until once they defeat the left, they'll fight and kill each other as to who gets the biggest slice of the pie.
I'm saying this because much of the left are split over this personality.
This is how I feel about Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and his stupidly named political party that will go nowhere.
Obstensively he is fairly radically left wing, he's just not radically in favour of actually doing anything. Basically he sits on the sidelines and mutters about genocide being bad (hot take I know) but otherwise just sits there. The only reason he's considered a threat is because his party might actually take votes away from labour but if he won an election nothing would change.
Short of an actual uprising against the corporate elite nothing is going to improve. You can certainly not rely on politicians to be your saviours. That's true globally not just in the US in the UK.
Although I am not exactly right-winger. I do not believe there is a God, for example.
Long ago - at least that is how it seems now - "right-wingers" were laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They tried pushing evolution in schools. They were against gay rights. And so on.
Now I find that it's the "left-wingers" who are laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They have even managed to malleate how science is defined socially. And science is not the only example - they've lost their minds in crime, immigration, sexuality, racism - everything - and they changed (or tried to change) all definitions. I will not go into any examples because it always starts a debate. But I will say this. If we think math is a "white supremacist construct", then there is something that has gone very, very wrong.
I used to be a scientist and I'm a science teacher now, and science is 100% a social construct. I could go through examples of how our modern interpretation of science is based on western philosophy that is a few thousand years younger than science itself as a practice, and how this limits the scope of modern science in a materially significant way. I could go into other examples too. But you really should just go watch Dr.Fatima's two videos "Gravity is a Social Construct, and That's Okay", and "Astronomy has a Colonialism Problem" on YouTube, because she does the most phenomenal exploration of the topic, and I could only (poorly) approximate the quality of her work here.
Look, liberals being evil is news. The good Greta brings to the world is news. Liberals abandoning people is not. Everybody abandons people that no longer reflect their political goals. Like, John Fetterman. Dude ran as a progressive economic populist and the American left loved him. Then he outed himself as some republican-lite zionist and now his entire former base hates him. And for good reason mind you; fuck that guy. But there is no unique sin in abandoning political leaders. Greta is simply more morally consistent and righteous than liberals.
The attachment to Israel in opposition to humanitarian ethics is only going distance people from the god they constantly claim to follow. This is in the Book
My test batch setup is nearly complete (please also appreciate the "beautiful" tiles) and I tested it with a wet hop beer. As you can see, those were clearly at the upper end of their ripeness scale, but it was the only time I could manage to pick some at all due family & kids. In they went in for a ~20 minutes 80 ˚C hop stand, during which my kitchen smelled a troubling lot of garlic and onions. By removing the bag with the hops, I stirred up the already settled trub, so I had to pour all hop debris & hot break into the minikeg along with the wort. Let's see what that does to the beer. I've overshot my OG quite a bit with the setup in the pictures, with a lot higher efficiency than predicted, only by stirring every now and then, so we're looking at an OG of 1.051 instead of 1.046.
Yesterday, after a week of fermentation under rising pressure, it was time for a gravity sample. It's fully attenuated already, and except a hint of some sharpness, I'm happy to report that we're apparently free of off-flavours. 😀 It came down do 1.008 (vs 1.010 predicted) , which leaves me with a 5.6 % ABV beer instead of 4.2 % with a lot less residual sweetness (US-05, you monster). Next time, I'll certainly mash hotter, and check the temperature with an external thermometer as well. I also wonder what a Kveik yeast would do to the result.
Here is the base recipe I intend to use for ongoing experiments with malts, yeasts & hops.
Totally forgot got mention it: These are actually wild hops! Foraged next to a rural road with not zero, but little traffic.
And yes, it's a sous vide stick. The one by Inkbird, which I got relatively cheaply. It sits in a hop tube so no grains can get into it. After use, I instantly rinse it, then put it in a jar with clean water and let it sit there until I'm cleaning up everything. Then, I rinse it again. As it doesn't have to be sterile, I'm fine with this regime for the time being.
LOS GATOS, CA—With an update the company hailed as a bold feature that would excite existing users and increase membership, streaming giant Netflix announced Tuesday that all of its subscribers would now be required to recruit five new customers.
Thank you for marking as satire. At first glance, I was fully ready to accept this as a genuine part of the actual fuckery that takes place in Netflix-land.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to crt0o • • •oni ᓚᘏᗢ
in reply to crt0o • • •Tracaine
in reply to crt0o • • •n7gifmdn
in reply to Tracaine • • •HiddenLayer555
in reply to Tracaine • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to Tracaine • • •Una
in reply to crt0o • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to crt0o • • •This feels more like an Anarchist meme than a Marxist-Leninist meme.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is usually cool with laws, abstractly.
ComradeSharkfucker
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •Where did you get the idea that this was supposed to be ML or exclusive to any specific leftist ideology for that matter? /gen
I feel like i'm missing context for this comment
crt0o
in reply to ComradeSharkfucker • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to crt0o • • •People don't follow the law "for it's own sake". They have material reasons for supporting or transgressing, which they rationalize after the fact.
Sometimes it's practical (driving the speed limit or not based on flow of traffic) and sometimes it's formative (being hyper sensitive to street crime because you've got a memory of being robbed / reflectively shoplifting because you grew up food insecure). Maybe you're the victim of abuse or just OCD.
But there are broad social, historical, and economic reasons to support/oppose a given legal code.
crt0o
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn't even be needed. That's probably not achievable, but we can at least try to approach it.
I think the root of immorality is the prescriptive morality which is commonplace today. People only act pseudo-moral because either:
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values. As soon as those reasons disappear, they see no reason not to act immorally. Alternatively, they follow this imposed morality so strictly, that they don't notice when it leads them to immoral actions (take for example religious fundamentalism or fascist regimes).
The solution is of course education, but our current education systems are terribly suited to producing moral people.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to crt0o • • •Morals don't come ex nihilo. People develop them from social interactions and survival patterns, typically at a young age. The broad purpose of law is to set a publicly recognized boundary for universal conduct. It isn't to simply be mean to people, but to publicly declare what a community of people values as socially valuable.
People largely have a certain internal sense of social justice. But they have a limited capacity to engage with their neighbors from any kind of authority position. The internal morality can get twisted when you constantly see yourself as a victim and feel the urge to right some existential wrong. Portraying one group as a victim and another as an aggressor is a classic propaganda technique used to inflame hostility between neighbors and socially justify violence.
At some level, sure. But it is difficult to inoculate a public at-large from all forms of deceptive media.
At another level, the solution needs to be establishing a general level of public contentedness and satisfaction. Agitation is less effective in a social circle that isn't under high degrees of anxiety or fearful of deprivation. So long as we have the threat of poverty and stochastic violence hanging over people's heads, we're going to have the material for propaganda that agitate them into tension with their neighbors.
crt0o
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions. Punishment for its own sake is in no way good, it's a necessary evil to deter immoral people from committing immoral actions. If there were no immoral people, there would be no one to deter and thus no use for law.
Sure, internal morality can get twisted, but only when it's based in instinct (self preservation, subordination to authority, etc.), and that's what I mean when I say pseudo-morality. Rational moral principles, on the other hand, are relatively reliable, clear and consistent. The main moral frameworks (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) agree on most significant scenarios, the differences are in the specificities.
The scapegoat phenomenon you mention is a great example of instinct (the ingroup-outgroup instinct), being taken advantage of for political manipulation. Education should include teaching people to recognize these instincts and when they're leading them astray in rational thought.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn't enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play. For example the desire for status and power. This is what drives people to immorality even during material satisfaction. I also believe it is the main driving force behind capitalism.
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to crt0o • • •There's an element of that. Also, the idea that certain people need to be separated from general society as a precautionary measure. But I think there's also a broad concept of social justice. 2nd degree murder is a good example. Nobody really expects murder charges to prevent people from going into a killing rage. And there's no way to undo the damage inflicted. So punishment is intended as a kind of social vengeance, intended both to shame the perpetrator and to alleviate the desire of the victims to pursue their own vigilante justice.
I wouldn't say it is sufficient, but I would say it is necessary. A great deal of crime is the consequence of anxiety, in one form or another. Relieving the anxiety reduces instances of crime.
Sure, there are other instincts at work. But defusing these tensions will also require infrastructure, energy, and manpower. And so you can establish a virtuous cycle, wherein a professional class of social workers with the means and methods to deliver aid also become a vehicle of economic activity that reduces poverty and contributes to the benefit of the community.
Unlearned9545
in reply to crt0o • • •Corridor8031
in reply to crt0o • • •Like the fact that someone can get shot for offering to get their neighbour high,
while companies can litteraly operate like crime syndicates with minimal repercussion
might be a cause for people thinking the law is just opression instead of a guideline that can be actually used
bitjunkie
in reply to crt0o • • •