• 4 Posts
  • 60 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle











  • it’s mostly political

    Oh I gotcha. Interesting. I don’t follow FSF or GNU or anything, do you know if they tend to be antagonistic toward nonfree devs who still try to be as free as possible? Honestly, I read the Stallman quote about FreeBSD in this thread, and a statement from GNU that acknowledges the impracticality of their philosophy, and I kinda agree with their ethical takes. Except, I also think people should be able to install nonfree software, because otherwise you have a pretty bad dilemma with the word “free.”

    Ultimately, if they are actively antagonistic toward those who don’t share that philosophy, I think that’s not great. Sure, free software according to the GNU project may be the only ethical one, but we live in a culture that promotes the exact opposite idea, so why would I be surprised and upset when an otherwise ethically acting person doesn’t conform to my own ethical framework, and they go on and create nofree software. I’m still going to get a beer with that person because at the end of the day we probably have common values and how else am I going to sell them the idea free software


  • jwiggler@sh.itjust.workstoOpen Source@lemmy.mlWhy is GrapheneOS against GNU?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m afraid to ask this because I’m not a dev, but I have a fair amount of linux experience. Why is it that the ability to install Google Play Services on GrapheneOS makes it not FOSS/open source, while the ability to install Google Chrome (or any proprietary software, I guess) on Linux doesn’t make is non-FOSS/open source?

    I’m not articulating that question very well, and I’m assuming I’m missing some key component, but they seem comparable to me, as a regular user. Is it something like the level of access that GPServices has to the kernel?





  • All that text essentially is summarised as “you arguing that Democrats are the lesser evil is defending them, and makes you a liberal.”

    If calling Democrats evil, while also saying you should vote for them, AND work outside the political system to create meaningful widespread change, makes me a liberal, then I guess I’m a liberal. You can think that means I support genocide if you want, but I won’t be organizing with you if that’s the case. Hope you have a great day.


  • My contributions to this thread have upheld a single liberal value and that’s voting, which I don’t even think has that much value when you look at the opinions of the majority of Americans on core domestic and international issues vs the actual policies that are implemented by those they vote in. The United States is not a democracy, and simply voting Democrats will not fix anything. Not once have I defended Democrats complicity in the genocide, or the so called free market, their role in maintaining American hegemony through force and the dollar, the immorality of rent and interest collection, etc – they perpetuate all of that! – unless you count my noting that the Republicans of the United States are more in support of Israel than Democrats, as they have nobody willing to call the genocide a genocide, whereas Democrats have few, and they (Republicans under Trumps presidency) would and have tried further legitimizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians – mainly by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and calling West Bank settlements, which are obviously illegal, legal.

    Multiple times I’ve said, yes, Democrats are complicit in genocide, and overall they exist to perpetuate the power of the state, which itself is, at the end of the day, a monopolization of violence through the police. But at the very least, they are less likely to go full privatization, full state authority over women’s bodies, and more likely to do something about the genocide other than urge Israel to “get the job done,” as Trump has said himself.

    So while, ultimately, the Democratic party (along with all other political parties) needs to dissolve in order for individuals in the US to have full political and personal freedom, in the near term that is not going to happen, and even though my vote will almost certainly mean nothing in terms of policy, at least I can do that and try things outside the political system. Whereas not voting is not only symbolically useless, as they’ll just see me as another person on the couch, at least voting has a small amount of practicality.

    And regarding methods of converting liberals to leftists, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Again, I’ll refer to the meaning associated with the terms socialism, communism, and anarchism in the US – they are demonized to the point where people simply dismiss you if you mention them, and then you’ve lost your opportunity.

    Edit: Also, I appreciate your genuine response, but at the same time the gatekeeping of “well, what have you organized?” is pretty lame. The truth is, nothing. I’ve organized nothing. But I still believe that unjustified hierarchy is harmful and that at the end of the day what a state is is the ability to use force to uphold that hierarchy.


  • I’m really not sure what could be more rational than voting in the direction that leans away from what you don’t want (further genocide, further authoritarianism) while still recognizing that direction does not lean far enough, and therefore continuing to organize outside the political system.

    What you would have me do is not vote at all (an irrational, symbolic gesture, ceding increased power to hard right authoritarians) and continue to organize outside the political system.

    I choose to do both, vote and organize, because that’s really the maximum amount I can do here. You say a vote for Harris is supporting genocide. Well, a vote for Trump is also supporting genocide. And a vote for nobody means I have no preference at all. Well, I do have a preference – I prefer the party that, at least publicly, supports a two state solution. The party which consists of at least a few individuals who actually calls the conflict what it is, which is a genocide. As opposed to the other, which has ZERO members even willing to call it a genocide.

    At the same time, recognizing that the system is broken, that the Democratic party is complicit in the crimes of the US, and pushing from outside the political system, for radical change.

    I would use the full extent of my power as an individual, while you would prefer me to use only a portion of it. Could you explain to me how that is more rational than using my full power? (and that’s a genuine question, because if I know how your mind works maybe I’ll agree)