Cyclohexane @ cyclohexane @lemmy.ml

West Asia - Communist - international politics - anti-imperialism - softwar

---

Read more

Posts

96

Comments

816

Joined

4 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.

The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that's a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!

Thanks for your response! You are making an assumption that most or all immigrants wish they didn't have to immigrate. I will answer assuming this is true, though I am not confident it is. But let's go with it.

Changes in material conditions of a country typically occur due to political action. That may be in terms of voting, political movements, or outside forces like war or sanctions. Addressing each of those:

1. Immigrants typically can still vote, so no issue here
2. immigrants are unlikely to affect political movements when they are immigrating for reasons like work, study, reuniting with other family, or enjoying lifestyle of another country.
3. Immigrants have little to no effect on wars and sanctions.

And last, even if what you quoted is true, I bet whoever said it is likely not considering putting the effort of making their country better in the same way they want immigrants to. Maybe that's not one of the worse forms of racism, but it is one.

Thanks for a thoughtful response. My thoughts:

1. In most cases, illegal immigrants do not benefit from government welfare programs, but they do work and contribute to the economy positively.
2. In cases where data has been collected, immigrant populations tend to put more into the economy than take through social programs, when compared with native populations. I can provide sources and data on this if you'd like.
3. Illegal immigrants may often not pay income tax, but they do pay most other forms of taxes that still end up paying more into the system than they get back. I can also provide evidence on this if you'd like.
4. If tax isn't being collected from someone, when they're willing to pay it, that is 100% the fault of anti-immigration policy, not an immigration issue.

When working with git, and I have a separate working copy, my options to sync are either rebase or create a merge commit.

It sounds to me like the pijul workflow is almost equivalent to just doing a merge commit instead of rebasing. Am I correct here? What's the difference then?

It's hard to understand what exactly will change for me if I used pijul vs git. What will be noticeably different?

This is mostly due to inertia and, to an extent, SEO.

Most people use github because it's all they know and its name is almost synonymous with git hosting. Publishing elsewhere leads to people asking you why you're not on github, how else can we contribute, etc. Moreover, github seems to score better on Google SEO than other platforms.

Not a libertarian if you were referring to me. I envision a system in which we all contribute and take part instead of throwing all the effort on someone already providing you with the space and expecting them to do it all, when you can more easily do it yourself.

Sure, if I want a community about cooking and instead of finding cooking content I find insults and harassment, then I will leave. That's essentially an equivalent of the blocking feature I spoke about.

But I find it hard to believe that such a cooking community would become good by just having a moderator ban all the offenders, when they occupy most of the posts.

On the topic of admjn burnout, I find it ridiculous that we choose to put so much burden on instance and community admins. Why don't people just utilize their block functions instead of expecting admins to clean up bad posts and users as fast as possible?

Not saying admins should do nothing, but it should be sufficient for an admin to only do what's absolutely necessary to keep the instance alive (including removal of illegal content). Anything else should be considered extra credit and no one should be entertained complaining about it.

Is this the first time this happened BTW? Does anyone know of the history of this?

Which Proton version are you using? try using Proton Experimental or trying out other versions to see what works.

About the racoon recommendation have you tried other Lemmy apps? Curious what made you choose racoon

The argument isn't to say its better or good. Rather, it is arguing that all likely alternatives to said politician would show the same homophobia policy. So given a frame of reference of politicians of that time, their LGBT policy doesn't make them worse than realistic alternatives.

Thank you Luigi for freeing me from the chains of capitalism

Oh wait, his CEO killing changed nothing. Okay back to work I guess.

Do new torrents bypass this somehow, or is it just by sheer volume and popularity ?

Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you're right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.

With due respect, that's quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that. edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.

As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don't see how they're related. Criticizing China's crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.

Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.

I'm not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there's a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.

While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.

Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn't seem that they are addressing your initial claims.

So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing

No.

My question is very clear, why can't you address it without pretending I asked something else?

Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.

If your next comment does not answer my question, then you are being intentionally misleading