Takapapatapaka @ Takapapatapaka @tarte.nuage-libre.fr

Posts

8

Comments

123

Joined

3 mo. ago

Is that a pick-up line? Can we flirt on lemmy?

Oh could be just a variation on a tale then. The wind version definitely exists in english apparently, i can't find it in french.

My mum always said "If Saint John's bells ring, you'll be stuck like this" whenever we were making faces or picking our noses, so we'd be afraid of doing it (didn't work much). I guess it's a regional thing, since my mum regularly uses words/sayings from her birthplace, but this one i never heard even at her place, and cannot find it on internet.

That's a very bad and weird choice of words. Other than that, banning rape-games is not a bad idea, especially from mainstream platforms, though i guess it's not the biggest problem for women's rights right now.

I guess it's to avoid bubbles forming under the crust, which would make the pie unevenly baked.

Looks amazing ! Did the sugar in the custard/goumeau balanced the sourness of the plums ? In my family, we typically put a lot of sugar for plums and rhubarb pies, and in the end, the sourness is outweighed by the sugar.

I once passed the answers to a latin test to a friend of a mine, by writing them on a programable calculator that we placed between us. Looking back at it, i guess the teacher wasnt paying attention at all.

Oh yeah, the famous "if you fight evil, you cannot be evil"

Would probably have switched neutral lib and right lib tbf, but that's a great one !

The wikipedia page :

Lim disappeared from South Korea in 2017. According to the police, her home was left virtually untouched.

In June 2017, Lim reappeared in an interview on North Korean TV. During the interview, she claimed that life in South Korea is "hell on earth," and said that she regretted her decision to defect, and later begged Kim Jong Un for forgiveness. She claimed to be living with her parents in the North Korean city of Anju. It was also her last known appearance.

This sure looks like a definitive win for NK here, absolutely no reason to consider this might be a staging. Also 8 years old news really feels like a sign that this is a widespread movement.

Wikipedia requires you to be "notable" according to their definition. Here are some of the criterias that may be used depending on the category. Theoretically, only one is enough, but you also needs reliable and independent sources to prove it.

As others have said, making dumb records is probably the easiest ways. If you're music people, starting an obscure/local variation of another genre could be a thing. Making a randomly specific movie can be another relatively easy way. Books can be a solution too, if you get a way to get people to talk about it.

Academics

• Research having an impact (demonstrated by independent reliable sources)
• Receiving an award/honor
• Member of some scholar society with exclusivity
• Having a major position in the university (like a named chair)
• Being in the top members of an academic journal

Films

• Being studied in detail by notable written sources
• Widely distributed
• Historically important (important reviews, elected in some professional poll, commercial re-release, part of a documentary on history of cinema, at least 5 years later)
• Major award
• Present in a national archive
• Studied in details in university with film program
• Represents a unique achievement (like "only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand")
• Has a notable person involved in
• Produced and distributed in a country that is not a major film producing country.

Music

• Being studied in detail by notable written sources
• Have a single/album on a national music chart
• A record certified gold/higher or Win or be nominated for a major music award or win first, second, or third place in a major music competition.
• 2 or more release on major record label
• Ensemble/band with 2 or more notable musicians
• Be the most prominent representatives of a notable style, or of a local scene of a city
• Be placed in rotation on a national broadcasting
• Perform music for a notable work of media

Books

• Being studied in detail by notable written sources
• Win a major literary award
• be considered by reliable sources as a significant contribution to sciences, humanities, art, political or religious movement.
• Has been subject of instruction in 2 or more schools/college/uni

People

• Being studied in detail by notable written sources AND not being notable only for a single event
• Have a well-known and significant award/honor
• Have an entry in a standard biographical dictionary
• Be widely cited by peers in your area of expertise
• Having originated a significant new concept, theory or technique
• Be a important criminal
• Have multiple roles/involvements in notable works of art (TV/music/theater/etc)
• Held international/national/province-wide offices or part of legislative bodies OR an important local political figure with significant press coverage
• Get rewards as a sport people

(edit : layout and spelling mistakes)

Honestly if it is, i can't tell which interests it serves. Makes every country look like morons.

I kinda feel you, tbf the shadow terminator i like to see solved was introduced by the new EEVEE version not so long ago. Blender is indeed like an entangled ball of wool with threads going in every direction, so it gets frustrating some times. But on the plus side, you can do many many things with it !

This 4.5 is a long term release, so maybe it'll be the one that works out the bugs that bugs you !

Ooh yeah, it seems dope ! Faster than the old fast method and as accurate as the exact method seems like a very good option.

From what the wikipedia page tells, under this hypothesis atlantic will stop widening in about 125 millions years, and begin to shrink.

on pourrait avoir une instance piefed et lemmy et juste migrer les commu sur piefed.

Donc on pourrait avoir simultanément un jlai.lu (Lemmy) et un piefed.jlai.lu (Piefed) par exemple ? ça pourrait permettre de "tester" Piefed sans tuer la version Lemmy dans un premier temps (la migration des commus en moins), et de voir ensuite les retours des utilisateurs/utilisatrices.

J'essaye de passer sur Piefed, à l'origine surtout grâce aux devs de Lemmy x). Sur PC avec l'UI de base, ça marche impeccablement bien, la fonctionnalité qui rassemble les crosspost en un seul est très appréciable, j'utilise plus que ça.

Je savais pas qu'il y avait des app mobiles qui supportaient Piefed du coup j'en utilisais pas, j'étais resté sur Voyager + Lemmy. Je vais en tester de ce pas, hésitez pas à m'en recommander si jamais !

Pour la migration vers piefed, je me demande quels seraient les avantages concrets, qui compenseraient le tracas de changer ? Je crois avoir lu sur un blog que piefed était moins exigeant niveau serveur que Lemmy. Si c'est effectivement un souci, alors ça ferait sens.

For arts, !oil_paintings@makertube.net makes nice timelapses. !esk@rankett.net are a nice music duo.

For politics, !re_education_channel@kolektiva.media has relatively good content on anarchism.

For drinks, this dude publishes regularly nice cocktails recipes : !spoiler_diacres_domain@spectra.video

For tech, i second Veronica Explains, and i'll add !ctrlaltrees@makertube.net, great videos too on custom hardware and games.

For french speakers interested in news, there is also Le Média at !chaine_officielle@video.lemediatv.fr and Blast at !blast_info@video.blast-info.fr

Thanks again for a fair reply, and specifically for the use of example which really helps to make it all easier. I think it's mostly misunderstandings that would make our final position be discordant, but respecting the possibility of each other.

Direct democracy / Disassociation after a crime

This kinda regroups with the justice part i think. I'll answer to both below.

Kids consenting / Kids abuse

Effectively, kids manipulation would be quite a problem, as well as manipulation of people in general. On the other hand, abuses committed on kids that are aware of those abuses could and are being greatly reduced when we stop considering their parents/teacher should have a full mastery of their lives.

I think that, as in our current societies, the best tool would be to have multiple groups dedicated to kids protection, that could follow kids education and step in when they feel there is some risk or anything, triggerring mediation processes.

Economics / Dencetralized distribution

First, even if economics were not the reason, it is true that the disassociation of any important group can be a problem, and food is a good one. One solution would be to have groups dedicated to feed everyone, as we already have.

Second, i think there is a slight misunderstanding here on the economics part. I'm not sure if free market can apply to what i think of if private property is reduced or abolished. In most anarchist systems, accumulation of wealth is seen as something to avoid, and then either prices should be fixed based on labour costs ony, either money use should be reduced to luxury goods or stopped entirely, either some other organization i'm not aware of. In both those systems, people provide the result of their labour in a non-wealth accumulative way, and expect people to do so in return. In this system, quitting the federation to start accumulating wealth would mean losing access to a free or cheap providing of services, which would be quite counter-intuitive. That is, unless you have ways to build a new federation or system that can function on itself, and then either it is purely some will of people to turn to an autonomous separate system, and that's ok, either it preys on the needs and work of people unwilling to participate, and then you fall back to the fight against authoritarianism.

Economics / Degrowth

We agree that degrowth is not the most shared desire. We also agree that it would be a bad thing to impose it on people.

But again, i'll probably pass for a nitpicking bastard, but not exactly "nobody wants to spend all day washing clothes by hand". We can agree on "very few people wants to spend all day .." though, but for this very few, the system i'm talking about has a meaning. Another argument for degrowth is that it will be necessary in any way (the actual system relies heavily on fossil energies, the production of which should or has started to slowly decrease, so appart from a new tech / energy source, the economic system behind will probably decrease too). Degrowth advocates also advance that mass consumption and especially capitalism produces the needs with the products. For example, we don't really need individual cars, except if living far from your work is the norm, We don't really need complicated washing machines unless we have complicated clothes, etc.

So degrowth is effectively something that may stir people away from anarchism, and for understandable reasons. But on the other hand, it remains good for people who accept or advocate for it, and there are good arguments if you happen to have to convince people to accept it. I fully accept if you take it as an additional argument in disfavor of anarchism, as long as you accept that it's not a complete dead end.

Economics / Money and labour

Well, i think we slightly disagree on what makes economy. I'm not sure what the exact definition of economy should be, but from what i guess, i'd make two categories. Some elements are kinda included in the very concept of economy and are there no matter what, even if in a very poor shape (i'd say organization, coordination, specialization, consumption). In that sense, there is some economy for gatherer/hunter societies. The other group is only needed for a good/growing/modern economy : technology, government, markets, capital, etc. They may be essential parts of some economies, but not of every form of them. I'd clearly put the workers in the first category, that is necessary in all forms of economy.

Now, i may misunderstand what you call economy, and it may be more than just the organization of labour. Then, i'll think i should have argued that it is not necessary as is, and simple organization of labour could suffice. The ability to product as much as capitalist societies would probably not be reached, but then we would fall back to the degrowth point.

Economics / Works and unwanted jobs

Same as for washing clothes by hand, i'd make a distinction between what people don't want to do, and what they don't accept to do. In anarchist societies, there may be multiple ways to fill in works that no one wants : volunteering is the most obvious one, and the one you seem to "attack" (you were not aggressive, i just don't have a better word). Other ones, that can either be implemented from the start or considered fallbacks in case no one volunteers, are a rotation system or a random selection system. Every person able to do tasks could then partake. Now, it may rise some problems (like what if people have phobias, or really don't want to do things), and as it usually is with anarchism, the answer lies in individual adjustments : either people could do another task in replacement, either they could skip the task entirely if people are okay with that, either they could be accompanied, either if they really are reward motivated, they could get a special treatment if people are okay with that, etc.

I'd also like to point out that, at least here in france (which i'd consider as capitalistic), people doing unwanted jobs are not rewarded with incentives like a handsome salary or good benefits package. They're payed quite the same as most manual jobs, which is less than a lot of desk jobs. What drives them to do those jobs is the fear of not having a home or food.

Justice / Arbitrary + Bad faith actors

Answering to both your 1st and 4th paragraph on justice here, and the first part on direct democracy.

It seems at first a fine nuance to say that courts are there to provide the nuanced judgement needed for each individual case, but i think it hides the fact that this necessarily happens (possibly in a bad way). Laws don't apply themselves, and there is always someone to apply them, be it a judge, a cop, a bureaucrat, a mob, etc., and who decide how to apply them, be it severely, with clemency, abusively, etc.

Imo, laws are objectively providing an arbitrary reason for arbitrary decisions. It is indeed objective in the fact that it exists publicly, but the content of the law is decided arbitrarily (as in, by specific people and outside of context), and applying the law is making a personal, therefore arbitrary decision. Even if a machine were to apply it, the abrirary of people who created the law or built the machine would make the output arbitrary.

In the context i presented, no one is deciding the standard on a whim and pushing it onto others. There has to be an agreement between both parties, peoples who are mediating it, and optionally the communities it would apply to. If everyone is super friend with the murderer, there would not be a discussion in the first place. This is why i don't consider this to be arbitrary : it is not pushed by someone onto another, but is rather a decision made in agreement with everyone it will apply to. This is based on the idea that the closest thing we can get to objectivity is multiple subjectivities, so the only way to escape arbitrary is to 1) avoid making general rules and 2) not letting a subset of person decide, but letting them all decide.

Justice / Criminals

One misunderstanding is that you assume that a cooperative criminal means a criminal that roams the street. This is not the case, they don't just decide what happens to them if they are cooperative. It is an agreement with people, and apart from brain dead people, we could assume that they would like the criminal to be watched, or to go to a deradicalization institution, or anything that would significantly drop the chances of recidivism.

Now, you could say that a talented criminal could fool everyone long enough so that they agree to end those decisions at some point, but then it could happen in most judiciary systems, not just anarchist ones.

Good faith / Participation

I meant what i said about participation for people with bad "feelings/emotions" such as egoism or greed. It's okay to have someone that gets more than the other in a community as long as other people are okay with that. It's okay to have some meritocratic people who want to be rewarded based on their efforts inside a community. It just shouldn't be imposed on people who don't want it.

Now, for islamist/nazis/tankies, there is something quite different since they precisely want to impose it on people who reject it. Laws from a greater authority is not the only thing capable of stopping such groups from emerging. Education, discussion, negotiation and ultimately justice system that i described can be used as peaceful ways to prevent them. They're not flawless, as are state solution, and it can come to violence in the end. But it's also not pure tolerance and freedom of being a bad guy.

Multiplicity of states

My point is not that every state is the same, we obviously agree on this. It is not either that the entire concept of a state is bad because some failed. It is that in wars, genocides, repression, states are actually not failing : it is a part of their arsenal to maintain what you'd call stability and what i'd call their continuity.

I feel like the comparison with malpractice is unfair, because in malpractice it's not the actual advantages of medicine that's used to harm more. i'd more happily go with the example of the environment : states are like oil, it has a great list of advantages for humanity, and also has major disadvantages. Now to say if we should stop using oil entirely or just stop using it badly is another debate, and it's okay to assume that wanting it to stop completely is dumb, but i feel like it's more of a honest take since diasdvantages of oil are built into it.

Inevitability of monopoly of violence

I kinda disagree. I'd agree if you had said that violence is inevitable, but imo monopoly of violence is not built into humans. I'd agree to say that it's built into our current societies, but as we humans, they change and evolve, so it's not necessarily built in future societies. I still consider advocacy for monopoly of violence as radical, but i also recognize that it's okay to be radical, and it's a choice you have strong arguments for. I also thank you for your fair comments, you really try to understand something you don't seem to know much, and that's something i highly appreciate.

Circular reasoning

It's probably the last point of disagreement we have, so it's quite sad to start with it. Anyway, though it was badly presented before, i think i'm still legitimate to maintain my circular reasoning claim, even or especially after your explanation.

I agree that throughout our discussion, you made those two separate points.

1. D->S : Domination of states implies Stability of states.
2. S->N : Stability of states implies Necessity of states. (or, as you put it, necessity of states because of advantages of states).

What's missing here, and that i have confused with Necessity of states (N) previously, is the People desire for stability (P), alognside with the assumption that what what people desire is necessary. Effectively, Stability does not imply necessity, it needs something else that says "X is necessary" and "X needs stability". I assume this X to be what the people desires, from the part We live in a world where people want stability and order. This is the proposition that makes the thing circular : People desire for stability (P) both needs to imply Domination (D) (as in We live in a world where people want stability and order.), and to be implied by D (as in stability [...] is what humanity favors given our history). D->P gives the strength of D to P, but for that it needs P->S->D to show the Domination is linked with people desires and not just another variable.

It is legitimate to make such a move, since there is a need to put a cause for domination of states, because if it was a bad one (like states are a predatory and self-perpetuating form of organization), then the consequences of it would inherit this bad foundation. My point is that the cause for domination that you can give are also deduced from this domination.

Pride

Not sure we actually are on the exact same page, but anyway we would be close enough. Thanks for expressing your content, it is shared.

Practice/Theory

To be fair, my point on practice/theory has been dismissed by your further comments, and only applies to what you said before. I should have pointed it out, my bad on this point too. Though i disagree with your linking of anarchists problems of coordination/communication and anarchist theory, i admit it is not unfounded and is a proper example of linking theory and practice properly. It was missing before, i think you'll convene of this. Therefore, i think we can also say we're on the same page now on this point too !

Strawmanning

I agree with most of your paragraph, especially on the misunderstanding rather than malice. The bad faith accusation i have made were pointing out a (alleged) lack of will to understand properly rather than a will to misrepresent. I have made similar errors, like my summarization, though if i recall correctly, it was not that wrong (some errors were minor, bigger errors like "current states" instead of "states in general" were a formulation error that didn't matter much for argumentation). I apologize for this one along others : if it's something you'd like to do, i'd be glad to have a list of the points i strawmaned. I'll try to refrain myself for discussing if they are strwman or not, i'd just like to see what i misunderstood.

History

1. This is an excellent summary of your point. I think it kinda misses mine, which was the cause/consequences rather than the responsability. When confronted about fascists destroying anarchists, the causation is for you that anarchists lack the mechanisms to resist, and is for me that states structures are dangerous. Both can be (and probably are) true at the same time, the question is on which to put the emphasis., and that's where we differ.

I also disagree on the association of actual problems in Spain with necessary flaws in theory, reporting them on the practical difficulties that were to face (urgency of the situation, lack of international support, chaos inherited from the failed coup d'état, etc.). That said, i concede that your deduction from the Spanish case of anarchist flaws remains legitimate and well-founded.

2. On the Red Terror, i thank you for bringing this to my knowledge, i did not know the detail of it. Your summary is very good, and i would just add that from what i just learned, it seems that those violences existed on the Nationalist side too, directed at reds, and that the Red Terror on the Republican side ultimately was turned against anarchist and non-stalinist themselves. We both agree that anarchists committed and failed to prevent atrocities.
3. I think we both agree that if Revolutionary Ukraine was a state, it would be the form of state closest to anarchy, and if it was anarchy, it would be the form of anarchy closest to state. The nitpicking would be about whether or not it crossed the line. I support that it did, and my arguments are that i do not have example of organizations defined as state with a military based on volunteering, election of officers and autodiscipline, and with a decision system based on federalism and immediate recall of mandatees. But in the end it really is nitpicking, and if we agree on the first part, it's more than okay i think.
4. Thanks for expressing the concession. I note and accept your stance that the low level of stability of anarchists experiments is not enough for you.