Takapapatapaka @ Takapapatapaka @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

242

Joined

2 yr. ago

Mid-20s male here. They get to mid-back length now, and i'm overall very happy about it. They sometimes get stuck while in bed or at work but it's a small price to pay for not bothering with cutting them and it's really cool to headbang with it. Like others said, some boomers give me a hard time, but on the other hand i get random compliments from strangers so i take that as a win.

It is highly unpopular here to criticize Ukraine, and people kinda have good reasons for it, with all the far-right/trolls/tankies praising Russia and undermining Ukraine support.

Still, and though I support Ukrainians in a war made by Russia, conscription (it's always forced btw) is something I can't get over with, it goes against liberty, equality, solidarity, everything i believe in. Fuck armies, anywhere, anywhen, anyhow. It does not mean that they should be unfunded/unsupported/fought against, just that we have to remember that they are bad to the core, and that even when necessary, they should not get any glory, any power or any reward.

"Despise the infamous glory of laurel-bearing heroes, all assassins and pirates who terrorized the whole world". - La Paysanne, Gaston Couté

Anyway, i hope for peace in Ukraine, that they will get their previous frontiers, and that violences will soon come to an end, so that forced soldiers on both sides and Ukrainian civilians can escape this hell.

This makes sense, i think you're right on trying to keep things nuanced, and that the question of how much usage of freedom hurts versus how much not using this freedom hurts.

Though in the case of wearing clothes, i find it very hard to be harmful, even through the bias of mockery. It's hard to argue that the negative impact of mockery exceeds the negative impact of being forced or prohibited in what you wear. Especially in the case of hijab.

I do think that the argument of mockery/clothes being 'seen as symbols of oppression' can even be used as a way to justify repressive laws. If we take the hijab case, there are two main reasons we could ban it : some women are being forced to wear it, and some people are 'seeing it at a symbol of oppression'. Banning hijab for women forced to wear it may seem good at first, but inevitably ends up dumb when you think about it : it's treating the symptom rather than the problem (power of religion over people) and in the worst case it even worsen the condition of women (who are then stopped from going to schools, sport competitions or public places where they could precisely get help or tools to treat the problem). So it is only for the people seeing hijab as oppressive that it makes sense to ban it, but this negative impact is obviously very little compared to the harm it makes to religious people. And i get the sense that some people are blending both aspects as one issue to combine one part's legitimacy with the other part's adequation to the solution, and get something that seems both logical and legitimate when it is really only one or the other. (at least on the hijab matter nowadays in France, other areas and periods might be a lot different).

I've been through your approach of trying to take everything neutrally and with nuances, and I still think that this is the way to go, and that it's always good to use it a little bit, but as I saw more and more debates, I also got to think it's important to not give both sides on a matter equal weight for the sake of neutrality, and to insist on the obvious solution when there is one : we might take its obviousness into account in our mind, but it may not be the case for other people, so I like to state it along with nuances.

Now, generally speaking, you're clearly right that in lot of cases there is no clear answer, and the case of medics refusing to perform an act based on their beliefs is a very interesting one (I would argue for their right to do so as long as there is someone else to make it, even elsewhere or later in some cases, but I can see why you would not, it's not as clear as the hijab thing for me).

Anyway thanks for bringing nuance and examples

I mostly agree with you, especially on the "really dangerous religion is organized religion exerting power beyond spiritual matters". And 1905 lawmakers were on that point to, the main goal was to stop catholic church from exerting power, especially in schools.

I personally think that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are the same thing. If your religion cannot be 'none', then you have no freedom 'of' religion.

I assume otherwise we fully agree and our positions are the same / compatible ? Your last paragraph leaves me uncertain, but I think that there is only one correct answer which is yes, all those people should have their right to wear what they want as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples, which is not the case in any of the examples.

This is (probably not intended) bullshit when it says it revives a debate around secularism, enshrined since 1905. 1905 french secularism meant to protect religion freedom, rather than having religion enforced by state, it is quite recent to use the secularism argument in the sense "no one should show their religion in public" rather than "everyone is free to follow the religion they want and the state will not support any". Conservatives shitheads have an interest in maintaining this unclear, so that their otherwise obvious targetting of minorities can be hidden behind old republican principles, which never supported this kind of bullshit.

Never thought the phrase "Critics, including [experts and/or politics], warn this may harm US economy" would ever be as sad and repetitive

Yeah, im with you on that one, i consider to be a anarco-communist myself and i recognize that it is easy to get cult-like about whats really left and even really anarchidt/libertarian.

No wonder why every leftist thinker i know about fought against (what they saw as) sectarianism, thinking freely tends to get you a little sensitive about theory and disagreement, resulting in many movments thinking just slightly different buy treating each other like the worse traitors.

But on a positive note, we tend to get sectarian about theories or practices rather than leader or countries.

Edit : typo

I think i get your point, but if we extend governments to nations, then nations are places in the sense that they are a geographical object. Claiming that nation can be / are evil is another debate, but supposing it is possible, it would then be only imprecise and not wrong to claim that places are evil, for certain types of places could then be (and it's probably this type of place which is a nation/country that is targeted here)

Halfway through a concert, when the exhaustion from the mosh pit hits my weak body and im just a flipper ball in the chaos

The text states anyone applying for nationality must “provide evidence of a level of language enabling them to at least understand the essential context of concrete or abstract subjects in a complex test, to communicate spontaneously and to express themselves clearly and in detail on a wide variety of subjects”.

I mean, this is a challenge for a lot of people including me even in their birth tongue.

There's actually a typo, i wrote "relies or bullshit" instead of " on bullshit"

I disagree with you, links are not that long to share. It is a bit more time consuming obviously, but everyone can choose whether to read quickly or really dive in the sources. I see a lot of people doing it today on internet. I see a lot of people doing it in casual conversation (opening a book or internet to check smthg). It's not evidence, it's hints to avoid launching a whole discussion that entirely lies or bullshit (or not).

Here are some links I found about smuggled chips.

• Reuters : Deepseek said they used legally imported old and new nvidia chips (H800 and H20s). There are suspicions and investigations about illegal smuggling of banned from export nvidia chips, targeting directly Deepseek. One CEO of an american AI startup said it is likely Deepseek used smuggled chips.
• The Diplomat : exactly the same, citing directly Reuters. Adds that H800 (now banned from export) and H20s were designed by Nvidia specially for the chinese market. Adds that smuggling could go through Singapore, which leaped from 9% to 22% of Nvidia revenues in 2 years. Nvidia and Singapore representatives deny.
• Foxbusiness : same.

So it is likely there are smuggled chips in china if we believe this. Now to say they have been used by Deepseek and even more, that they have been decisive is still very unclear.

Youre talking about countries. I do not care abouy contries. Bombs do not protect people, guns do not protect people.

Killing peoples with guns in third world country to avoid killing with bombs in eu/na is not a win. Getting bombs or guns just temporarily deflects the violence on someone else. The day everyone has bombs, wars wont stop.

You cannot want a safe world for people and want bombs at the same time. It is only viable if you think abouy nations instead of people, but who cares?

I cannot agree with you more, and i'm very sad to see so much upvotes in favor of nuclear intensification Bombs do not protect from bombs, guns do not protect from guns

Well both of us are imitating motorcycles, so it would even be very hard to write down the actual 'melody' to compare both. As said by others, it's also an easy and common thing to do on guitar. Plus both sounds are rythmically a bit different : Motley Crue do not have the fast bit at the beginning of Montrose, they do 3 bends rather than 4 and they are a bit slower. It still may be technically plagiarism but it would be on a very small scale

Im no expert at all, but I think it might be hallucination/coincidence, skew of training data, or more arbitrary options even : either the devs enforced that behaviour somewhere in prompts, either the user asked for something like "give me the answer as if you were a chinese official protecting national interests" and this ends up in the chain of thoughts.

That's interesting, I thought there already were judgments in this direction.

For more details, french law has an article that says spouses mutually compel to live in partnership. (don't know how to translate it best, "les époux s'obligent mutuellement à une communauté de vie"). This is a very unclear sentence, which has been considered by judges to imply that it requires spouses to live under the same roof and to have sex. I think i remember hearing of a ruling stating that in the case of a lesbian lady and an asexual man that got together to have a social facade and live their sexual lives separately, they still were "living in partnership" and that the absence of sex could not cancel their union, but maybe it was only stated once.

That was one part that disgusted me a lot when learning about french law, glad it's changing for the better, hope it will change faster.

There is a pyramidal conception of rules in the france legal system, something like local regulation < regional regulation < decree < law < international law < constitution. So judgements in courts created by international laws are technically stronger than national judgments.

Also, the decisions of judges have no imperative power, but they are used by judges to solve future cases, and have a de facto big impact on the interpretation of laws. It's called jurisprudence : to say it quickly, when a judge does not know how to handle an unclear law, they look at what other judges said before.

Very common in my experience of french politics to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

It's also a lot more used since the genocide is an important subject, so that may explain why you see it a lot more used in the last two years.

Im with you there.

If sweet food is consumed at the end of a dinner/lunch, it's a dessert to me.

If sweet food is consumed on its own, its a snack to me.