Muehe @ Muehe @lemmy.ml

Posts

9

Comments

243

Joined

2 yr. ago

Firefox has no extensions so no Adblock.

That's because so far every browser on iOS had to use WebKit as it's HTML rendering engine, meaning that even if you installed another browser manually you were basically still using Safari under the hood. IIRC the new DMA rules include allowing other browser engines like Gecko, so Mozilla is probably already working on making addons available. I mean they are available on Android, so why wouldn't they make them available on iOS now that they finally can?

Ok, fuck. Against my better judgement and because I'm sufficiently drunk, here I go again... Drunk text. You were warned.

Let me start off with saying that I empathise with your point. I get what you are saying ultimately, I think. And if you see that on your Lemmy instance, I'm not the one downvoting you. I think your heart is in the right place.

But I really don't see your point about the sarcasm question. It's not a question. It's there. By definition. Why is this the hill you want to die on?

I mean the rest of his speech is just crazy over crazy. The MAGAdonians? I mean come on it's a goldmine for proving the fuck out of him being a fascist, but you are going for the one trap he lays you, where he is obviously being sarcastic. This is not going to dismantle his larger argument to anyone who might even vaguely relate to it, on the contrary. You need to do better.

But you asked, so here I go again:

He says he doesn’t mean it, in his speech, verbatim.

I’ve watched the CPAC speech three times now. Where does he say this?

He starts out with saying "most dangerous speech to democracy" in a mocking voice, then seriously "not just drain the swamp burn it to the ground". The whole thing drips of sarcasm from the start. Money quotes right here.

"Shining city on a hill, drain swamp, bla bla".

Then he lists three sources who he apparently suggests mis-cited him, Jeff Reid, Morning Joe, Mark Hamil. (?) He is mocking their accusations that he would "end democracy". "We have to end it, that's what the media told me". This couldn't be more clearly sarcastic.

Then he starts to explain his plan to end democracy, which is a list of things Republicans have accused the Democrats of doing that they consider an attack on democracy. The stolen election check-list™ I have documented in another comment. Again clearly mocking the "other side", hence sarcastic.

He ends this part of the speech with saying:

This is their “democracy” [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.

Again, clearly telling people that he is being sarcastic, outright, into their faces. He does not mean "real democracy™", he means "fake democracy™".

It's there. And I don't get why you are trying to prove that it's not, when there is so much bullshit in it that you could go for instead.

Anyway, you will not find any luck in insisting somebody isn't sarcastic when they most clearly are. This will convince nobody. You need to appeal to their better senses, like "real" Christianity, the American Dream, Human rights, or whatever it takes for them.

I mean even he cleverly does this in his speech, extending an open hand to anybody and everybody, even the Swifties? Like they have a somewhat coherent narrative that people will follow, and you have to admit this guy is not bad at making propaganda for it. And IMHO you are falling for his taunt here. He challenged the public to quote him on this, because he could say it was sarcastic. Because he is.

I'm mean don't ask me how to stop the fucking fascist in the end. Some relatively influential German politician just proposed what essentially amounts to forced labour for all immigrants for several months to horrendous "wages", like <1$/h wages. In fucking Germany! The gall! So yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about it either.

You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.

Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it’s relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive.

Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.

I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument’s logic seems to be he isn’t using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn’t possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing.

No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.

When people say he’s just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn’t really mean what he says.

He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.

So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic.

Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.

Edit: typo

If you rise anywhere above lever 5 or so, the difficulty ratchets up so much it makes the main quest nearly impossible to complete.

Didn't Oblivion already have the difficulty slider? You could just adjust that, no?

I know level scaling is a big topic in the industry, but for me, the way it’s implemented nearly ruins what is otherwise a mostly great game.

Two of the first RPGs I played were Gothic and Gothic II which released approximately alongside Morrowind and Oblivion, and they just had no dynamic level scaling at all, so I don't really see the appeal either. A tiny Mole Rat being roughly the same challenge as a big bad Orc just breaks immersion. If you were to meet the latter in early game it would just curb stomp you, which provided an immersive way of gating content and a real sense of achievement when you came back later with better armour and weapons to finally defeat the enemy who gave you so many problems earlier. Basically the same experience you had with Death Claws in Fallout New Vegas when compared to Fallout 3 - they aren't just a set piece, they are a real challenge.

The games had their own problems, for example the fighting system sucked, and I'm told the English translation was so bad the games just flopped in the Anglosphere, putting them squarely in the Eurojank category of games. But creating a real sense of progression and an immersive world were certainly not amongst their weaknesses.

See my reply to you up-thread.

He really wants to destroy democracy.

That is irrelevant.

He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.

Also irrelevant.

There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.

1. Does he intend the statement to be ironic satirical? Yes he does, he is throwing a statement made about him back at the Democrats.
2. Does he intend the statement to slight a third party? Yes he does, he is saying the Democrats are the ones actually wanting to destroy democracy.

It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.

I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.

Edit: a word.

“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”

GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.

But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.

Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn’t necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn’t support it.

Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.

Read the wider context.

Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.

Well he clearly is being sarcastic though. Frankly this whole thread is an affront towards the concept of language comprehension.

Fair enough, but none of that means he wasn't being sarcastic. Merriam-Webster defines that as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain", which this clearly was. That is of course not a get-out-of-jail-card for being a dumbass, but he doesn't intend to abolish (his twisted idea of) democracy.

I mean suppose for a second, just for arguments sake, that the Democratic party did indeed steal the 2020 election and you would have to re-evaluate things like January 6th being an insurrection, because violent resistance against somebody undermining a country's constitution is legitimate. Which is a stance you might have to take yourself sooner rather than later, especially if Trump wins again.

On a side-note, as a German growing up on copious amounts of Nazi history in school and some TV channels running 24/7 documentaries about them it seems rather clear to me where these MAGA people are headed. Already was in 2016. It's fascism. But it is important to remember that such movements aren't as monolithic as they might seem from the outside. There are many people in them who are just high on their own supply of bullshit, and you don't do yourself any favours by misinterpreting them and fielding arguments which are then easily refuted, doubly so if you are fighting against their confirmation bias.

To be fair though, the article in the OP seems to make that very same mistake.

He’s not being sarcastic. He’s artificially injecting sarcasm into his voice so he can say what he really believes.

Say what? Did you watch your own video? Because I followed your link, watched it for ~3min, and he is clearly 100% being sarcastic. Not just in tone of voice, it's clear from the content. No doubt about it. When laying out his "plan to destroy democracy" it's a laundry list of points from the stop-the-steal bullshit. Among that:

• Ban paper ballots
• Replace with mail-in voting and dropboxes
• Remove election day
• No voter-ID requirements
• Arrest opposition leader 4 times (this is a Trump reference)
• Imprison protesters who don't like democracy being abolished (January 6th reference)
• Flood the nation with millions of "invaders" to vote in their favour

All things the Republicans accused the Democrats of doing during the 2020 election. Then he ends with saying:

This is their "democracy" [doing air-quotes]. This is the regime we will overturn. They say democracy but they mean authoritarianism, and we know it.

I mean the guy went off the deep end and is obviously insane, but there is simply no doubt that he was being sarcastic here and that the measures he cites are not his actual plan. A Republican letting millions of people into the country voluntarily should have given it away to even the densest of viewers.

So WINE was just imagined into existence? Or maybe it was a wizard with a magic spell?

GP is simply wrong on this one. While it is an open source project with a lot of volunteer involvement, there are companies like CodeWeavers and Valve which directly or indirectly contribute to development. You can get support from CodeWeavers AFAIK, but that means paying them.

Why do people get so uppity when I simply ask questions? I never claimed that anyone owed me anything. I never asked for anything.

Well you did ask for something, which is replies to your questions. And your reaction to those replies, whether intended or not, comes off as "uppity" as well. Hence the downvotes and hostility (not to say that I support that from either side of the conversation).

I am unwilling to learn.

Then why are you wasting peoples time with asking questions?

I’ve wasted hundreds of hours trying to learn to use Linux for basic tasks after everyone assured me it was “so easy” and not gotten anywhere. I’m done trying to learn.

Running software on an OS it wasn't made for is anything but a basic task. Try running various Linux software on Windows and you will see. If you want to run software made for Windows easily the way to do that is using the version of Windows it was created for.

What people mean by "basic tasks" is usually browsing and office, and there is Linux-native software for that.

Someone posted Zorin OS elsewhere, which appears to be exactly that.

Not really. It has deeper integration of Wine into the system by default, but it is still a Linux OS running a compatibility layer for Windows software. This will not save you if you are unwilling to learn, there will still be various problems. Some software will simply not work, or only partially work, or require additional configuration to work.

In summary, if your definition of "basic tasks" is running arbitrary Windows software then doing it on Windows is the way to go.

Resolutions made by the UN security council (which this would have been) can be enforced through the UN peacekeeping mission (aka the blue helmets) by stationing UN troops along the contact line to prevent hostilities from resuming. This has had mixed success in the past, there is actually a peacekeeping mission stationed right now on the Israel/Lebanon border which hasn't prevented either side from shooting at each other after the October 7 attack.

Oh I suppose it's still not as bad as other places. It was free and fully financed by taxes because it was seen as a societal investment, now it's ~300€ per semester at my university and still mostly financed through taxes. But the neoliberals sure didn't impose that without a fight! And they would probably have set it higher if they could.

I mean I know I'm complaining from a position of privilege here (sorry US debt slave bros), but still, fuck that shit. Cutting the most financially vulnerable people in society out of an education is what that amounts to. In other words, it's just another front in class warfare.

At this point somebody should really create a /c/Aipocalypse community or something to collect stuff like this.

IIRC there were two variants in the movie and the "green" variant based on humans was added as a new product because the production couldn't keep up with population increase.

And it's made of soy and lentils, hence the name. At least it was in the novel the film was (loosely) based on.

pandoc.org is probably what you are looking for, but you might have to create a custom reader/writer or find one on the internet.

Cryptography ⊋ Blockchain

A blockchain is cryptography, but not all cryptography is a blockchain.