rah @ rah @feddit.uk

Posts

7

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

get new pc

Ah I see, we were using the word "switch" in different ways. I interpreted it to mean replacing the operating system on a single computer whereas you meant replacing the computer you use.

If you're happy to use two computers then carry on I guess.

"HTTP Error 404. The requested resource is not found."

I dont want windows to have any access to my main pc.

You don't have to attain that state immediately, you can progress towards it over time.

Dual boot, don't switch

Build empires, not apps.

Why?

Any guidance is appreciated

https://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Weird that the article doesn't once address the cause.

he has no say in that

I don't understand why you're telling me this.

So "yes".

you said "west is fucked up when working"

I haven't said those words.

Without an alternate explanation to the one I came up with, it's absolutely rational to continue with my explanation.

No it is not.

That's not an explanation.

Indeed. I'm not sure why you expected an explanation.

all I can assume is that you were engaging in whataboutism

That's not rational.

I already did.

I don't believe you have. Could you quote the text where you demonstrate that I'm engaging in "whataboutism"?

you haven't even bothered explaining what you did mean if you weren't engaging in whataboutism

I meant what I wrote. If you're confused about the meaning of anything I've written, feel free to ask me to clarify, I'm happy to explain.

I think we both know why

I think you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith.

You have made a claim now.

It's you who made the claim that I am engaging in "whataboutism". It's on you to show that what you've said is true.

It still looks like you're both engaging in whataboutism to me.

shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason ?

You still haven't explained how this is not implying that ...

It's not on me to show that what I've said is not something you think it is, it's on you to show that what I've said is something you think it is.

"What about the Western nations? No one is completely blameless."

That would only make sense if I had introduced the concept of Western nations. OP did that, not me.

Maybe re-read not just what I wrote, but the whole thread.

looks like

To you. Maybe re-read what I've written.

So was I ... Simply mentioned the hypocrisy of both groups

You said:

"They need to not do business with brutal, oppressive systems and government like China."

Here you're stating that China is a brutal, oppresive system and government. Saying that "they" (Western nations) need to not do business with "brutal, oppressive systems" implies that the Western nations are not themselves brutal and oppressive.

You also said

"Like it never stopped western nations from trying to benefit from the exploitation either."

and used the word "stopped" which is past tense, meaning that Western nations' benefitting from exploitation of their population is something which happened in the past and is not something which is still happening now.

You also said

"just because the West used brutality and slavery does not justify China doing it now."

and used the word "used" which is past tense and even said "China doing it now", clearly contrasting a (supposedly) past behaviour of the West with a current behaviour of China.

"the US".

I haven't said those words.

This does not describe what I've done.