Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

1,035

Joined

2 yr. ago

Making multiple replies to the same thing is considered rude and spammy.

I'm just wondering if it's a practice/belief that should be continued. Perhaps multiple replies is actually a better way to do it, regardless of how it is currently interpreted.

I've unfortunately seen that behavior here on Lemmy as well.

Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound.

Sure, the argument could be unsound, but do note that that doesn't necessitate that the conclusion is also false. That would effectively be an argument from fallacy. Also that isn't exactly what I was trying to say — I was talking about how some people avoid engaging with certain classes of people because they don't think that their arguments are worthy — e.g. flat earthers.

Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

This is indeed an issue. I'm not entirely sure what its cause is. Perhaps it's fear of ridicule, or ostracization? I think the best grassroots method to fix it would be teaching and advocating for proper critical thinking skills.

People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with.

Dealing with irrationality is a tricky thing. How does one reason with someone who is unreasonable? I personally don't think abandoning them is the best solution, but, that being said, I also don't have an alternative.

Manufacturing and boot processes have to be modified to make sure nothing leaks out and everything stays put.

Meaning that software like systemd-crytpenroll would need to be updated to support this? I suppose what I'm trying to ask is this: As a user, if I want to set up full disk encryption using a TPM (1.2 or 2.0?) module, would I need to do anything different/novel during installation if I wanted to ensure that the bus is encrypted? And, if so, what would I need to do?

TPM bus is not encrypted on Windows too and you can break into bitlocker protected laptop.

By chance, do you have an official source from Microsoft that states that? I was unable to find any official documentation to clarify that when I looked.

Video Source

This video that you linked is the same video that I linked close to the end of my post.

I like your idea of "natural selection" for OSS, but I'm not sure I understand the parallel that you are drawing between democracy and natural selection. Would you mind elaborating?

Is that a bad thing? Why is it a problem that you, personally, haven't heard the argument before?

Nearly 90% of their servers are blocked to do common internet tasks .

Perhaps your browsing habits are severely impacted by Mullvad being blocked, but that doesn't seem to be the universal case. I've had the occasional hiccup with a few sites that block VPNs (Mullvad's IPs), but "90%" is quite an exaggeration when compared to my personal experience.

Correct...? I'm not sure what your point is.

It’s direct democracy

Maybe some projects, but that certainly can't be said for all open source projects. Also note that "open source" in "open source software" is simply the license that makes it so. This idea of governance is more of a project issue than a software distribution issue.

I won’t watch this clickbait

Are you referring the title here on Lemmy (ported from YouTube), or are you referring to any video, in general, that uses this practice? If it's the latter, why punish the creator? The need for clickbait is more of an environmental requirement for success created by YouTube. I can't fault a creator for trying to succeed.

forks who succeed the prior are exactly what we call democracy.

Hm. Democracy, by definition, is rule by the majority. A smaller fork gradually becoming larger and more successful than the prior, thereby eating up a larger chunk of the market, is really more of an example of competition. The larger fork doesn't have any say over the smaller forks. It is somewhat of an analogy to democracy, perhaps, in that people "vote with their feet" by moving to the fork that they want to succeed, but it breaks down in that you don't have one, or the other — both can exist in tandem.

Hm, it depends on the context. Any open source project, or fork thereof would be an independent isolated instance with it's own practices — e.g. authoritarian, anarchist, democratic, etc.

The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don't seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I'm not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said "freedom from a governing authority"). It's important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn't require the presence of a government.

The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.

I don’t agree that can work with violence.

What are you referring to?

I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn't my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?

I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.

This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.

I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.

If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn't align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.

Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare

Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?

If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.

I'm not sure I follow this point. I don't think that I have argued that the government shouldn't be allowed to use force — it wasn't my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I'm trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.

Which 3 questions are you referring to?

more equal is more better

I don't understand this point. Are you stating that you don't believe in individual equality?

I have read it, and find it bullshit.

What exactly do you disagree with? It's really just a definition. If you are encountering people who are advocating for authoritarianism while calling themselves libertarian, then they are misappropriating the term.

Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes.

This is very likely to be a faulty generalization. Also, there are policies on both the Democrat, and Republican side which can be construed as authoritarian.

Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.

I'd be very hesitant to call stategic voting "supporting".

Keep in mind that dismissing an argument as unworthy, is not an argument for why it is unsound. Furthermore, refusing to engage someone's argument also doesn't help in pointing them on a better path.

If there's no case law, then what makes you claim that there was no individual right prior to Heller? You can't know what the legal standard was without precedent.

I think the distinction is important so as not to detract from what is arguably more horrible and worthy of condemnation — pedophilia.

IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said "Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare)." — positive liberty isn't necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It's essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don't think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I'm just not convinced that the connotation is the same.