@shebang And she died in a planned Jesuit ritual.
@ryo @xianc78 @shebang
The Rothschilds are Jews, and they have been doing what they do for a very long time ( https://odysee.com/@FTC-NL:0/Rothschilds-and-Bankers-world-Control---FTC-NL:6?r=C7ULE5xB9xgfrqi3FFhVKTufGhNR6Mwi&t=0 ), and already owned a huge chunk of the planet over a century ago.
The Rockefellers supposedly initially made their fortune from their dealings with the Rothschilds in the first place, and are themselves related to the British royals, at least according to this page https://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.thelist.html , and so is Bill Gates, who is himself basically a Rockefeller. The Rockefellers are involved in funding every evil thing that you can possibly think of, including projects like MKUltra, and organizations like the WEF, the WHO and the UN. All of these families are also behind every single war in the 20th and 21st century.
There are other families like them, and I don't know how far back they go, but there are big banking families today that have been around since at least the Republic of Venice, and may have been behind the fucking crusades, for profit. The British empire possibly became successful in the first place because of the Venetian oligarchs moving their operations to Britain (lots of occultists involved, and they actually wrote a big chunk of the history that is taught today, by selecting some of their people to be the supposed inventors or discoverers of various things, and basically took over the scientific establishment), and then to America after they took it over.
Anyway, capitalism is a total fraud. No one actually becomes successful within it nowadays without being involved in some serious nepotism and deals with the devil, or being related to royalty or other rich psychopaths. They have monopolized the world's wealth a long time ago.
The Rothschilds are Jews, and they have been doing what they do for a very long time ( https://odysee.com/@FTC-NL:0/Rothschilds-and-Bankers-world-Control---FTC-NL:6?r=C7ULE5xB9xgfrqi3FFhVKTufGhNR6Mwi&t=0 ), and already owned a huge chunk of the planet over a century ago.
The Rockefellers supposedly initially made their fortune from their dealings with the Rothschilds in the first place, and are themselves related to the British royals, at least according to this page https://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.thelist.html , and so is Bill Gates, who is himself basically a Rockefeller. The Rockefellers are involved in funding every evil thing that you can possibly think of, including projects like MKUltra, and organizations like the WEF, the WHO and the UN. All of these families are also behind every single war in the 20th and 21st century.
There are other families like them, and I don't know how far back they go, but there are big banking families today that have been around since at least the Republic of Venice, and may have been behind the fucking crusades, for profit. The British empire possibly became successful in the first place because of the Venetian oligarchs moving their operations to Britain (lots of occultists involved, and they actually wrote a big chunk of the history that is taught today, by selecting some of their people to be the supposed inventors or discoverers of various things, and basically took over the scientific establishment), and then to America after they took it over.
Anyway, capitalism is a total fraud. No one actually becomes successful within it nowadays without being involved in some serious nepotism and deals with the devil, or being related to royalty or other rich psychopaths. They have monopolized the world's wealth a long time ago.
Follow
@TerminalAutism @shebang @ryo
>Anyway, capitalism is a total fraud. No one actually becomes successful within it nowadays without being involved in some serious nepotism and deals with the devil
They only do it because they bribe the government. Get rid of the government then capitalism is the most liberating economic system.
@TerminalAutism @shebang @digdeeper @ryo I've read DigDeeper site. He does make some good points. But in his capitalism article, he doesn't realize that copyright isn't capitalist at all.
https://digdeeper.club/articles/capitalismcancer.xhtml#fangames
Also, you are free to use private property and contract law to set up communes of any political or economic system you like under anarcho-capitalism as long as it's voluntary. It's why I prefer the term "Panarchism".
@xianc78 @TerminalAutism @shebang @ryo
>Also, you are free to use private property and contract law to set up communes of any political or economic system you like under anarcho-capitalism as long as it's voluntary.
How would you do that, though, when all land is already owned, and you yourself have nothing?
I think "voluntary" is kind of an illusion, you were born somewhere, and already affected by a trillion things you had no control of. So the goal should be to make those "things" as good as possible for any newborn person.
>Also, you are free to use private property and contract law to set up communes of any political or economic system you like under anarcho-capitalism as long as it's voluntary.
How would you do that, though, when all land is already owned, and you yourself have nothing?
I think "voluntary" is kind of an illusion, you were born somewhere, and already affected by a trillion things you had no control of. So the goal should be to make those "things" as good as possible for any newborn person.
@digdeeper @shebang @TerminalAutism @ryo
>How would you do that, though, when all land is already owned, and you yourself have nothing?
How much of that land was acquired illegitimately? And there is plenty of unclaimed land. It's just that it's illegal to claim it and use it without the government's permission.
We also still have the ocean, which is why I hope the seasteading movement will make the ancap dream a reality.
@xianc78 @digdeeper @shebang @TerminalAutism
Honestly, I think if the governments can illegally claim land, then so can we.
They have already made themselves illegitimate through the scamdemic (I think they've already been illegitimate since 1913, but now it's as obvious as it can be).
So I'd say, get yourself a 3D printer, print out guns and bullets, and if they dare to come to your property and claim your property is "illegal", you'll have a defense (using something most of them will deem "illegal", but then again, governments aren't legitimate themselves anyway, therefore their artificial "laws" also should have no value).
Honestly, I think if the governments can illegally claim land, then so can we.
They have already made themselves illegitimate through the scamdemic (I think they've already been illegitimate since 1913, but now it's as obvious as it can be).
So I'd say, get yourself a 3D printer, print out guns and bullets, and if they dare to come to your property and claim your property is "illegal", you'll have a defense (using something most of them will deem "illegal", but then again, governments aren't legitimate themselves anyway, therefore their artificial "laws" also should have no value).
@xianc78 @digdeeper @shebang @ryo The corporation called "government" has claimed that land. It is claimed. And the same would happen under all of those other ideologies. Someone becomes too powerful and claims everything, and then you vill own nothing.
@digdeeper @xianc78 @ryo @shebang The basic thing that people don't get is that freedom has to be defended. If there are no restrictions that protect individual liberty, someone will do anything to gain more power than anyone should ever have, and then use that power to take away everyone else's freedom.
So anarcho anything doesn't really work, because it gives way too much power to greedy fucks with no scruples (power that good people have zero interest in, because what the hell is the point?), and they exploit the lack of restrictions to put restrictions on what others can do, and then we're right back to no freedom once again. Just like capitalism and socialism and libertarianism and fascism and all the other isms.
A society with no restrictions sounds good on paper, but unless it exists in a vacuum where no external threats exist, and is entirely populated by good people, it would not last. If we could do that, I would be all for it, but we live in a world where most people are apathetic and don't care about freedom, and a big chunk of them are sociopathic shitbags.
So anarcho anything doesn't really work, because it gives way too much power to greedy fucks with no scruples (power that good people have zero interest in, because what the hell is the point?), and they exploit the lack of restrictions to put restrictions on what others can do, and then we're right back to no freedom once again. Just like capitalism and socialism and libertarianism and fascism and all the other isms.
A society with no restrictions sounds good on paper, but unless it exists in a vacuum where no external threats exist, and is entirely populated by good people, it would not last. If we could do that, I would be all for it, but we live in a world where most people are apathetic and don't care about freedom, and a big chunk of them are sociopathic shitbags.
@TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78 @digdeeper @ryo
Wrong
Once we no longer have
Statism
Goverment
Central banks
Police/swat
Men can take back the authority for
Community
Family
Women
Chillins
Disabled
Old people
We no longer have to be weak cucked and with zero weapons
We can kick out
Central banks
Corporations
NGOs
Activists
Anti Whites
Anti nation
Free market Captialism isnt the problem
Its corporations, central banks, statism, goverment and armed order enforcers
@xianc78 @shebang @ryo
It's also worth mentioning that it doesn't matter where tyranny is coming from, it's still tyranny. I don't care if it calls itself government or if it calls itself corporation. Getting rid of the government and then Googleapplesoft coming in and saying "okay, we're the government now" would make absolutely nothing better.
Even nuking capitalism and starting it from scratch, you would just get some cutthroat psychopath like a Rockefeller or Rothschild making his way to the top once again and taking over everything and you're back right where you are right now except possibly worse. The most evil people, that are the best at exploiting other people, always win in capitalism. It's just what always happens. In a greed-based system, the greediest wins, and it turns out that greedy people don't care about other people's well-beings.
Anyway, I don't care which ism it is and about the nuances of what people call one ism and not another, it's still evil. There is no ideology that isn't evil. All of them limit your ability to think, and all of them make justifications for evil shit. Fuck all of them. There is no system that solves all the world's problems. Problem-solving does. You have a problem, and that problem has a cause, because causality exists. So you address the cause so it cannot happen anymore. If a new problem occurs, you do that again, to the new problem. If a solution doesn't work, you undo it and try something else.
No ideological nonsense necessary. Ideologies create problems, they don't solve them. They are actual mind-control tools. Mental prisons that prevent anything from actually being solved because people are busy arguing about which retarded ideology is better. I hate ideologies more than almost anything. Unless we get rid of every single one of them, this world is doomed. I don't care about "we want to be oppressed by the government" vs "we want to be oppressed by the corporations
vs "we want to be oppressed by the church" vs "we want to be oppressed by the next group of barbarians that shows up" debates.
I care about how to solve individual problems, and right now, the first step to solve anything is to get rid of all ideologies. People have to recognize what is happening and who is doing it and then deal with them. This is not going to happen while they are arguing about ideologies, all of which have been invented and pushed by that enemy. They have created all of them, every single one of them.
It's also worth mentioning that it doesn't matter where tyranny is coming from, it's still tyranny. I don't care if it calls itself government or if it calls itself corporation. Getting rid of the government and then Googleapplesoft coming in and saying "okay, we're the government now" would make absolutely nothing better.
Even nuking capitalism and starting it from scratch, you would just get some cutthroat psychopath like a Rockefeller or Rothschild making his way to the top once again and taking over everything and you're back right where you are right now except possibly worse. The most evil people, that are the best at exploiting other people, always win in capitalism. It's just what always happens. In a greed-based system, the greediest wins, and it turns out that greedy people don't care about other people's well-beings.
Anyway, I don't care which ism it is and about the nuances of what people call one ism and not another, it's still evil. There is no ideology that isn't evil. All of them limit your ability to think, and all of them make justifications for evil shit. Fuck all of them. There is no system that solves all the world's problems. Problem-solving does. You have a problem, and that problem has a cause, because causality exists. So you address the cause so it cannot happen anymore. If a new problem occurs, you do that again, to the new problem. If a solution doesn't work, you undo it and try something else.
No ideological nonsense necessary. Ideologies create problems, they don't solve them. They are actual mind-control tools. Mental prisons that prevent anything from actually being solved because people are busy arguing about which retarded ideology is better. I hate ideologies more than almost anything. Unless we get rid of every single one of them, this world is doomed. I don't care about "we want to be oppressed by the government" vs "we want to be oppressed by the corporations
vs "we want to be oppressed by the church" vs "we want to be oppressed by the next group of barbarians that shows up" debates.
I care about how to solve individual problems, and right now, the first step to solve anything is to get rid of all ideologies. People have to recognize what is happening and who is doing it and then deal with them. This is not going to happen while they are arguing about ideologies, all of which have been invented and pushed by that enemy. They have created all of them, every single one of them.
@TerminalAutism @shebang @ryo You can't just have no political system. If you reject all morals, structures, etc then you are an egoist.
@xianc78 @shebang @ryo I don't reject morals, and that is why I am against ideologies, and it's also why I am against greed-based systems. If you have morality, you don't need ideologies. Just be a good person and follow natural law, which is the logical thing to do in the first place. I'm not against the existence of a system, though it should be more of an antigovernment than an actual government. The US founders tried something kinda like that, but didn't go far enough and left too many gaps that ended up being exploited. Those gaps should be closed.
A system that exists to defend natural law and freedom, and nothing else, I guess is the ideal. It has to be limited, and the people within it should have to prove their altruism by losing any right to personal gain and by giving away all of their property, for the rest of their lives. When people in political positions can profit from their positions, the result is what we have right now. My solution is that politicians should basically have to live like monks. Maybe there is a better solution, but I haven't seen one because everyone is too busy arguing about which stupid ideology is less stupid.
Let's talk specifics. Problem → solution. Problem → solution. Problem → solution. And if the solution doesn't work, we try again. That's what builds functional systems, not ideology. I'm not talking about magical systems that supposedly solve everything and trying to think inside of those mind control boxes, I'm talking about actually coming up with solutions for individual problems.
Politicians are using their positions for personal gain, and that is a source of a lot of our problems, and those positions attract people like that in the first place. How do you solve that? You restrict what they can do, and you make the position unappealing to the people that currently want it. My idea does that. Maybe it's not the best, but I haven't seen any other ideas because again, people are arguing about their stupid shit instead of addressing causality and thinking about problem-solving, because of ideologies. Ideologies created by the people currently in power, to divide the population and create internal conflict, so that people don't go after them. The same people controlling the government that you dislike have also created this ideologically-obsessed society, and all the ideologies, including the ones that supposedly oppose them, that are a total dead-end and were created to be ineffective in the first place.
A system that exists to defend natural law and freedom, and nothing else, I guess is the ideal. It has to be limited, and the people within it should have to prove their altruism by losing any right to personal gain and by giving away all of their property, for the rest of their lives. When people in political positions can profit from their positions, the result is what we have right now. My solution is that politicians should basically have to live like monks. Maybe there is a better solution, but I haven't seen one because everyone is too busy arguing about which stupid ideology is less stupid.
Let's talk specifics. Problem → solution. Problem → solution. Problem → solution. And if the solution doesn't work, we try again. That's what builds functional systems, not ideology. I'm not talking about magical systems that supposedly solve everything and trying to think inside of those mind control boxes, I'm talking about actually coming up with solutions for individual problems.
Politicians are using their positions for personal gain, and that is a source of a lot of our problems, and those positions attract people like that in the first place. How do you solve that? You restrict what they can do, and you make the position unappealing to the people that currently want it. My idea does that. Maybe it's not the best, but I haven't seen any other ideas because again, people are arguing about their stupid shit instead of addressing causality and thinking about problem-solving, because of ideologies. Ideologies created by the people currently in power, to divide the population and create internal conflict, so that people don't go after them. The same people controlling the government that you dislike have also created this ideologically-obsessed society, and all the ideologies, including the ones that supposedly oppose them, that are a total dead-end and were created to be ineffective in the first place.
@TerminalAutism @xianc78 @shebang All communist regimes have enslaved billions who were loyal, and killed millions for being capitalist.
As for capitalist republics, only Peru killed people for being communist.
While it's true that if you get rid of governments, corporations will take over, but this is only in a retarded soyciety.
However, the whole wide world today is retarded, so maybe it's better to get enough smart people before authoritarianism can be toppled.
As for capitalist republics, only Peru killed people for being communist.
While it's true that if you get rid of governments, corporations will take over, but this is only in a retarded soyciety.
However, the whole wide world today is retarded, so maybe it's better to get enough smart people before authoritarianism can be toppled.
@ryo @shebang @xianc78 Well, as I mentioned, the end result is the same. I think the main difference between capitalism and communism is that communism is more direct, and in a way more honest. It's just revolution and then total centrality and tyranny. Capitalism does it in a slower and more subtle way. Brainwashing the population, giving them nice distractions to weaken the population, and then slowly taking them away. Gives them a false sense that they have a choice, when really, they just vote the way that the TV and the school system told them to, through a life of exposure to mind control. Capitalism boils the frogs very slowly and even gives them a lot of flies to fatten them up.
Capitalism doesn't openly kill massive numbers of people because of what they think, for the most part (for now, and even now, people do go to prison for having unauthorized thoughts), but it does kill for power, which is also what communism ultimately does. Why do communist governments kill people? Because they consider those people a threat to their power, or an obstacle in the way of getting even more power. It's ultimately the same thing as capitalism. Greedy psychopaths that always want more for themselves and that see people as disposable tools. The monopolistic corporation that is the communist state wants to profit as much as possible and get rid of any competition or opposition. Sounds familiar?
Also worth mentioning that capitalism has killed a massive number of people. Just add up all the for-profit wars in history (pretty much all of them, actually), and that should be a very big number already. Then there are all the people getting sick and dying from all the poisons that they put in the food and water supply and spray everywhere, and all the people that die from Rockefeller medicine and shots. Also all the people suffering the consequences of that because they were not informed, because the corporations have censored that information. We can also consider all the real medicine being suppressed or even forbidden. and all the suffering, misery and disease caused by that.
Then, after all that, we can consider all the misery caused by people essentially being corporate slaves (and actual slavery too, that's capitalism), and by the damage that this materialistic culture has caused to society and to people in general. All the families that were destroyed by that, and all the suicides. How about for-profit laws and prison systems? How about all the trannies ruining their own lives because this system broke their minds? Women having their minds destroyed by birth control? The mental damage and huge waste of time caused by the school system? Human trafficking? Organ harvesting? Adrenochrome harvesting? The drug trade (artificially made more profitable by government, and mostly done by intelligence agencies)? The list of atrocities is massive. Most of them are considered normal, in the same way that some purges would have been seen as normal by communists.
They are both horrific systems. Or one horrific system, because you know, they are the same. Hell, were they even in conflict with each other? Not really. Mao was the one that killed the most and he was put there by the CIA, and communism itself was funded by capitalism in the first place. So, it's a total farce. It's a big planet-shaped chess board, and there are always two sides on it, but both sides are being controlled by the same player. It's all bullshit, and it's bad for ya. I hate them both, and to me saying "BUT IT'S NOT TRUE CAPITALISM" is no different than a communist saying that real communism hasn't been tried yet.
Fuck ideologies, I guess is still my main point here. It should be simple, but people are raised to really be in love with these systems. Fuck the systems, they don't matter, people do. When I say that, I don't even mean "fuck everyone that believes in these systems", it's actually quite the opposite. I think a lot of communists and capitalists both have good intentions, but those intentions will never lead to anything good because those systems will always be disastrous. And by rejecting all of them, I don't see people that have any ideology as inherently being enemies, I think most of them agree that we want people to have better lives and that the government sucks and that the corporations suck and that this system is awful. I think most of them actually agree on the things that matter, it's just the ideological garbage that gets in the way and keeps that conflict going, forever.
Capitalism doesn't openly kill massive numbers of people because of what they think, for the most part (for now, and even now, people do go to prison for having unauthorized thoughts), but it does kill for power, which is also what communism ultimately does. Why do communist governments kill people? Because they consider those people a threat to their power, or an obstacle in the way of getting even more power. It's ultimately the same thing as capitalism. Greedy psychopaths that always want more for themselves and that see people as disposable tools. The monopolistic corporation that is the communist state wants to profit as much as possible and get rid of any competition or opposition. Sounds familiar?
Also worth mentioning that capitalism has killed a massive number of people. Just add up all the for-profit wars in history (pretty much all of them, actually), and that should be a very big number already. Then there are all the people getting sick and dying from all the poisons that they put in the food and water supply and spray everywhere, and all the people that die from Rockefeller medicine and shots. Also all the people suffering the consequences of that because they were not informed, because the corporations have censored that information. We can also consider all the real medicine being suppressed or even forbidden. and all the suffering, misery and disease caused by that.
Then, after all that, we can consider all the misery caused by people essentially being corporate slaves (and actual slavery too, that's capitalism), and by the damage that this materialistic culture has caused to society and to people in general. All the families that were destroyed by that, and all the suicides. How about for-profit laws and prison systems? How about all the trannies ruining their own lives because this system broke their minds? Women having their minds destroyed by birth control? The mental damage and huge waste of time caused by the school system? Human trafficking? Organ harvesting? Adrenochrome harvesting? The drug trade (artificially made more profitable by government, and mostly done by intelligence agencies)? The list of atrocities is massive. Most of them are considered normal, in the same way that some purges would have been seen as normal by communists.
They are both horrific systems. Or one horrific system, because you know, they are the same. Hell, were they even in conflict with each other? Not really. Mao was the one that killed the most and he was put there by the CIA, and communism itself was funded by capitalism in the first place. So, it's a total farce. It's a big planet-shaped chess board, and there are always two sides on it, but both sides are being controlled by the same player. It's all bullshit, and it's bad for ya. I hate them both, and to me saying "BUT IT'S NOT TRUE CAPITALISM" is no different than a communist saying that real communism hasn't been tried yet.
Fuck ideologies, I guess is still my main point here. It should be simple, but people are raised to really be in love with these systems. Fuck the systems, they don't matter, people do. When I say that, I don't even mean "fuck everyone that believes in these systems", it's actually quite the opposite. I think a lot of communists and capitalists both have good intentions, but those intentions will never lead to anything good because those systems will always be disastrous. And by rejecting all of them, I don't see people that have any ideology as inherently being enemies, I think most of them agree that we want people to have better lives and that the government sucks and that the corporations suck and that this system is awful. I think most of them actually agree on the things that matter, it's just the ideological garbage that gets in the way and keeps that conflict going, forever.
@TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78 Both capitalism and communism can work differently, they're both just economic policies.
The real problem is authoritarianism, the centralized tyrants controlling those economic policies.
And yes, brainwashing is a big part of it.
Like how Julian ASSange once put it, the population has to be fooled into consent for a (proxy) war to kick off, because otherwise nobody will ever consent to it.
And now they had their stupid scamdemic going on for 3 years and counting, basically blind compliance training.
They stopped fear mongering about the covAIDS in Europe, and they planned to introduce identical restrictions over Ukraine, which failed, then they tried with the monkeyfraud scamdemic, which failed, and now they're trying to do it with electricity.
And note how the restrictions they introduced are literally the same with every new psyop.
Communism the way the ancoms see it can work in full liberty.
Capitalism the way ancaps see it can work in full liberty.
Hell, I even think it's possible for the 2 to co-exist under the NAP and voluntary principles.
The real problem is authoritarianism, the centralized tyrants controlling those economic policies.
And yes, brainwashing is a big part of it.
Like how Julian ASSange once put it, the population has to be fooled into consent for a (proxy) war to kick off, because otherwise nobody will ever consent to it.
And now they had their stupid scamdemic going on for 3 years and counting, basically blind compliance training.
They stopped fear mongering about the covAIDS in Europe, and they planned to introduce identical restrictions over Ukraine, which failed, then they tried with the monkeyfraud scamdemic, which failed, and now they're trying to do it with electricity.
And note how the restrictions they introduced are literally the same with every new psyop.
Communism the way the ancoms see it can work in full liberty.
Capitalism the way ancaps see it can work in full liberty.
Hell, I even think it's possible for the 2 to co-exist under the NAP and voluntary principles.
@TerminalAutism @ryo @shebang @xianc78
> it's just the ideological garbage that gets in the way and keeps that conflict going, forever.
I'm not sure if it's part of human social behavior (like, it's useful for mating) but we like to express "mine is better than yours" and we enjoy conflicts (so we can watch or play as superheroes fighting bad villains), assume we are not interesting in gaining power.
A good example would be the LGBT or other woke community, but this behavior is literally everywhere, like you can see people can't stop labeling Pleroma is (was?) for the right, and Mastodon is for the left, without mentioning whether it's about the dev team or the software. You can still have a "right" Mastodon instance that is, from user's perspective, much better than Pleroma without the default JS-intensive webapp, but it's bad because it's left (and maybe more load on server?) and vise versa. It shifts the focus away.
Still, I think discussion on ideology is totally fine, but labeling is not that okay. Like you can use part of a certain ism or a hybrid to solve a problem, but labeling assumes one following a ism only all the time, and yes it also limits the mind.
> it's just the ideological garbage that gets in the way and keeps that conflict going, forever.
I'm not sure if it's part of human social behavior (like, it's useful for mating) but we like to express "mine is better than yours" and we enjoy conflicts (so we can watch or play as superheroes fighting bad villains), assume we are not interesting in gaining power.
A good example would be the LGBT or other woke community, but this behavior is literally everywhere, like you can see people can't stop labeling Pleroma is (was?) for the right, and Mastodon is for the left, without mentioning whether it's about the dev team or the software. You can still have a "right" Mastodon instance that is, from user's perspective, much better than Pleroma without the default JS-intensive webapp, but it's bad because it's left (and maybe more load on server?) and vise versa. It shifts the focus away.
Still, I think discussion on ideology is totally fine, but labeling is not that okay. Like you can use part of a certain ism or a hybrid to solve a problem, but labeling assumes one following a ism only all the time, and yes it also limits the mind.
@udon @TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78 Last time I checked a Mastodon instance, JS was required in order to just browse.
It's ultimately not much about the backend, but rather the frontend.
The reason why Pleroma is superior over Mastodon is simply because of its features and it being easier to install without having to resort to Docker containers because your distro isn't shipping all the dependencies needed for the backend to even work.
I used to believe that whichever is being used by which group of people was a factor as to which side of the argument will be more welcoming towards you, but then again you have left-leaning Pleroma instances, and you have right-leaning Mastodon instances too.
You have woke Pleroma instances and you have Mastodon instances that value "free speech" (because it really depends on how you define it).
Pleroma has emoji-based reactions, Mastodon doesn't.
And lots of features that are hard-coded in Mastodon can be flexibly defined in the admin panel in Pleroma, which was the main reason why the original Pleroma devs even made this thing in the first place.
The only plus side Mastodon has is that it doesn't straight up give you a white screen of death if you disable JS, and maybe a bigger dev community (so it's not dependent on 1 guy that got kicked out over feelings) and the fact it's funded by a tyrannical regime (the Eww), so it won't actually fall apart due to cancer culture.
But perhaps if we can build out GNU Social to have the goodies of Pleroma without the JS dependency, that would perhaps be the superior backend, especially since now that Alex has been kicked out of the Pleroma dev team, it's to be expected that development will come to a screeching halt if not already, considering him being the only one actually doing stuff development-wise.
It's ultimately not much about the backend, but rather the frontend.
The reason why Pleroma is superior over Mastodon is simply because of its features and it being easier to install without having to resort to Docker containers because your distro isn't shipping all the dependencies needed for the backend to even work.
I used to believe that whichever is being used by which group of people was a factor as to which side of the argument will be more welcoming towards you, but then again you have left-leaning Pleroma instances, and you have right-leaning Mastodon instances too.
You have woke Pleroma instances and you have Mastodon instances that value "free speech" (because it really depends on how you define it).
Pleroma has emoji-based reactions, Mastodon doesn't.
And lots of features that are hard-coded in Mastodon can be flexibly defined in the admin panel in Pleroma, which was the main reason why the original Pleroma devs even made this thing in the first place.
The only plus side Mastodon has is that it doesn't straight up give you a white screen of death if you disable JS, and maybe a bigger dev community (so it's not dependent on 1 guy that got kicked out over feelings) and the fact it's funded by a tyrannical regime (the Eww), so it won't actually fall apart due to cancer culture.
But perhaps if we can build out GNU Social to have the goodies of Pleroma without the JS dependency, that would perhaps be the superior backend, especially since now that Alex has been kicked out of the Pleroma dev team, it's to be expected that development will come to a screeching halt if not already, considering him being the only one actually doing stuff development-wise.
@ryo @shebang @xianc78 @TerminalAutism @udon >Last time I checked a Mastodon instance, JS was required in order to just browse.
You can still view profiles and threads without JS.
You can still view profiles and threads without JS.
@mint @shebang @xianc78 @TerminalAutism @udon Wasn't the case for me, but maybe it was a modified FE or some shit?
Because it really looked like the default FE.
Because it really looked like the default FE.
@ryo @shebang @xianc78 @TerminalAutism @udon Dunno, opened random post on mastodon.online, and it shows up fine without JS, aside from images being replaced by link to them.
https://mastodon.online/@Gargron/105023577624479621
https://mastodon.online/@Gargron/105023577624479621
@ryo @TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78
> Last time I checked a Mastodon instance, JS was required in order to just browse. It's ultimately not much about the backend, but rather the frontend.
Yes, like Treebird FE for Pleroma: https://treebird.waifuism.life/local/
But still, the default FE matters a lot because normally they should be well-supported. And most of the time, even when people implemented alternative FE, they aren't set as the default and to use them login is required (through the default FE), making it useless. This instance can show content without JS and I appreciate it very much.
> The only plus side Mastodon has is that it doesn't straight up give you a white screen of death if you disable JS
This is critical though (all other features are secondary). It is really rude because you need others to enable JS just to read some texts and images. And yes GNU Social has the potential.
> Last time I checked a Mastodon instance, JS was required in order to just browse. It's ultimately not much about the backend, but rather the frontend.
Yes, like Treebird FE for Pleroma: https://treebird.waifuism.life/local/
But still, the default FE matters a lot because normally they should be well-supported. And most of the time, even when people implemented alternative FE, they aren't set as the default and to use them login is required (through the default FE), making it useless. This instance can show content without JS and I appreciate it very much.
> The only plus side Mastodon has is that it doesn't straight up give you a white screen of death if you disable JS
This is critical though (all other features are secondary). It is really rude because you need others to enable JS just to read some texts and images. And yes GNU Social has the potential.
@udon @TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78
The default FE part is very true.
It should have been obvious by now that everyone (if not, most people) making use of 076 services are against (mandatory) JS, and work is done by either replacing them with better software, or write something else in its place.
For example, we have Pleroma, but GNU Social is the superior version, so we're set to replace it with that.
On the other hand, PeerTube is the only video streaming software with ActivityPub, and it requires JS too, so there's no other choice than to replace that one using home made code.
Plus GNU Social has the advantage of being written in PHP, which makes it easier to contribute code to.
The other question I'd ask is, will it be possible to import Pleroma users over to GNU Social, or will we have to maintain 2 services side by side for the time being?
Because even if we decide to just use Treebird FE, I believe it's a better idea to just switch to GNU Social completely due to what I just said regarding the future of the development of Pleroma.
Just imagine kicking out your only developer just because the troons just sitting around doing nothing other than claiming credit for maybe 1 word edit or something got their feelings hurt by him?
The default FE part is very true.
It should have been obvious by now that everyone (if not, most people) making use of 076 services are against (mandatory) JS, and work is done by either replacing them with better software, or write something else in its place.
For example, we have Pleroma, but GNU Social is the superior version, so we're set to replace it with that.
On the other hand, PeerTube is the only video streaming software with ActivityPub, and it requires JS too, so there's no other choice than to replace that one using home made code.
Plus GNU Social has the advantage of being written in PHP, which makes it easier to contribute code to.
The other question I'd ask is, will it be possible to import Pleroma users over to GNU Social, or will we have to maintain 2 services side by side for the time being?
Because even if we decide to just use Treebird FE, I believe it's a better idea to just switch to GNU Social completely due to what I just said regarding the future of the development of Pleroma.
Just imagine kicking out your only developer just because the troons just sitting around doing nothing other than claiming credit for maybe 1 word edit or something got their feelings hurt by him?
@ryo @TerminalAutism @shebang @xianc78
> The other question I'd ask is, will it be possible to import Pleroma users over to GNU Social, or will we have to maintain 2 services side by side for the time being?
I'm not sure about the technical details, but I wouldn't expect a perfect migration and I'm fine with that.
> The other question I'd ask is, will it be possible to import Pleroma users over to GNU Social, or will we have to maintain 2 services side by side for the time being?
I'm not sure about the technical details, but I wouldn't expect a perfect migration and I'm fine with that.
@cee @xianc78 @ryo You seem to be misinterpreting it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism. I mean it in the philosophical sense, of the objective morality that is inherent to reality. Something like the seven universal laws. Really, the golden rule covers morality pretty well. Christ doesn't teach it for nothing. If you do something to someone, you are giving them permission to do the same to you. If you harm others, you are inviting others to harm you. Caring about other people's well-being naturally follows that. Morality is part of basic causality and logic. Not caring about other people is basically madness.
@TerminalAutism @cee @ryo This is literally the non-aggression principle which is the heart of anarcho-capitalism. Okay, maybe "capitalism" is a dirty word and brings negative connotations. That's why some of us prefer the term "Voluntaryist". And like I said earlier, if you don't want to participate in the free market, you don't have to. You can live communally, or just be entirely self-reliant on a homestead in the middle of nowhere. It doesn't matter.
@xianc78 @TerminalAutism @ryo Classical AnComs, Mutualists, AnCaps... all adopt natural law and human nature as a justification, but it's an empty figure of speech, even different schools of thought under ancoms/ancaps cant agree amongst themselves at times. The economics is fine, but the epistemology and ontology from the classicals is out-dated
@xianc78 @TerminalAutism @cee The reason why I continue to use anarcho-capitalism instead of voluntarianism is exactly because it pisses off the brainlets.
@ryo @xianc78 @cee Oh, that is a valid reason. If you want to piss off the brainlets, then invent your own joke ideology. Half a decade ago, I invented a joke system called a "libertarian dictatorship". It's a system that forces you to be free whether you want to or not.
In the libertarian dictatorship, there will be anti-cops going around giving people unfair orders, and arresting them if they obey, and if you get arrested, you are going to antiprison, a place where you will be forced to be free, and to not obey orders! It's an authoritarian state that is against authoritarianism and that arrests people for following the law.
The funniest thing about it is that you probably could push that and people that are into ideologies wouldn't see the obvious flaws in it, like, the government could just tell people not to do things and then they would have to. I don't know what the ism for this would be called. How about anarchofascism? That would make a lot of people very angry. It would rustle a lot of jimmies. If the name isn't taken already. Wouldn't surprise me.
In the libertarian dictatorship, there will be anti-cops going around giving people unfair orders, and arresting them if they obey, and if you get arrested, you are going to antiprison, a place where you will be forced to be free, and to not obey orders! It's an authoritarian state that is against authoritarianism and that arrests people for following the law.
The funniest thing about it is that you probably could push that and people that are into ideologies wouldn't see the obvious flaws in it, like, the government could just tell people not to do things and then they would have to. I don't know what the ism for this would be called. How about anarchofascism? That would make a lot of people very angry. It would rustle a lot of jimmies. If the name isn't taken already. Wouldn't surprise me.
@TerminalAutism @cee @xianc78 Except "anarcho-capitalism" isn't made up, it's just a peaceful anarchy with private property rights and entrepreneurship.
Not like "anarcho-communism" which adds so much bullshit to the mix like LGBT (rainbow terrorism), firey but mostly peaceful burning, looting, and murdering, and other irrelevant shit.
Though the one thing ancoms are admittingly better at than ancaps is technology, though when it comes to memes, ancaps clearly take the cake.
Not like "anarcho-communism" which adds so much bullshit to the mix like LGBT (rainbow terrorism), firey but mostly peaceful burning, looting, and murdering, and other irrelevant shit.
Though the one thing ancoms are admittingly better at than ancaps is technology, though when it comes to memes, ancaps clearly take the cake.
@ryo @TerminalAutism @cee @xianc78
Let's take the good parts from each ism, then we get Capsoccommunauthordarwinvoluntariananarcho-capicommunism, the best ism.
Let's take the good parts from each ism, then we get Capsoccommunauthordarwinvoluntariananarcho-capicommunism, the best ism.
@udon @ryo @cee @xianc78 It would be the best ism, but even then, it would still be inherently bad because isms make you less likely to think things that are outside of that ism, or opposite to it. As soon as you put a label on a set of ideas and start identifying with it, it becomes kinda impossible to be a reasonable human being. You can no longer consider ideas that are incompatible with that without considering abandoning the identity, which is now part of who you are and not so easy to get rid of. It turns the easy process of changing your mind about a single thing into a much harder process of changing your entire identity. That's the quick and short explanation of why ideologies are inherently bad. It just limits your ability to improve and to experiment with different ideas.
@TerminalAutism @udon @cee @xianc78 If all the isms are an ideology, then I guess racism is an ideology too now.
The best well known ideology yet.
NIIIIIIIIIIGGEEEEEEEERRRRR!!
The best well known ideology yet.
NIIIIIIIIIIGGEEEEEEEERRRRR!!
@TerminalAutism i wasnt talking about darwinism, i was more-so taking a swing at secular/religious humanism in general.
Although im more of an Emersonian egoist than Stirnernite, i still like the memes heh heh
@xianc78 @ryo
Although im more of an Emersonian egoist than Stirnernite, i still like the memes heh heh
@xianc78 @ryo
@cee @xianc78 @ryo Yeah, I am definitely not that. Morality is not something that humans decide. It's out there, and like the physical laws of the universe, bad things tend to happen when we don't take it into consideration. If you walk off a cliff, you fall and probably die. If you disregard moral law, then you suffer the consequences of that. And on a mass scale, you have a world like this one. It's a real thing that exists whether people ignore it or not.
There is no difference at all. In both, one central authority owns everything and you own nothing and have no rights and no choice. It's no coincidence that communism tends to be pushed by rich capitalists and that Klaus Schwab has a statue of Lenin in his room, and at the same time has the support of all major corporations and world leaders, and has even referred to his group as "OURR GLOBAL CORRPORRATION".
Also no coincidence that China is the most capitalist country on the planet and also one of the least free. It's a fusion of capitalism and communism. Ruthless capitalism endorsed by totalitarian government.
The most liberating system is no system. Or a system that prevents systems, since we all know that some psychopath is going to try to recreate these demonic entities from hell. All ideologies are evil, no exceptions, from communism to socialism to capitalism. They are all everything wrong with this world.
Here is a quote that I like:
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for
the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
-attributed to John Maynard Keynes
And funnily enough, the exact same quote also works perfectly for communism. Whenever personal gain is mixed with a position of power, you end up with the same result.
Also, I just remembered that @digdeeper wrote some articles about capitalism and about libertarianism that I liked:
https://digdeeper.club/articles/capitalismcancer.xhtml
https://digdeeper.club/articles/libertarianism.xhtml
I should have written something like that, but I only write spontaneously and have no structure and it's pure chaos. He nailed it, though.