You mean thwarting their zionistic ambitions?

Send RFK… They kinda look alike.

Get back to r/teenagers, where you belong!

But seriously, thanks for the reminder.

Hey, don’t do that. I mean you can, sure, and it’ll be a cheaper solution (by just a fraction) to omit the windows license.

If you haven’t dipped your toes into Linux yet, but want to, do it on a machine where you aren’t too worried if you screw the OS up and have to build a new one, it is not an extraordinary pain (like you had you’re work there, only copies of your game saves, ecetera).

I’d screw around with the Chromebook, and when I’m good and ready, get a more powerful notebook.

I’m not sure about all flavors of Linux, but installing most is easier than windows. And if you luck out, you won’t have to bring up the console, the new distros are so friggin tight. But I guess that is where the heart of it all is. I am super happy with Endeavour OS, and I mostly just copy paste commands (that I’m understanding better and better, the more I use it).

I was debating using the word at all, I just wanted to point out how I interpreted the message. The only reason I dared use it, is that you picked up this thread in a gentler tone (which just confirmed that you are not pushing agenda).

As I mentioned to our colleague in this thread, I do want to dip my toes in the basics of dialectic materialism, so excuse me if all of this has been discussed to the bone. I understand how we are (also) products of our surrounding, and matter can shape mind. My main argument here is that we also shape matter. So the direction goes both ways. If I am not convinced of my truth, I shall be swayed, thus I have to make sure that when I speak, I speak the truth to the best of my knowledge. If I have hangups, I might push for something faulty. Something that based on my perspective should be a natural part of life, a given, but is actually just a neurosis. So you are definitely picking up the vibes that I see the solution at home.

Anyhow, thank you for getting back to me. I’d love to discuss the topic further, but maybe I’m not ready for a proper debate of (or devil’s advocating against) communism.

Hey, I’m kinda in the middle of trying to dismantle my illusions, so if you can point out inconsistencies, please do.

So the gun advice immediately sent me down this doomsday path in my mind, where it makes sense to hoard medication and vitamins. Also it has a feeling of call to a standing army. I might also be terminally pacifistic and feel that a few dogs and floodlights can take care of most defense in all but the most dire of situations. You are right in that I would rather see comrades armed than the current governmental security agents, but I don’t trust that much power to really anyone. The idea feels weird that they can end an argument very quickly if they wanted to. I don’t want to live in a world, where we need to keep and use weapons to feel safe.

Why do you say that power corrupting doesn’t exist? I guess I haven’t seen any papers on the matter, but it does seem to be ingrained into our common psyche. On the solarpunk subreddit we were talking about how the finite game will always win out on the infinite one. I know corruption isn’t insant and there is a combo where we can have a common win, but that seems heavily in the idealistic territories.

One of my main arguments is some pop-psych, which states it is easier to fight for your truth than to live it. It feels like a time to collectively get our shit together at home and bring that to the streets. I know communism is about equal rights as well, so someone who grew up in an abusive relationship will find that natural and search for that feeling. If things are not tip-top at home, we will have some elements in the collective that will bring destruction.

I know society is set up to hang societal problems on the individual, but if I’m looking at the big picture, I feel the total opposite of empowered. It seems the most power I have is over my own decisions, and the best I can do is reign in my emotions and concentrate of me not sabotaging myself. There is probably great literature out there that deals with my exact dilemma, but I have yet to read it.

And just as a side not, in our original discussion I kinda felt waved away and talked down to. I am definitely prone to victimization, but the triggers are coming from the world. You are right that more literature on the subject at hand would do me wonders, but being sympathetic (and not totally unknowledgable) to the cause, it made me wonder if I’m talking to a tankie.

While I cannot see any outright solution for our collective Orbán problem, I can definitely say it’s a great learning experience in adjusting requirements for newcomers.

We need to attach joining a common public prosecution to list. Something with teeth, that only autocrats need fret (I have no clue what and how, though).

My reasoning is that if a country would not qualify for entry in the current state there should be pressure to change things. At least they shouldn’t be able to extort the Union like they currently do.

I whole-heartedly agree. I am definitely biased on the matter, but I feel the whole separation direction is antagonistic to the EU cause. Like right now Orbán is definitely antagonistic and causing disruption to the common goal, but if we separate Hungary from the EU, we take away Orbán’s tight-rope act and the problem only further festers (albeit, outside the EU).

There is definitely an argument to be had against this, as the EU has acted as a valve for people who were fed up enough. So maybe we can make a pressure cooker, but for some reason I doubt the government will be the first casualty if that happens.

Are you being dense on purpose?

_(sry)

Fidesz didn’t dissolve democracy, they hacked it. I feel the term captured state fits, but they also talk about it being a hybrid regime.

Your concerns are very much grounded, but I just don’t see booting HU as a good solution. While there might be merit into ‘scaring Hungarians’ into getting rid of Orbán and co with a chance of losing EU access, it would only be good as a hail mary. I’d say half his voter base doesn’t really care about external (or internal) politics or is convinced that Brussels is the new Moscow.

Let me ask you one thing: is it better to have an ally that is visibly corrupted than to try and support the partizans in a neighbouring Russian vassal?

I guess if we can establish a protected class, it could deter violence. While I am the furthest thing from an Italian lawyer as possible, I highly doubt that there aren’t a handful of laws already in place that couldn’t be enforced to combat violence against women.

This could be a solid step in the right direction and enough to hand out harsher sentences where the motives are clearly misogynistic in nature.

Maybe I’m a bit in over my head, as I do have to think about the terminology, and many things come through fuzzy, to say it best. I just can’t shake the notion that at best this is only a loaded signaling, at worst another loophole to somehow horrificly abuse.

We have yet to see how this makes things better. If I were having an especially sceptic day, I’d just say this is a propaganda play (y’know, with women’s day around the corner). ‘Meloni is standing up for the weak’ - is the message I am getting.

If we can take it at face value, we can pocket the win. But having a gender-related rule created by a right-wing politician that hints at pushing conservative points makes me wary.

Luckily it doesn’t really matter what I believe, because there will be metrics on the matter. I do hope this new law helps curb violence. If nothing else, it’s a PSA that revenge porn is bad, which is way better than not talking about it.

Don’t fret it, Trump probably just wants in on the famous Hungarian-Uzbekistanian potato research on ground floor.

I am pretty sure there is no separate pipeline. We are landlocked and EU members with the common market. This is just lip service.

While domestic violence needs to be curbed, this somehow feels like a step back for feminism. Just the word itself.

The bill could emphasize domestic violence and the rape/murders. Mostly women are the victims, so they could have kept this ungendered. The only reason I see to specify femicide is because women are generally weaker and cannot defend themselves as well (please correct me if I’m wrong, as this seems to be the problematic part).

If it works, sure, let’s do it. I want people to be able to walk on the street confidently. It just feels like a red flag.

It was going downhill the same way reddit did after the v4 exodus. There was fun to be had there as well.

Damn dotcom bubble. Can’t have anything nice around.

The system definitely encourages and rewards explotation, but why do people do it at all? Will this behaviour stop if we penalize it? Or just gently teach the children after the bloody revolution?

How do we get past the notion of power corrupting people? All I’m arguing is that communism is not an outright solution for society.

I promise to read up on dialectic materialism, but the end of link you sent mentions getting a gun. That’s just bad advice.

I genuinely don’t know what you mean by Communism requiring everyone to “act in good faith.”

What if someone doesn’t adhere to ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’? We can go and imagine a real utopia, but there are very real ways it can go wrong and the system will have trouble handling it.

The main thing I am arguing though, is that communism doesn’t really account for imperfect behaviour. At the moment, no one system does.

The problem wasn’t with communism. It is a great ideal that we can keep in a back pocket comes time to build something new.

I still feel the crux of our problem is human behaviour. I know democracy isn’t really working out for us, but it seems to be the hardest system to hack. Of course it’s not impossible as seen in the US (and Hungary, for an interesting example), but it’s definitely harder to buy up and/or convince a majority.

We definitely have to find something better, but my main problem with (my imagined) communistic ideal is that almost every actor needs to be good faith in it, otherwise it dystopes.

I still feel that if they are doing a good job and not harrassing people at work, they deserve the money. The way you put it makes me feel like I am talking about funding the third reich.

Even if they are chanelling all the funds into an active genocidal army, I stand to argue the problem is not with me paying the developer. There are definitely nuances we can get into, like the ‘enabler’ character from the 12 steps lore. I am very much not dying on this hill, I might be wrong.

I see the thin line I am dancing on in this argument. Having bigot opinions go unchallenged on large platforms leads to problems.

I wouldn’t want to work with someone who can barely wait to kill me and take over the company because of something I was born with as soon he gets the green light from society. But is this what we are talking about?

We can’t let the hate take over, but I don’t see the solution in cutting off blood circulation to an uncooperating limb. One can argue that nazism is a gangrenous infection, but I personally think it’s a symptom of great discontent and a narrow perspective. Maybe I’m just slow to draw the same conclusions everyone else has from the paradox of tolerance.