which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring?
Another perspective on the Lemmy situation is that, for example, I can sincerely say I believe free speech has merits while creating a book club where political discussion isn't allowed. Some would call that censorship, but restricting a certain community doesn't mean I approve of unconditional societal censorship. "Censorship", like many abstract concepts in the liberalist worldview, doesn't make sense to think of as a universal value, but rather in contexts, like you pointed out with hate speech removal being in line with the beliefs of most people on the main Lemmy instances.
There are some concepts, for example, that I think are fine to discuss in an academic situation but should be censored in public spaces, especially when it comes to explicitly genocidal ideologies like Nazism, or bigoted hate speech.
Yeah, same when I came across it. I'd assumed it was just some recent hyperbole, but it's a long-used term with serious theoretical backing.
I imagine the only way out of this would be a non poverty level UBI?
UBI is one of the suggestions, one in the reformist category. However, looking at the little progress made by most countries in reforming capitalism over many decades, and in light of the control that the owning class have over politics and economics, many instead propose revolutionary solutions. Obviously, the richest of the rich would prefer to avoid either, and use the mass media to promote UBI as a bandage for capitalism, while using their influence over politicians to avoid even that happening. Unless citizens can gain real power, the promise of UBI is a long road to nowhere. If we ever see it, it will probably only be used as a last compromise to avoid revolution.
The alternative to reformism, the revolutionary solutions, demand a major reorganization of society to control or replace the capitalist wage system. Now, that's the simply summary, but the details stretch across about a century of theoretical and practical discussion and experience, from a broad range of worldviews and circumstances, from partyless direct-democracy anarchist communes to one-party states and everything in-between. I couldn't hope to do it justice here.
Like you said, it's hard to know the internal situation in the prison, so it's reasonable to want to avoid labeling this specific case as slavery or not without further evidence. The title is ultimately subjective, rather than the objective titles a news community typically encourages (by 'subjective', I'm referring to the fact that different worldviews have different interpretations of slavery, even up to the point where many through history consider regular work to be wage slavery based on a holistic analysis of labor in society)
Being paid $0.50 an hour, as opposed to $0.00 an hour, is trivial. If the slave-owners of old societies gave their slaves a penny a day, they would still be slaves for all intents and purposes.
Inmates who refuse to work may be indefinitely remanded into solitary confinement, or have family visitation revoked. From 2010 to 2015 and again in 2016 and in 2018, some prisoners in the US refused to work, protesting for better pay, better conditions, and for the end of forced labor. Strike leaders were punished with indefinite solitary confinement.
That is forced work on an imprisoned person upon threat of punishment, even if they can theoretically decline it. This is a form of slavery, even if they get paid a dollar an hour.
"Which FOSS projects have enough funding that we should donate elsewhere?" is more-or-less asking "Which FOSS projects are overfunded?", making it almost the opposite of “Which worthwhile FOSS projects are underfunded?”
Plenty of projects I rely on are underfunded or adequately funded, and there are many thousands of underfunded projects. So I'll have no shortage of projects to consider. By instead asking for the overfunded projects, I can simply cross them off my list of projects to donate to.
I don't have one. It's just a tiny single board computer and an HDD running reasonably stable scripts every few hours and a couple of small server programs. Nothing it's doing is critical, so in the rare case when something breaks, it stays broken until I fix it.
I wish there was some more detail in the article. My two initial impressions are 'how does the power get to Earth?' and 'Mr. Burns blocks out the sun'. (Obviously it won't be that big)
How was it default? I've been here for years and in all that time, it was never default. It was one of the most popular, and the most widely shared, but that's not the same at all.
The post they're replying to is nitpicking. What difference does it make to this argument if only some of the firefighters are slaves? The point is that slave labor is being employed to avoid paying all the people fighting the fire a reasonable amount.
The linked post given on the second point is a bit flimsy. It's basically saying that if you use evidence published by a person with shitty views, you must have them too. To me, that's absurd as claiming that referencing FBI statistics makes someone a federal agent.
Political labels are pretty junk, especially after centuries of mass media and propaganda in the mix. I find it helps to learn to convey your values specifically if you want to avoid that whole mess.
The 'left-right spectrum' is subjective and relative which makes it pretty useless without having a ton of context. "Leftist", by itself, is mostly a meaningless term. To socialists, a progressive liberal is usually considered center or even right wing. Some socialists even call other socialists right-wing. It's just pointless.
What the US mass media calls 'liberals' is a progressive liberal in political science. What the US mass media calls a conservative is usually a conservative liberal aka right-liberal, that's why they constantly prize liberty and freedom. The US libertarian is simply a classical liberal. They're all liberals!
Useful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k - "Why the political compass is wrong", explaining how vague and ultimately ineffective the left-right auth-lib models of politics are.
That assumption isn't true. Socialists aren't born that way, most come out of the status quo ideology of liberalism. By abandoning all liberals with blanket statements, we'd simply self-fulfill that prophecy. Even US libertarian militias, a peak of liberalist ideology, have sometimes sided with antifascists over fascists (see: Redneck Revolt lines of affiliation with American Pit Vipers).
You're referencing a real trend, and there's a kernel of truth behind it, however it's harmful to the socialist movement to assume that as a universal inevitability.
Violence is a tool which can, and in the past has, created solutions when used appropriately. It's how we dissolve the fascist groups in my area.
The problem with extremist right wingers isn't merely that they're violent, the issues are:
Their demands and rationale (based on their values as a 'right winger')
*Their ill-conceived, anti-social use of violence *(e.g. race war PotD envisioned by neo-Nazi terrorists, a strategy that history has demonstrated simply doesn't work. They're not even achieving their goals, just slaughtering innocent citizens)
Look at prominent cases of whoever you declare to be 'left wing extremists'. They're typically targeting specific atrocious people or groups like neo-Nazis or heads of state or capitalist industrialists, not just terrorizing citizens.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
This is simply false, at least in the western countries I'm familiar with. Most organizations will get monitoring at worst unless they're an imminent threat, plotting clearly illegal acts or in an unusually strict region.
Now, one could argue that effective organization will inevitably imply illegal acts or become an imminent threat, and that's reasonable but that's very different to claiming "any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids", an unnecessarily and baselessly dissuasive claim.
comfy @ comfy @lemmy.ml Posts 29Comments 966Joined 3 yr. ago
Another perspective on the Lemmy situation is that, for example, I can sincerely say I believe free speech has merits while creating a book club where political discussion isn't allowed. Some would call that censorship, but restricting a certain community doesn't mean I approve of unconditional societal censorship. "Censorship", like many abstract concepts in the liberalist worldview, doesn't make sense to think of as a universal value, but rather in contexts, like you pointed out with hate speech removal being in line with the beliefs of most people on the main Lemmy instances.
There are some concepts, for example, that I think are fine to discuss in an academic situation but should be censored in public spaces, especially when it comes to explicitly genocidal ideologies like Nazism, or bigoted hate speech.