Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

Is it kinda like how in Dune, the sand people have an entire reservoir of water that they just refuse to drink from because they believe it contains the souls of the dead people or whatever?

We have the same belief systems in a lots of ways.

Does anyone know why Afghanistan treats women so badly?

Like isn’t their treatment of women batshit crazy, even by the standards of other neighboring Muslim countries?

It's just what patriarchy and conservatism does when left completely unchecked, promoted and enhanced by religion. Religion in itself is not really responsible. The problem is the system that is in auto-feed.

In fine, this is the same problem as any conservative in the world : Since they do not try to understand the structural reasons behind their problems and since they have a very authoritarive way of looking at the world, they will find a scape goat.

- Liberals will usually target Migrants
- Ultra liberals will target muslims, poor people and migrants
- Conservatives will target minorities lgbtqi+ and sometimes racialized people and all of the above
- Reactionnary ones will target the first obstacles of those who have the power : women and all over the above

The more reactionnary they get the closer is the ennemy. Taliban are simply as reactionnary as you can get minus the fascism.

Religion has very little to do with that. It's all about the degree of conservatism and the fact that all people have accepted that.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

What the actual f is 'Muslim Islam'

It means Muslims^2. Bro is reconciling math with Islam

Spoiler

the fact that he’s unable to see what’s wrong with his statement really drives home how mentally challenged he is

 

[Blax Blah]

Classic turd-head orcface Ilva . Always her and Ursula.

Whoever voted for her has needs a lobotomy,that way they might return to default settings.

We need free and open source software, free as in freedom, not free as in price,

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The four essential freedoms

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

More details:

In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance, consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B, only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.

Free software can be commercial

“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.

We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businesses and their workers. That requires allowing commercial use. We hope that free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietary programs, but they can't do that if businesses are forbidden to use them. We want commercial products that contain software to include the GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution for a price. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, professional support for free software fills an important need.

Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.

A free program must offer the four freedoms to any would-be user that obtains a copy of the software, who has complied thus far with the conditions of the free license covering the software in any previous distribution of it. Putting some of the freedoms off limits to some users, or requiring that users pay, in money or in kind, to exercise them, is tantamount to not granting the freedoms in question, and thus renders the program nonfree.

Clarifying the Boundary Between Free and Nonfree

In the rest of this article we explain more precisely how far the various freedoms need to extend, on various issues, in order for a program to be free.

The freedom to run the program as you wish

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to other people, they are then free to run it for their purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on them.

The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.

For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and communities to make and distribute modified versions without the arbitrary nuisance code.

“As you wish” includes, optionally, “not at all” if that is what you wish. So there is no need for a separate “freedom not to run a program.”

The freedom to study the source code and make changes

In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you need to have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code.

Source code is defined as the preferred form of the program for making changes in. Thus, whatever form a developer changes to develop the program is the source code of that developer's version.

Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.

One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add—then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.

Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.

One special case of freedom 1 is to delete the program's code so it returns after doing nothing, or make it invoke some other program. Thus, freedom 1 includes the “freedom to delete the program.”

The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic requirements

Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. However, a license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify as a free license.

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

Copyleft

Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.

In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms legally for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft. However, noncopylefted free software is ethical too. See Categories of Free Software for a description of how “free software,” “copylefted software” and other categories of software relate to each other.

Rules about packaging and distribution details

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.

Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use are also acceptable.

A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by which the program will be invoked from other programs. That effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an alias for the modified version.

Export regulations

Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.

Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does not restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the software nonfree.

Legal considerations

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.

A free license may not require compliance with the license of a nonfree program. Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to comply with the licenses of “all the programs you use,” in the case of a user that runs nonfree programs this would require compliance with the licenses of those nonfree programs; that makes the license nonfree.

It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.

Contract-based licenses

Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.

We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is nonfree.

 

[Daniel]

Is it kinda like how in Dune, the sand people have an entire reservoir of water that they just refuse to drink from because they believe it contains the souls of the dead people or whatever?

I have never read Dune since it was a series that never caught my interest, nor was it ever assigned as school reading. Even the two movies somehow failed to capture my attention, as the entire setting feels so empty and dreary to me, despite providing a good story.

Anyways, religious beliefs are somewhat similar to the population's reasoning that you mentioned as an example. However, considering that the words written in religious scriptures date back to well before the Middle Ages, they were likely intended to serve as a book of advice or an instruction manual for the citizens, soldiers, and leaders who lived in regions where that specific religion was predominant...even the texts that are tough to defend even as a devil's advocate nowadays.

 

[Roo]

Does anyone know why Afghanistan treats women so badly?

Like isn’t their treatment of women batshit crazy, even by the standards of other neighboring Muslim countries?

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2024

I know Pakistan had a female prime minister and even Iran has some women in the government

Yes, Iran and Pakistan think the Taliban are batshit insane. The only reason why either country would fund the taliban fighters is for geopolitical reasons, but even that nowadays is biting them in the ass as the taliban encroaches on them.

Tho Iran is pretty regressive when it comes to women, idk enough about pakistan to comment

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I have never heard or read such things

I learned about this in school. In Catholic religion class to be precise.
This is not the first time you're unfamiliar with the contents of your own religion.

https://previous.quran.com/2/282
''And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her''

Also this:
https://quran.com/an-nisa/4-11
''Allah commands you regarding your children: the share of the male will be twice that of the female.''

Yes, Iran and Pakistan think the Taliban are batshit insane. The only reason why either country would fund the taliban fighters is for geopolitical reasons, but even that nowadays is biting them in the ass as the taliban encroaches on them.

Tho Iran is pretty regressive when it comes to women, idk enough about pakistan to comment

Everything is for geopolitical reasons. Why Israel is a state. Why Kosovo is a state etc

However, considering that the words written in religious scriptures date back to well before the Middle Ages, they were likely intended to serve as a book of advice or an instruction manual for the citizens, soldiers, and leaders who lived in regions where that specific religion was predominant...even the texts that are tough to defend even as a devil's advocate nowadays.

Yes, Islam was rather modern when it came around. The problem are idiots who copy paste shariah and Quran teachings into the 21st century.

 

[Blax Blah]

aren't newborn babies parasitic by definition tho

No, imagine telling your parents that you were a parasite, it's obviously not true, imagine trying to apply the label of parasite to your child, obviously not true,

 

[Roo]

No, imagine telling your parents that you were a parasite, it's obviously not true, imagine trying to apply the label of parasite to your child, obviously not true,

Emotionally it would suck, but it's the same way humans react to being called animals. Most people don't want to be called that but technically speaking we are that.

Anyways I wouldn't call a baby a parasite. I just made a point to logiko that if he calls a fetus a parasite due to it's relation to the host, well a baby by definition could also be considered that

 

[Blax Blah]

Emotionally it would suck, but it's the same way humans react to being called animals. Most people don't want to be called that but technically speaking we are that.

Anyways I wouldn't call a baby a parasite. I just made a point to logiko that if he calls a fetus a parasite due to it's relation to the host, well a baby by definition could also be considered that

Oh alrighty, I think humans are only animals if you define any biological being as an animal, but it's not only about emotions, it's obviously not true that a human who has rights and carries life is a parasite,

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Yes, Iran and Pakistan think the Taliban are batshit insane. The only reason why either country would fund the taliban fighters is for geopolitical reasons, but even that nowadays is biting them in the ass as the taliban encroaches on them.

Tho Iran is pretty regressive when it comes to women, idk enough about pakistan to comment

They fund the taliban?

didn’t the taliban do a terror attack on Pakistani soil? Crazy

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

It's just what patriarchy and conservatism does when left completely unchecked, promoted and enhanced by religion. Religion in itself is not really responsible. The problem is the system that is in auto-feed.

This is probably the first time you used the word patriarchy in its appropriate context. Islam has its roots in a patriarchal society and considering that their culture was even more patriarchal pre Mohammed it's pretty shocking to see how many nowadays treat it as a static unchangeable revelation and don't use their brains to place it in its historical context. What's even worse tho is when they spread Islam to completely unrelated ethnic groups that were never as patriarchal as them and use it supplant actual native culture. That's when Islam becomes a tool for colonisation similarly to how Christianity was (and still is) used.

Oh alrighty, I think humans are only animals if you define any biological being as an animal,

But I thought only biology matters and facts don't care about our feelings?😭

Spoiler

🤡

 

[Blax Blah]

This is probably the first time you used the word patriarchy in its appropriate context. Islam has its roots in a patriarchal society and considering that their culture was even more patriarchal pre Mohammed it's pretty shocking to see how many nowadays treat it as a static unchangeable revelation and don't use their brains to place it in its historical context. What's even worse tho is when they spread Islam to completely unrelated ethnic groups that were never as patriarchal as them and use it supplant actual native culture. That's when Islam becomes a tool for colonisation similarly to how Christianity was (and still is) used.

But I thought only biology matters and facts don't care about our feelings?😭

Spoiler

🤡

I didn't say biology doesn't matter, I said humans are only animals, if you consider an animal to mean any living being,

 

[Roo]

They fund the taliban?

didn’t the taliban do a terror attack on Pakistani soil? Crazy

Yes, irrc pakistan has help the taliban in the past. I think it was mainly to fuck with the U.S and Iran but I'm not sure

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2024

Oh alrighty, I think humans are only animals if you define any biological being as an animal,

By definition they are animals.

but it's not only about emotions, it's obviously not true that a human who has rights and carries life is a parasite,

Well the philosophy of what makes us different than other cellular creatures sometimes is driven by that, emotion. It's like 99% of the vegan argument.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I didn't say biology doesn't matter, I said humans are only animals, if you consider an animal to mean any living being,

I was imitating the anti trans guys who always waffle about muh only biology is real

 

[AL sama]

I learned about this in school. In Catholic religion class to be precise.
This is not the first time you're unfamiliar with the contents of your own religion.

https://previous.quran.com/2/282
''And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her''

Also this:
https://quran.com/an-nisa/4-11
''Allah commands you regarding your children: the share of the male will be twice that of the female.''

I didn't mean you're wrong I said I don't know of such a thing

I obviously know about the shares part

 

[Logiko]

This is probably the first time you used the word patriarchy in its appropriate context.

No. It's simply the first time that I use it in a context where you understand the importance of its usage. The problem is not me using the word wrongly, it's you not understanding why I use it in other context :)

#NoHardFeelings

 

[CoC: Color of Clowns]

so EU wants free reign over everyone's privacy just cause of some criminals?? what a logic

Europe: "This guy did a bad thing."

Europe: "So we're going to do something way, wary worse and act like it's not our fault because of the other dude."

People who still trust the US and European powers astound me.

How many lies do you need?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Europe: "This guy did a bad thing."

Europe: "So we're going to do something way, wary worse and act like it's not our fault because of the other dude."

People who still trust the US and European powers astound me.

How many lies do you need?

It's important to note that there are different forces in Europe. There's those guys who are looking for any possible excuse to encroach on the citizens' rights to privacy but at the same time there's a strong presence of consumer & data protection advocacy activists.

Europe: "So we're going to do something way, wary worse and act like it's not our fault because of the other dude."

In all honesty, before I give up on my privacy rights out of the very potential possibility that it might prevent one or two crimes (Even against myself) I'd rather die😂😂
If we're not careful EU is turning into USA 2.0, only complete with a patriot act equivalent.

No. It's simply the first time that I use it in a context where you understand the importance of its usage. The problem is not me using the word wrongly, it's you not understanding why I use it in other context :)

#NoHardFeelings

I have been witnessing the gradual appropriation of the word patriarchy by adherents of certain political leanings over the last years and no, y'all tend to use this term incorrectly.
The word patriarchy has its origins in ethnology/anthropology and refers to how societies are organized. There are patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies for example. ''THE patriarchy'' that you guys like to talk about (either as a boogeyman for the left or to spite the left foe the right) does simply not exist.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Guys, if you care about the issue of money in politics and how that affects how politicians vote on policy then I recommend you watch this interview of David Sirota (Journalist and producer of Don't Look Up)

A very insightful history lesson of how the supreme court allowed corporations to pour millions into political campaigns in the 1970s which basically legalized bribery in the United States.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Guys, if you care about the issue of money in politics and how that affects how politicians vote on policy then I recommend you watch this interview of David Sirota (Journalist and producer of Don't Look Up)

A very insightful history lesson of how the supreme court allowed corporations to pour millions into political campaigns in the 1970s which basically legalized bribery in the United States.

Y'all's country is on the verge of feudalism. Fight it now before it's too late (and no, Donnie is not part of the solution, neither is the afd in Germany)