Is there something I can help you understand?

You’re correctly assessing the situation but the conclusion you reach is wrong. Here’s how:

As another person said, just tack on no ethical consumption under capitalism and you’re golden. Soon you’ll be crunching through critiques of Goldman and speaking in ways that make normal ppl make the brotha eww face. But the big difference between just doing my job and just following orders is degrees of separation and situation.

Even though people in positions you describe at companies you’re talking about ought to be able to understand the connection between their work and the immiseration of all humanity, it’s very easy to imagine someone who through choice or ignorance doesn’t see that connection. Our higher education programs have been removing humanities and arts in favor of stem associated education and ideas like effective altruism are renewing the randian tradition. Further, the work of many people in engineering is partial and atomized. Who wouldn’t want to put in the time designing a hermetically sealed self oiling piston that never needs maintenance over a million cycles? Who wouldn’t refuse that job when shown the patent drawing in which it’s a crucial component of a captive bolt gun against a human head?

The situation itself can’t be undersold. Soldiers (and hired workers!) on trial for war crimes couldn’t claim they were just following orders because they saw directly what their labor wrought. There was no degree of separation. Our expectations for that closeness to atrocity are different than when there’s a few veils between us and the subject. We expect people to get a different job, to defect, to sabotage, to kill their COs.

I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!

If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!

Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?

Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.

Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.

You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.

I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.

Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.

You didn’t ask why, you asked how. It’s really broad question so I was gearing up to answer how by starting with what the two (overly broadly classified) schools of thought called the why.

Then I pushed reply instead of preview and realized while editing my post that I don’t want to reply to you the way I started because it would be long winded and you probably aren’t interested in reading that and I’m certainly not interested in writing it.

Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.

If you want specific examples or you want examples related to a time, place or event you’re already familiar with just let me know.

It’s hard to summarize hundreds of years of history and philosophy in just a few sentences while on break so please do me the courtesy of not nitpicking my overly broad statements.

Both movements broadly point to the material conditions created, perpetuated and encouraged by liberalism as their impetus. Scholars within both movements have written extensively cataloguing the precise ways different conditions came to pass and how it’s the fault of liberalism.

Generally speaking your communist will say liberalism sprang from the class relation under capitalism and the bourgeoise, while your fascist will say it was “‘da joos”.

E: I tried to click preview but replied instead but it’s fine because I don’t want to summarize two centuries of political thought anyway.

If you have a specific example you want clarification on I’d be happy to give it but if you truly feel befuddled that a person could say that liberalism creates the conditions (perhaps, contradictions 🤔) for communism or fascism I can point you at a bigass pile of books instead.

Naziism and fascism are broadly a response to the same material conditions as communism and anarchism (to an extent).

Liberalism does not put forth a response to those conditions because it created them and has no internal process to relieve them (instead it externalizes them) or stop perpetuating them.

When faced with a choice between communism or fascism people generally don’t perform an in-depth analysis of what’s best for them or their cohort but instead attach to the group that provides some relief or aid.

That’s why it’s important to always help people around you when you can.

If it’s a race from boot to login prompt then making sure the installer never has to dial out and retrieve packages would be a bigger savings. Making sure the installer is on the fastest bus possible would be huge too. I think one nvme installing to another one would be fastest (assuming enough lanes).

Don’t take the wheelie bars off your dragster to save weight, wheelies are slow.

Don’t ditch macOS on the m1. Asahi has some critical features missing and you’ll want to be able to switch back.

It’s often more useful for minimal installations to keep the system log daemon running so that you can see when things happen and stop them from happening.

Especially now that even very low power embedded systems run multiple cpu cores at multi-ghz clocks, interface with gigabytes of memory, hundreds of gigabytes of attached storage and communicate through multi-gigabit network links, lots of stuff can be happening that is unwanted or simply unnecessary without any external indications.

What are you trying to accomplish by not running a syslog daemon?

Talk me down from the paranoia place

Where the data’s cataloged and sent to cop space

Reflections on trusting trust 🎶

SBAT summer

If news@world had rules that reflected a coherent politics it could be political or even propagandistic.

Because no such rules exist to direct action and development, ideas like the fact checker bot crop up. In lieu of direction, the fact checker bot reflects a laundered western liberal political line back onto the news@world community.

An echo chamber is not an area where everyone says the same things, it’s an environment where a certain type of waves (or just all waves) are reenforced due to structural elements of the chamber.

By using the fact checker bot to do the work of policing speech, you have created a structural element which reenforces certain kinds of speech.

It’s a component of an echo chamber in the metaphor.

That’s significantly different than taking the more difficult route of determining the news@world mod team political line, struggling internally and externally with its contradictions and acting in ways that reflect it because the latter requires that the mod team use judgement rather than just act on voices who are not reenforced by the built structural elements of the news@world community.

You don’t need to manufacture an authoritative source of truth as you the mods see it.

Just write down what you see as the truth and that you’ll ban anyone who speaks out against it.

Stop trying to build a machine to do the work of creating an echo chamber for you.

Spend $12 on this memory module and you’re g2g for almost anything.

Get rid of votes.

They’re only useful for ranking content and content is only useful in the context of ad revenue.

You don’t have to be on reddit anymore.

Get rid of votes.

They only rank replies and posts as content, which is only useful for advertising or providing a platform without ads that hooks into the same antisocial behaviors that an ad revenue driven one would.

They also discourage replies, promote groupthink and provide a vector for abuse.

Get rid of votes. You’re not on reddit anymore, you don’t have to be a redditor .

It’s not. Redditors keep coming over.

There’s not a distro because the companies that sell those pieces of equipment have their own software packages that sit on top of some distribution that they sell as a whole doohicky they call an appliance.

The distributions that are most often used are those with either direct support from a company the appliance manufacturer can work with or some distro that’s feature compatible with one of those kinds.

There’s a lot of criticism of the bot implementation and mbfc in this thread but no criticism of why it was implemented.

The whole point of mbfc bot was to reduce the mod workload. By (hopefully) exchanging a bunch of posts examining the source of a link, mods hoped to have fewer fights to wade into.

A person could say that’s just what happens when you run an English language community during American election years, and there’s a degree of truth to that.

I think that the mods of the world communities the bot is in want some way to restrict speech along the lines of their own combination of political axes and see the bot as a way to do so under the guise of “just checking facts”.

I am not invoking free speech as a negative criticism here.

What would be possibly more healthy for the mods is to develop a political line and clearly say “if you speak outside this system of understanding you may be modded upon”.