SnowCode

SnowCode OP wrote

I personally don't give a shit about Stallman. What do you think about the claim of the other link? That you are responsible of the consequences of your software(s).

From my understanding it would mean that the Peertube devs would be responsible for Nazi instances for example.

I am talking to someone that says the paragraph:

We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and the FSF why.

Is advocating for censorship and restricting freedom.

3

SnowCode OP wrote

I don't consider myself Christian per se. But I've been educated by Christian parents with Christian morals and values. Also what I don't understand is: what's the point of breaking things for the sake of breaking things? I am not against it if it has an actual effect, but when is it useful? If you destroy a police car, isn't the State just going to replace it and makes the repression even more intense?

3

SnowCode wrote

I think you're on the wrong forum. But there are plenty of wikis for dark net links online because of all the bad reputation the dark net got with the medias many people were looking for the same things as you for the same purpose. Pretty sure you could just find links by searching "scary links dark web" or something like that on your search engine.

3

SnowCode OP wrote (edited )

Thanks I appreciate this. I can relate. What do non-violence means for you? I know society is already violent, but I still kinda have a problem with personal violence like that. Especially when it's more about destroying things than creating things (demonstrating force, bombing, etc).

3

SnowCode OP wrote

But at the same time you don't have to kill people to be an anarchist? I am not (anymore) an anti-violence. I know violence is necessary in many cases, but I sometimes wonder what effects it has. What's the point of killing an authority if just another authority is going to come next? The only thing it created is likely casualties on both sides.

It may be a very foolish thing to say from me, I come from a very "christian" background so I am aware that one of my biggest resistance against violence comes from that given the fact I was always educated by people that spend their lives trying to limit the harm they did to others, and was educated with the principle that violence is always bad and should always be avoided. But I am still interested in your response.

0

SnowCode wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Secret raddler by ziq

In this context I think none of that is illegal. But yeah (russian roullete is quite funny in this context lol) I am too skeptical about this project. I think the idea itself is really good, but the fact several members are absolute tankies (one of them actually said "I don't understand why anarchists use tankie as an insults, I like tanks") makes me very skeptical about it.

4

SnowCode wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Secret raddler by ziq

OK. If you get in a hackerspace and then notice in a debate that the founder of the hackerspace is a tankie, would you continue to be part of it?

This is kinda the situation of CHT Hackbase (it's an nomad, infrastructure-based hackerspace in Spain), where the original founder is a tankie (noticed it on the Telegram group at a moment when the ML vs A debate came in)

2