Random Joe, or should I say… GNU/Joe
Would it be a good practice to prefix or suffix “old news” by something like the year they were published in?
I mean I have no problem with “old news” at all. Most stuff of importance that was published in the past was missed, right? but it may be misleading to click this one thinking it is recent, when it is actually a 2017 piece…
How about wording it like:
“The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales ” ?
They should have done it way way way back. before Brave existed, and before surveillance was pervasive. They had a chance when they had gotten a peak in market shares (around 2008-2010?), but their (secret) contract with Google probably prevented them from doing that… Has anyone seen the Mozilla-Google contract?
Firefox has been eating in Google’s hand since its inception. Willfully ruined all chances of becoming the one browser defending privacy and people’s rights against Google… (for instance by banning early on third party scripts by default, ad-blocking by default, blocking tracking and other cookies by default with much smoother controls)
And still maintaining that image of the nice guys (with all the millions gotten from GGL and so much volunteers they chose not to pay, that’s probably easy to buy such good PR anyways…)
Firefox ripped us off!
It may have traces of “Linux” but it’s not GNU/Linux, or any other flavour of Linux that is free-as-freedom.
Having a free software kernel base (heavily patched with proprietary extensions, drivers, blobs etc.) in the middle of a close environment is like saying that one is having “some freedom” within the confined space of a prison cell…
discrimination doesnt start with “suggesting bad things about a group of people”, it starts by creating such a group of people, and enforcing it, culturally, politically, socially and at every level (including by jokes, memes, etc.). then at some point in history when society will be tense enough and on the verge of collapse, there will always be someone to suggest that this virtual “group of people” is the cause of… you know… everything bad.
but discrimination starts way way earlier. when making “groups of people” based on things they didn’t chose, and that actually shouldn’t matter so much…
I find it always stimulating to exchange views in between actors of good faith. I am not trying to change your opinion here, rather sharing my own, and feelings and experience.
My opinion here is not that “it can escalate to something worse”, but rather that it is parf of something already bad, very present and casually ingrained in many people’s head, that needs careful attention to not casually reproduce…
somehow it is already “worse”. ie. everybody born in a racist society, who is not born as an object of this racism is bound to be at least partly racist themselves, and/or part of that problem by being complacent and/or pretending that there is no problem at all… it should not be shameful to acknowledge that, as long as people are in good faith and open to introspection.
Also it takes anyone a while to see such things when they are very much used to it… To look back and say “oops, yeah maybe that was a mistake” in retrospect is part of it… I am not saying you should, it’s just how it happened to me.
I understand your point of view… I hear that your intention wasnt to provoke or to encourage hatred.
Yet, the very notion that there would be “races” here is err… a very definition of “racism” (ie. who sees things according to supposed “races”)… there is one race, the Human kind… the rest is physical differences.
So somehow, inevitably, making jokes based on these physical differences, on sorting people (even jokingly) according to them (especially implying that there would be a “good” configuration for the, and another that would remind a state that everyone has experience, the last step of a cube where “omg omg i am almost there!!!” feeling so good as something that inevitably needs fixing…) is further re-inforcing discriminatory mechanisms.
Imagine that you would see an image that would make you say “there are 4 skinnies and 4 fatties on that (virtual) picture” -> if your conception of the world, if your way of looking at things is to see “skinnies” on one side, and “fatties” on the other, if you call them that and sort them according to that, well it’s a discrimination based on physicail aspects… isn’t it?
whether it bears a name (“fatism”?) or not doesnt matter so much as how it is a way of looking at people and at the world, that in turns can bring about further simplifications, de-humanization (if someone is “a fatty” or “a xxxx” they often are less than just “a person”), discriminations, and as history showed, often violence…
Does it make any sense to you?
So this image, due to people’s skin color, is one step away from a perfect state, where white people are with white people, black people with black people, etc… and should be “solved”?
How can this be read otherwise? (honest question)
Don’t fret, it’s on the Fediverse! ™
undefined> google and chatGPT is your friend.
That has to be one of the most unsettling things I’ve read this week…
…now all considered i wonder if this was written by chatGPT?!