PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]

  • 1 Post
  • 176 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 9th, 2026

help-circle
  • You said not to punish them. How do you intend to teach them empathy if all they learn is that they can get away with doing what they want?

    Because punishment shouldn’t be the focus. It shouldn’t be “you did bad thing therefore bad thing happens to you”. I’m not saying it has to be a totally positive experience for the bully, bully might even have to get their teeth rearranged for them, but what I take issue with is the institutional, top-down, carceral mentality of punishment. The focus should be on making the victim whole and making sure the bully doesn’t bully again, not that the bully gets some requisite amount of pain and suffering.

    The adults who focused their ire on me anytime in stood up for myself, instead of having my back or telling the bullies to knock it off. No, they just told me I’m supposed to be better than them, so I’d get in just as much if not more trouble than they did, because “held to a higher standard” or some shit.

    Yeah I’m absolutely not saying that. If you beat the shit out of someone bullying you, you are generically in the right as far as I’m concerned.

    So no, don’t let bullies off the hook because you think “punishment” is a naughty word.

    Again, that’s absolutely not what I am advocating. Quite the opposite, actually. I am advocating that we treat bullies like people capable of change. Hold them accountable for their actions. And if that process is painful the bully, so be it, but inflicting pain and suffering on the bully should not be the primary goal. When we do this, the bully simply learns to pick better targets.





  • regulate guns

    Yeahhhhh I’m not super stoked about the government regulating guns. Like I’m absolutely not a “guns in schools” kinda guy, but governments regulating guns just makes the proletariat and individual workers easier to oppress.

    punish bullying

    Bullying should absolutely not be tolerated but IMO the emphasis should be on restoration and justice instead of punishment IMO.

    If something happens (and it will), you can’t even point your finger on the guilty party anymore.

    Sure you can: whoever controlled the drone. If it’s autonomous, whoever owns the drone. If the operator or owner is being hidden, it is whoever or whatever system is enabling the hiding.






  • Does this have something to do with the OCR software?

    No, thank goodness.

    What is Tesseract?

    Tesseract was a free and open source frontend to Lemmy. Basically, the logic of your instance is handled by Lemmy, but you can replace the look of it, or even give your users multiple options, by adding a frontend.

    Key here is that it is reasonable to expect a frontend to present the information from the backend correctly and completely. If you want to filter out communities or people, you would do this by joining the right instance, changing the settings in your client, blocking people you don’t like, and subscribing to communities you do like.

    And if he really wanted to have a filter in his frontend, it should have been opt-in, not opt-out.

    So once db0 (admin of Lemmy.dbzer0.com, who the dev previously clashed with [1]) found and exposed the existence of this filter, which is practically a secret blacklist of every user the dev found annoying.

    We’ve been clowning on the dev ever since.

    As an addendum, the dev crashed out and seemingly closed his instance (dubvee DOT org), leaving a goodbye rant. All well and good, but he embedded a bit of JavaScript that basically queries lemmy.dbzer0.com 1500 times whenever you open dubvee! Hence why I’m not putting the dubvee URL, and please don’t go there at least for your own safety.

    Tesseract dev DDOSes dbzer0

    What is the list?

    The list is an obfuscated blacklist. Now if he just blocked lots of people from dubvee, we wouldn’t bat an eye. However, he added a practically secret blacklist of users and instances (full transparency: both my instance and my username were both blocked, I’m pretty sure my instance is the “instance-that-will-not-be-named” in his rant). Like it’s open source so you literally can find it, but you had to query his server to get it I think.

    The developer claimed that this was to “save” the Fediverse from “toxicity”. And yeah, obviously, there were some pretty toxic users on that list. But honestly…it was really just people who were active and ever posted anything to the left or right of Reagan, although it was dominated by leftists. In particular, a few trans instances were banned.

    Why do people want to be on it?

    Because it’s really really funny 😆

    [1] So my home instance (Anarchist Nexus) is part of the Anarchist Flotilla with dbzer0, basically we roll together and we share admins. One of the admins on Anarchist Nexus put “Death to Zionists” in their display name. Unfortunately for the turbolibs at Lemmy.world, this was too unfathomably based for them, so they threatened to defederate from Anarchist Nexus. Plus, a lot of politically outspoken users come from the Nexus and dbzer0, i.e. we were some of the exact people the Tesseract dev wanted to “save” the Fediverse from.



  • Okay here we go:

    Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization. The philosopher

    John goddamn fucking Locke

    is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights. While the British liberal tradition emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism emphasized rejecting authoritarianism.

    (Natural right is highlighted because it’s a spook of the mind and it’s inextricably interlinked with the existence of a divine being. I.e., it breaks once belief in a higher power breaks. Freedom is taken, not bestowed by God, nature, governments, etc. E.g., regardless of whether or not philosophers decided you have a natural right to clean water, you deserve clean water, rights be damned, and you ought to take the steps necessary to get it.)

    Yeah sounds pretty capitalist to me. Like I deliberately did not talk about John Locke because I thought that would be cheating 😆

    Liberals can be capitalist; it doesn’t define liberalism.

    No lol. If you’re not a capitalist then you’re literally not a liberal either, you’re something else.



  • Look, pacifism is a defensible position. It’s not my position, but I empathize deeply with pacifists and I truly abhor violence.

    So it would be very bizarre for an actual pacifist to view lemmy.world, whose admins are liberals (and therefore not pacifists, since at a minimum, liberalism advocates for the violence of the State and capitalism), as better than lemmy.dbzer0.com, whose admins are anarchists, who are often not pacifists, but whose social program is explicitly oriented towards minimizing violence. IMO non-pacifist anarchists and pacifists agree on the necessity of minimizing violence as an objective. The difference between a pacifist and a non-pacifist anarchist is whether we believe that the system achieving the minimal possible violence has either zero or nonzero violence.