MAGA-level conversation.

There’s an absolutely ancient meme of someone selling a mirror or TV or something. Circa 2000 ish.

It’s not a hobby. It’s not subjective. Something is either good or bad, in total (some real number value on that axis, to be specific). The kind of thing you said is literally a cop-out of confronting that. The need to put some “ist”/“ism” label on it just avoids dealing with the question entirely. That’s not the definition of pacifism, what I said is the framework to situationally decide whether pacifism or something else is more ethical.

The mentality where you think people “deserve” things, I think it’s just irrational. If your goal in politics is to do best by all, then you’re working against your goal. If that’s not your goal, then it should be. Wishing harm on anyone is literally a last resort when there is no preferable option and where more good comes out of that harm than bad - otherwise it’s an ethical negative. It’s alarming to me how few people seem to have thought through that logic.

What you wrote is gone. From what I remember of it, if that’s what you were trying to say, you needed to word it better. To be generous.

What are these “sides” comprised of in your mind? Who specifically are you accusing of being a “terrorist”? In Palestine - the entire population? The ruling political party “Hamas”? The militarized subset of it, the “Al Qassam brigades?” Or only the specific members thereof who engaged in war crimes at any point - the few of that group who are still alive? What definition of “terrorism” are you using - the “using violence to influence political opinions” which characterizes every government that’s ever engaged in war? The Palestinian people have had their country stolen and have been corralled off from the surrounding world by a military occupier in the tiny subset of it that remains - they have a legal right to self-defense, and the very existence of “Israel” as a state has come at the cost of the absolute violation of their sovereignty and human rights, solely to impose the imaginary, invented sovereignty of an immigrating colonizing population, that was hoisted on them against their will by another colonizer (the British). Using the word “terrorist” used in this context is insane. It seems to hinge on the relationship of Hamas with Islamism, which isn’t even absolute, because it’s a pluralist, “big tent” party. Beyond there, what, it’s based on them having darker skin or being Muslim, which is what that word evokes for the more brainwashed Americans anyway. Rather, armed resistance in their case - as much as we’d all like to avoid violence of any kind - is legally sanctioned self-defense against a militarily aggressive entity, who has their territory and people under military occupation.

You need to educate yourself more on this topic and clarify your thinking.

The facade of having souls to their supporters is the only thing holding them back.

Man, Corel Linux looks like a vibe. The box looks familiar but don’t think I ever used it.

Brainwashers and brainwashees. Brainwashers are traitors.

Paul also pulled out of his ass all the insane bullshit that modern evangelical Christianity is based around. “Yeah, uh, God hates gays, and women, and also loves the Roman Empire that killed Jesus.”

Guy’s dead, no evidence either way, so asserting that’s wrong is about as baseless as asserting it’s right. Things like that are far from unheard of.

Not really “appeasement” of course, more “capitulation” - by all indications he’s a plant.

I would edit it to say:

The precise reason why the solution has always been total replacement of the system with direct democracy. From within or without.

I have some faith that we’d see the economic outcomes we want with direct votes for measures vs. votes for politicians, due to the amount of involvement required.

Congress has the power to impeach him and remove him from office. Of course, like the last 10 or so war criminal presidents of the U.S., they don’t. Likewise, the courts have the power to neuter his presidency - and had the power to put him in prison - but don’t, and didn’t.

The precise reason why the solution has always been total system replacement. From within or without.

I’ve gotten pretty far in using it, great tool with plugin integrations.

I don’t think this is a well-defined term, so not much point in arguing about its definition.

Cause there’s like six other distros based on it. The point is that a package manager especially is a huge part of what differentiates the general experience of using a distro, and how a derivative distro works. And sure, lots of other details. Something like Manjaro, Artix etc. is basically cut from Arch as a template, often incorporating upstream changes or packages, with downstream changes based on differences of opinion.

“Conveniently?” I’m not making a case against Arch. I’m literally using an Arch derivative. Just not trying to sit here listing every single customization they ever made. Chill the fuck out.

I’ll tell you, nothing bricks as hard or as irreparably as Windows. I have never had to actually reinstall Linux due to some problem (though it’s a good practice security-wise).

A package manager + some packages in the base system maybe, is basically a distro template. And maybe some kernel tweaks, or a built-in DE/WM. Or opinionated init system maybe.