go1dfish

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

1

go1dfish wrote

What world do you live in where capitalism protects limited resources?

I didn't suggest that it did; only that property rights reduces conflict over scarce resources.

Further, much of the environmental exploitation; especially as it relates to oil resources has occurred via government intervention and violence; not property rights in the general sense.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

2

go1dfish wrote

When you have finite resources and people wanting to use them in different ways it is not possible to satisfy the desires of all people.

Without some system of determining who can do conflicting things with finite resources conflict is unavoidable.

Reply to comment by /u/NAB in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

3

go1dfish wrote

Many AnCaps/Libertarians/Voluntarists view property rights as a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

Some people, myself included don't see shared information as particularly scarce. Further; without some authoritative entity/State property rights become difficult to enforce because they are essentially an artificial construction.

If you want to keep exclusive control of information; keep it secret. Otherwise it becomes quite difficult to control without some massive intimidation scheme.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

2

go1dfish wrote

There is no conflict in believing in private property rights while speaking out against the behaviors of people and how they use their property. I don't advocate State action or violence against any corporate censorship despite my vocal opposition to how pronounced it has become.

I identify as a voluntarist because I'm not primarily focused in the support of capitalism or even property rights except insofar as they are a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

The core of my ideology is that all interactions between people should be voluntary and without coercion. At certain monopolistic extremes private property rights can be destructive to these ends as well and represent a de-facto state.

-3

go1dfish wrote (edited )

"treating people differently based on their race" is an accurate description of criticizing someone for "cultural appropriation" based on their race.

In the case of Gwen stefani "punching up" fits sure.

But "treating people differently based on their race" is a description that also fits discrimination against minorities and I don't think "punching up" fits there.

So "punching up" is not a good term to cover the general idea of "treating people differently based on their race".

1

go1dfish wrote

When a rich blonde girl takes from another culture, making millions from it in the process

Does the money matter? Or is such appropriation bad if a poor blonde girl identifies with and adopts a foreign culture without profit motive?

I can certainly agree that commercializing religious culture is a pretty shitty thing to do.

But I have trouble characterizing it as stealing. Ideas don't have marginal costs they are capable of spreading without limit. For the same reason that piracy is not stealing in the same sense as taking a physical possession; neither is it stealing to adopt and spread the ideas of others.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

-2

go1dfish wrote (edited )

I'll need to see examples of this supposed racial discrimination

I'm not trying to talk about any specific races here.

You reject the definition of racism as "treating people differently based on their race".

I'm asking what you would term "treating people differently based on their race" as?

And I'm saying that criticizing "cultural appropriation" based on the race of the person doing it qualifies as "treating people differently based on their race"

When people are talking about "reverse racism" (I personally hate this term myself, racism is racism IMO) they are really just saying "treating people differently based on their race" not with the implied power dynamics you associate with the term.

Do you think "treating people differently based on their race" is acceptable?

"treating people differently based on their race" is quite a lot to type; which is why I wanted to try to find a agreeable term for it such as "racial discrimination" I don't think "white fragility" works because we're talking about a practice irrespective of the races or power dynamics involved.

Many people; myself included think it is wrong to treat people differently based on their race and that's what I mean when I say racism but I'm asking your help in finding a more acceptable term for it.

-3

go1dfish wrote

You're welcome to think that, but if you argue your position using definitions of words that others disagree with you're unlikely to make much progress.

Do you think "racial discrimination" is a more accurate term for what I consider to be racism?

If you reject the common definition of racism for your own, what do you call what other people define as racist? That is to say is racial discrimination a more acceptable term to describe this? Or what would you call treating people differently based on race in general irrespective of power dynamics?

-1

go1dfish wrote (edited )

My understanding of racism is treating people differently based on their race.

This article suggests a different definition of racism; a definition that if you believe it seems to imply that treating people different based on their race is only bad if done from a position of power.

My view is that it is wrong to stereotype people or treat them differently based on aspects of their person they had no control or choice in.

I think my understanding (and afaik the most widely accepted definition of racism) is still useful as a definition; and that you might need a more precise term for "racial privilege + power" to better distinguish between racial discrimination that is acceptable vs racial discrimination that is unacceptable in your view.

1

go1dfish wrote

taking people's sacred cultural artifacts, presenting them as her own innovations

That's the thing though, I don't think Stefani has ever attempted to present or adaptations of other cultures as her own original innovations.

cheapening them by turning them into a trendy fashion choice so that she can profit.

Commercializing culture, especially that is religious in nature is a criticism I'm much more sympathetic to.

no because the power dynamics are completely different.

Isn't that a fundamentally racist view though?

The idea that something is bad when one racial group does it but neutral or good when another race does?

I see a lot of racist whites bemoan the existence of minorities in sports they believe are reflective of their culture and I think it's bad to be exclusionary this way regardless of which races are involved.

Races are not sports teams or political parties. People don't choose to be born a certain race, and many people don't focus on the race they are born into as a core aspect of their identity. I think it's wrong to assume that the actions of an individual is bad simply because of the race they are born into when another person of a different race doing such a thing does not receive such criticism.

Do you think it is appropriate to use force (whether that be the government or individual violence) to stop what you view as cultural appropriation?

2

go1dfish wrote

this sort of “borrowing” is exploitative because it robs minority groups of the credit they deserve.

In the case of Gwen Stefani, the cultural influences of what she is appropriating are not hidden and are still widely known. If you adopt Indian culture and attribute those bits of culture to the Indian people doesn't that alleviate the issue?

Art and music forms that originated with minority groups come to be associated with members of the dominant group.

Is this only a problem in one direction? Or is it also considered cultural appropriation when a minority group embraces and dominates culture that originated with whites?

For example basketball: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball#Creation Is it cultural appropriation for non-whites to play basketball? And if so; is that still problematic?

1

go1dfish wrote

Currently the main difference is that the other peers are outdated software wise relevant to mine; none has set out to strongly differentiate itself on matters of policy yet.

https:///blubit.space has focused on a reimplementation of the UI not using any reddit code.

1

go1dfish wrote

Thanks for the feedback, things should have improved a good bit if you want to give it another try.

It is lighter; but still not possible to contribute without JS yet and logins are still a bit buggy.

Constantly working to improve the software and PRs are welcome.

2

go1dfish wrote

This ^

Arguing that coercion is being used for the wrong ends is not a valid defense.

If you accept the violence of government; and especially if you attempt to direct it to your own benefit you are absolutely responsible for the disastrous effects of that violence and coercion.

2

go1dfish wrote

Thanks, that site helped me get things sorted out and I think they should be good now.

Was using he wrong pem file.

Readjusted my config based on this:

https://gist.github.com/nrollr/9a39bb636a820fb97eec2ed85e473d38

2

go1dfish wrote

Totally understandable. Plan to provide an install able app eventually as well but it will likely just be an electron wrapper around the existing code.

More active in terms of links, probably less active in terms of comments right now but a bit hard to say given that it is anon my default.

My aim is to build a p2p/federated alternative to centralized sites like reddit and raddle that will eventually be usable to connect those distinct alternatives together retaining their uniqueness.

I'm building it based on reddit's open source UI which I have converted to react components (as seen on https://snew.github.io also requires js)

I plan to only support writes in JS because all authentication is crypto based and happens clientside don't want to accept passwords serverside at all.

Also I worry that if I provide more traditional post endpoints in such an anon environment it will make things way too easy for spammers at this stage.

And finally, voting is a proof of work problem, so to be able to vote on notabug.io at least; it is a requirement to run a pow solver locally. Voting isn't required to participate now; but if spam gets heavy it will become effectively necessary to raise above noise.

1

go1dfish wrote

Yeah I don't know what's up with that I'm using let's encrypt and certbot, I think it might have to do with a server move.

It only happens for me in tor browser and not in any other browser, genuinely confused.

Try https://www.notabug.io/ instead maybe?

Also site currently requires javascript, because it's built that way but I hope to get serverside rendering working sometime this weekend. WIll likely be read only this way for the foreseeable future.

You can download/build your own instance though and avoid browser security entirely if you like.

2

go1dfish wrote

This is why I went with anonymous by default for https://notabug.io

Want the site to focus more on ideas than individuals; I think the petty interpersonal drama and pigeonholin that happens on sites like this can be quite destructive.

I mostly just lurk here myself, I don't have any other accounts in case anyone else was wondering.

1

go1dfish wrote

Turns out I was wrong.

There is a (WIP?) python implementation of gun

https://github.com/xmonader/pygundb

So nab support would be making sure that was complete and then adding code to do the schema validation like this:

https://github.com/notabugio/notabug/blob/master/src/lib/nab/validate.js