spiderplant

@spiderplant@lemm.ee

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

spiderplant,

How many people use Pornhub for discovery though? I usually find interesting content through a search engine, through word of mouth, through posts on here, etc. at which point it doesn’t really matter where the porn is hosted. A lot of the useful content I use aren’t even on Pornhub.

Seriously though, I agree with you, githubs value to open source is not it’s discover-ability. Personally I think its value comes from the stability, as much as I’m an advocate for self-hosting I know from the amount of dead links on the internet that we could have lost a lot of projects or at least they would move about as hosts went down.

I quite like the idea of federated gitea, although technically there is already a federated platform for porn if you count Lemmy and/or mastadon.

spiderplant,

I agree that porn is a nsfw way to explain something in a lot of scenarios but I disagree about people needing to know at least the names of a technology from an explanation.

Most people don’t need to know or care about the names to understand or use them. Knowing the names after I learnt the commands did not give me greater insight into how the tool works.

If they are just being introduced to git and github then they are likely new to programming and have much more important things to care about like learning their first programming language or understanding how their teams project actually works.

A place to host gits is a perfectly good explanation for anyone who is new to it.

spiderplant,

In this analogy it could be that:

  • the filesystem is git and the porn is source code
  • the file is git and the data is source code
  • you don’t consider the source code because you can host anything on github
  • we shouldn’t be reading into the analogy this deeply because its a silly analogy meant for absolute beginners
spiderplant,

They also pledged or gave $2 mil to Israel recently

spiderplant,

All in lemm.ee and even lemmynsfw for me matches what they said. LW and sh.itjust.works might just be all furries 👀

spiderplant, (edited )

While I agree with you about Hamas, the fact you don’t apply the same logic to the IDF is very telling. A country that believes a whole group of people are less than human and wants them eradicated absolutely intends every casualty it inflicts.

Israeli snipers murder innocent children, journalists and medical staff because of evil intentions.

Israeli bombs dropped on one of the densest populated areas which are bound to inflict civilian casualties are doing their intended evil.

The choice to turn off the electricity even though it will guarantee deaths in hospitals is not bad luck and is evil.

Israel is evil.

In fact if we’re going by civilian casualties Israel is like 36x more evil.

At what point is violence on a large scale justified?

I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were...

spiderplant, (edited )

I mean that is sort of the definition of justified but it’s being misused here, it just means having a good reason. Everyone is ignoring how subjective it is though. Bob may consider his life above others, so for him staying alive is a good enough reason to commit murder. Jane and a jury are very likely to disagree.

Different language needs to be used I think to avoid the issues people have with the concept of violent resistance.

Peace isn’t an option because injustice still happens under peace time. Liberation is a better solution for the oppressed.

So now we’ve got:

Liberation of oppressed peoples from oppression is always justified.

This focuses more on the end goal than the action that resistance implies. Liberation can still involve violent resistance and that’s okay. You can be on the side of righteousness and still do what is morally wrong, this is true of all movements.

We have to agree that liberation from oppression is always morally good and we have to apply it to all cases. So if we don’t look at the Palestinian struggle the same way we’d look at indigenous issues in north America or apartheid SA, we’d be hypocrites.

spiderplant, (edited )

I would have to disagree on the absolutism bit.

I would consider that the Haitian slave rebellion or Warsaw ghetto uprisings were intrinsically good.

I would wish to see liberation of oppressed peoples be a universal law. I would wish for this to be applied to all and I wish for everyone to act on this.

I believe the above fits under Kantian ethics.

spiderplant,

I find it hard to consider that as part of the liberation since it happened after independence. Looks more like state violence aimed at a minority to me.

spiderplant,

Get fdroid and download newpipe or alternative if you want to keep an app for YouTube without ads.

Alternative web front ends also exist if you are okay with watching videos in a mobile browser. I use an invidious instance, pick one that’s close to you here. Other front ends also exist.

Alternative video platforms such as LBRY also exist and I’ve found a few youtubers I watched on it.

Absolutely take it as an opportunity to reduce your video content consumption. I like the invidious solution because I don’t get notifications and it takes a bit more effort to manually open the link in the web client so I tend not to watch videos I’m only half interested in.

Edit: froid => fdroid

spiderplant,

Its usually cheaper to give everyone a small amount of money than it is to set up and pay a whole department of civil servants to figure out who qualifies and who doesn’t.

Also the poor and disabled suffer disproportionately when you start putting strict restrictions on financial aid. Just look at universal credit in the UK, in trying to save money/protect against the boogyman of welfare queens, they government has unqualified assessors trying to fail people even if they have serious disabilities.

spiderplant,

It’s not charity if everyone gets it, it’s levelling the field and making society fairer.

For the people who need it most it could mean life or death or being able to stay in their home or not have to choose between heat or food.

For those in the middle it might be a nice excuse to treat yourself.

For the richest it would be such an absurdly tiny amount of money they might not be able to spend it.

All we should care about is making sure as many people in the first group get the support. For basic income payments the most effective way to do that is to give it to everyone. By the government giving you that money instead of doing what I talked about above, more people were helped.

Also has the added bonus of countering slightly the siphoning of wealth from the poor to the rich that’s been happening the past while.

spiderplant, (edited )

Nah that’s not how the world works.

It’s closer to a school with 1000 students.

1 kid got 10000 eggs from their parents and refuses to share. Ther rest have 0-2 eggs each.

Maybe the students do chores but the pocket money they get only allows them to get 1 extra egg.

UBI is the school giving 2 eggs to every student. Now the egg distribution is more even since most students now have double the eggs or more but the richest students eggs only went up by a tiny percentage.

Is it really fair that one student has more eggs than they could possibly need and many kids have nothing just because they were born into a different family.

If you want to talk about really being fair you probably want to talk about proper wealth redistribution. If you took 5000 eggs off that one student and split it between everyone, every kid would be up 5 eggs. The kid with all the eggs would still have 5005 eggs which IMO is still more than any 1 kid should have to themselves.

I still wouldn’t call any of this charity since 99.9% of people benefit from it.

spiderplant,

It gets even better when you ask where the parents got the money. Since its a closed loop you can’t really create money from nothing.

Let’s keep things simple, say the rich parents own all the shops and services in the town. All their money comes from the other parents of the town. The poorer parents have no choice where to buy things like food that they need, they can’t not pay their water bill or their heating. Buying their kids clothes and toys means giving more of their money to the rich parents. Now most of the parents can only afford a couple of eggs and the rich parents can afford a ridiculous number.

The ability for some to make large profits off humans basic needs is wrong and if you say any of this is fair then you should try and figure out why you think like this.

spiderplant, (edited )

It specifically says to those in need. If you give it to more than those in need then its not charity.

Maybe you can consider that part of it has a charity aspect but the whole action is not charity.

spiderplant,

Cultural appropriation is as old as culture. The oldest example I can think of is any pagan holidays that Christianity stole.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #