xxk OP wrote

Thank you for sharing. Really.

Where I come from is from my longlasting sexual indefinition (which I think is great, but apparently I'm the only one).

I just wanted to say that you're not the only one. What you're saying is not all that different from my own experiences and my own thoughts.


xxk OP wrote

I. Thank you for sharing. You nudged me toward reflecting a little more about how queer people compares to and cis straight people in this regard.

II. "ordinary people" was a poor choice of words. The sentence previous to that one hints at the make-shift dichotomy I used. By "ordinary" I meant "from a source that is not academic and that use a formal language". I guess "tell me about what your perspective is in your own words" would have conveyed my intentions more clearly.


xxk OP wrote

I don't disagree with you.

I guess the problem is other people though. Meaning that sometimes you'll have to use words to signal intent in a succinct mutually intelligible way even though the word might lack clarity. Usually because it's socially acceptable or that it's expected of you.

I mean, I like the "i'll date and fuck anybody" route, but it could be interpreted to mean that a specific person is "anybody". "I'll date anybody" could be misunderstood as "I'll date anybody, even you". Which could be understood as that you'll "settle" for someone , because you leave room for value judgment by other people instead of what you explicitly stated.

Just stating that "I'm [insert word here]-sexual" is more neutral because it only refers to yourself even if the particular term you're using is confusing.


xxk OP wrote

While people who identifies as bisexual provides a uniquely qualified perspective my reason for asking was to get any individual's input. Bisexual people live in a world full of non-bisexual people after all, haha.

Either way. Thank you for your comment.


xxk wrote (edited )


What, exactly, is “Action Research Collaborative”?

That is a surprisingly difficult question to find an answer to, as they have no website whatsoever.

They do have a website though... **sigh**

It was a while since I read/watched anything of his stuff, but he must've gotten worse over the years. I sort of dropped out right after I saw him mocking a nervous-sounding audience member that used the word 'inclusivity' by saying something like: "Is that even a real word?", and then on to the next question basically.

His earlier stuff tended towards being a slightly more serious AVGN focusing on Linux and Unixes. As I remember it in a somewhat safe/non-judgmental tone. Makes me wonder what happened, or if I just didn't catch up on any possible slights toward people/groups championing social justice.


xxk OP wrote (edited )

Actually that is the next one on my list. I haven't been able to get ahold of it because I'd like to listen to that one instead of reading it. Buuuut, I might just read it.

The whole reframing thing seems interesting. That sort of does the work for me because I usually mentally revise the "troublesome" parts in Lovecraft's fiction, haha.

For example, 'swarthy' = a conceptually generalized darkness or only 'dark' in a literal sense. So more like the darkness in people's actions instead of referring to people of color. I do the same thing with Tolkien really.


xxk OP wrote

Tbh, I've never read anything by Stephen King except for the non-fiction book 'On Writing'. A collection of short stories might just be a good introduction to his fiction.

The Dark Tower series I've meant to read, but there's a lot of interesting stuff out there. Plus I don't really like the Western sub-genre which I understand is an influence on those books. For that reason I've put it further down my 'To read'-list in place of other works.

Anyway, thanks.


xxk wrote (edited )

Well, if you disregard my current dietary choices (stuff I don't eat out of principle) I guess that I've reserved a special kind of hatred for plain or whipped cream, and high-fat dairy. So I've never been a fan of cake and, by extension, birthday parties.


xxk wrote (edited )

Well, the political left is a pretty broad concept containing views that often are incompatible. Social democracy and anarchism is an example. While I'm fine with lumped in with a "generalized left" as a conceptual shorthand for the sake of making conversation easier I don't really see how you could act collectively on that basis alone.

That being said, "post-leftism" runs into the same problem. The left/post-left I can relate to tend to intersect. In everyday conversations 'left' basically means "any view describing some kind of egalitarian program". If you go past everyday conversations 'the left' more of less becomes superfluous, and with it 'post-leftism'.

Seeing as unity relates to action I tend to feel that ideas worth acting upon matters more than 'the left' which is a conversational device in essence.


xxk wrote (edited )

I do think that political bubbles is the major obstacle. This isn't something I think anarchism is immune to though, and (online at least) there is a tendency to in-groupings that make it harder to engage in mutual conversation. I.e. "spreading the word", exchanging ideas, developing mutual understanding.

The post-left current is partly driven by the need to overcome such hierarchies. I can't really say that I'm sure that it does. It has it's own orthodox discourse which is "off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute".

That isn't an endorsement of "leftist" anarchism, or a condemnation of post-left anarchism though. It's just that both contain verbiage. When I strip it away I generally find ideas that are roughly interchangeable. Not ideas that are mutually exclusive.

But as Mx_Flow say "...do the anarchy now, there won’t be a better season." Developing a practice, not just a goal.

So yeah, my two cents.


xxk wrote (edited )

Ah, okay. Well... I usually find that 'minimal definitions' helps. To make my point clear I'll pretend that you don't know anything about socialism. If you boil down socialism to the essentials it basically means social ownership of the means of production.

'Social ownership' in this context is just a placeholder.

Both supporters and detractors of socialism might insist that social ownership must be state ownership. If you look at it through the prism of a minimal definition you'll see that this is false. Social ownership might mean state ownership but it is not required.

But during the cold war era both Marxist-Leninist states and western ones curated the idea of socialism as statism because it suited their needs. ML states to legitimize their socialism as the "only true socialism". Western ones to discredit socialism by associating it with totalitarian states.

You can produce similar minimal definitions for anarchism and other schools of thought. It might also help one to recognize fallacies like the 'No true scotsman'-fallacy which is helpful in discussions, and in sharpening your own arguments.

If you can pick apart a concept, label the pieces, and put it back together again it usually means that you understand it to a reasonable degree.

I am a bit conflicted because I err on the side that "empirically" studying history is a bit bogus

Yeah, when it comes to subjects that are social in nature you more or less need to approximate. It isn't like mathematics in the sense that you can produce an explanation to a problem that is definitive and universally applicable.

For a while I tried to apply "empiricism" in arguments about social issues, and when I look back on it it makes me feel uneasy, haha. I hold the same views now as I did then though. What I got reminded of is that an opinion might be "reasonably justified", but you can't really say that you are "correct". You can't falsify feminism for example, but you can find justifiable reasons for promoting feminism.


xxk OP wrote

if they caught a single CentOS box running, your entire subscription was terminated, even if you were not using RH Linux repos with the box, and just using it for dev instances, or backup servers, etc

What the... Never heard of that. Seems pretty damn harsh. But in light of the recent debacle I'm not surprised.

The company owning the site seem very pro-market though. The "observers" they contacted are business people. Not representatives of communities, or non-profits like Software Freedom Conservancy. So I guess there's an incentive to support the thesis that Red Hat is in the right. ("Red Hat, very nice, so profit, dumdum")


xxk wrote (edited )

Reply to by !deleted41216

  1. What they say isn't all that provoking. But as u/particlesoup said: the tone is condescending. Most of the video consisted of truisms delivered in a way to make it seem contrarian. Some of their arguments could be restated like this: Linux is a kernel, Linux distros use the Linux kernel, and thus distros are all alike.

  2. They also seem to confuse choice with freedom. Actually, this is pretty much what they says at the first few seconds of the video. "...everywhere on the internet people brag about the freedom and choice..." So the question of freedom is a different one from that of choice. So the groupings they are referring to are probably smaller than what they make it out to be.

  3. They build up a straw man (paraphrasing: "people are religious about what DE or WM they use") then construct a false dichotomy between "digital nomads" and "software users with an orthodox bent". Even if we buy into the dichotomy the framing would probably be false in the sense that most FOSS-users I observe are quick to abandon a kind of software if they find it cumbersome for some reason. Either they find another alternative or fork the software.

  4. They criticize the lack of choice only to say that the choice of using a rolling release distro, if fact he promotes Fedora explicitly, is the way to battle the lack of choice. I.e. by reducing the choices. Incidentally this sort of invalidates point 1.

  5. About proprietary software: it's basically hinged on the fact that proprietary software can't be supported on Linux distros, and to the extent that it is supported it's limited. Take the example on paying royalties to use a specific codex. That isn't a fault of the FOSS community. It's the fault of proprietary software, companies and the state (through the legal system).

So I guess some of the truisms are: some software use other software (libraries, low-level stuff) to function (X11/wayland). Some people prefer certain DE:s/WM:s. Some distros prefer stability over new technology and features. Some proprietary software won't work on all OS:s.

These are things few would argue against. I.e. it is not controversial. So when they proclaim "I know that this is gonna piss some people off" it sort of feels disingenuous; "Look at me! I say stuff others won't 'dare' to say." It's basically self-promotion and marketing. Selling an image.


xxk wrote

Reply to by idioomsus

I've experienced that Firefox problem before, but usually it has been my own fault. Not running the distro version, I've got some workarounds because of firejail and I dislike parts of the XDG Base Directory specification which Firefox assume that I conform to.

Not a Fedora user, but there might be a lot of reasons as to why that particular error message pops up.


xxk wrote (edited )

Never really used Reddit apart from reading about Linux/FOSS news.

I do however think that these kind of changes should remind people that corporate entities and their product aren't public resources even if they're often marketed, and used, as such.

Reddit states that they "take no responsibility for and we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, support, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of Your Content.", and "You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content..."

So basically they "graciously" "grant" you ownership/responsibility for your "content". This while they themselves might exploit it with impunity without taking any responsibility, and in the end they own your content anyway. Case-in-point:

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. - Reddit user agreement


xxk wrote

u/Cranko makes some very good points so I'll try not to elaborate on their points (too much).

What I want to add, and I recognize that it might not exactly be what you asked for, is that you shouldn't feel any obligation to do anything. I suspect that you have values/principles that you feel is important to you. What you believe to be fair and unfair. How you want to be treated and how you want to treat others. You can try to place in the context of politics/history, but you're not under any obligation to do so.

I guess that if you'd state why you feel that situating your thoughts within politics/history is important to you I might be able to say a word or two more about it. That is if you had any specific purpose in mind. But really, I don't expect you to elaborate on it if you don't want to. No pressure.

Also: I highly doubt you are "ignorant". If you were you wouldn't ask such a self-reflecting question.