Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @lemm.ee

All of this user's content is licensed under CC BY 4.0

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

209

Joined

2 yr. ago

There is nothing inherently oppressive about saying "Don't tread on me.". Individual liberty does not beget an oppressive structure within the collective. An individual should not stand behind the flag in good conscience if the believe that their liberties trump those of others.

Being individually free does not necessitate an oppressive structure within the collective -- if all individuals are free, then the collective must also be free.

One must still not forget that their liberties do not trump the liberties of others. Freedom is something we enjoy as a collective. If there is inequality in this then the collective is no longer free, but is, instead, oppressive.

In short, the Gadsden flag is not about one being free to trample on the rights of others, but, instead, upholding the freedoms of the collective by respecting the liberties of each unique individual. Inequality in freedom is oppression.

It sucks that the symbol is associated with assholes.

I would suggest rewriting this statement as follows:

"It sucks that the symbol gets associated with assholes."

This does, of course, depend on which "assholes" that you are referring to; however, the bottom line is that the Gadsden flag is a symbol that represents ideas of individual liberty, and resistance to authoritarianism. If it gets mistakenly co-opted by individuals that do not share these values, that does not change what the flag fundamentally represents, but, instead, that which it gets associated with.

I'm pretty left, but I've always liked the Don't Tread on Me flag..

It depends on how you are defining "left-wing" but I would that the Gadsden flag's symbolism is not mutually exclusive with being "left-wing". At a fundamental level, the Gadsden flag represents ideas of rejecting authoritarianism and supporting individual liberty. So long as one's beliefs align with this, then they can fly the flag without compunction.

The average person displaying this flag treads all over people's rights constantly, though.

This statement is pure conjecture.

I use Nextcloud's Calendar to sync to other calendar apps over CalDAV.

I would say that a big part of the issue is the difficulty in transferring one's account. Ignoring the fact that one simply can't transfer their posts, trying to manually copy all previously subscribed communities to a new account is a rather tedious task. I am aware that there exists scripts that can automate that process, but I don't think that it's fair to expect that the userbase should run 3rd party scripts. Until account transfer is properly implemented, defederation will continue to be a major issue.

You claim that you believe that there is a problem with elected officials being incompetent, and yet you then contradict yourself by stating that you are part of the problem:

personally I prefer someone with memory issues but is representing what I vote for than someone who is perfectly neurotypical but contradicts my beliefs.

You are correct that the voters have the power to change their representatives if they are found to be incompetent, so use it. Don't fall victim to the ostrich effect.

I'm still not entirely sure what problem Sup is trying to solve. Matrix already exists. Matrix supports E2EE through the signal protocol, as well as native federation, and it bridges to almost any existing chat service. Matrix is inherently less secure, overall, than Signal, but I don't see how Sup would fix this either -- for that I'll have to wait and see. As for using one's fedi account to sign-in, that's mostly just up to supporting OAuth, and not some feature that would be unique to the app.

Would you mind pointing out what I misunderstood?

Look up how some people fought seat belt laws.

Seat belt laws are not an equivalent example. Unless one has fellow passengers, not wearing a seat-belt is of no risk to anyone but oneself.

Just like masks and vaccines they’re not actually doing much most of the time

Then why enforce rules when there is no risk to anyone? To enforce a rule is to say that there is an aggression that is being controlled.

Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I'm not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.

While the community suffers the aggragate, the individual is still not individually powerless.

Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus. The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it.

This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I'm referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the "non-aggression principle". What one must then ask is: "Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?". If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn't ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I'm inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people's own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)

This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.

Please forgive me if I am incorrect -- epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit -- but isn't this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that "incubation period" means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.

Incubation period (also known as the latent period or latency period) is the time elapsed between exposure to a pathogenic organism, a chemical, or radiation, and when symptoms and signs are first apparent. -- Wikipedia:

If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn't they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.

General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.

I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn't become more widespread, yet again.

I did say "generally". Also, in the general sense -- I'm not specifically talking about Covid -- if a person chooses to endanger themself, then that is not of my concern.

Isn't Friendica the fediverse equivelant to Facebook?

It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing.

I remind you, this is not a source. The entire point of citing a source is so that the reader is not required to assume the information's origin, nor to place trust in its purveyor.

It’s not just about lemm.ee, the up/down of federation is that stuff from lemm.ee gets copied to all the other federated instances and vice versa. So lemm.ee’s region aside, this move tries to help protect the fediverse at large by removing a major distribution hub.

That's a fair point! Thanks!

Are the lemm.ee servers not located in a region that protects online forums from the content that its users post?

You conveniently left out what immediately followed that quote in the article:

But on Sunday, Ramaswamy did not back down when he was repeatedly questioned about the comparison by Bash.

“I think it is the same spirit to say that I can look at you and based on just your skin color, that I know something about the content of your character, that I know something about the content of the viewpoints you’re allowed to express,” Ramaswamy said, calling the rhetoric “divisive.”

!trippinthroughtime@lemmy.ca