Assless chaps only describes the style of wearing chaps with a bare ass. Like sockless shoes.

Geiginni wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:42 pm

kokorodoko wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:08 pm Imagining a future where anything you post or say on any platform will be the property of that platform so you can never say it again or be charged for copyright violation.

Perhaps the solution is for everyone to de-platform. The social media equivalent of "What if they threw a war and nobody came?". The crux of the issue is an economy driven by ad revenue so everyone can pretend they're getting something for nothing. Perhaps paying for a service is worth the price of not being manipulated?

But I want the platforms. Naturally yes in a situation like that you'd have to take desperate measures. But there's no reason to accept things like this. This is where we live, this is where we move about and have our space of living (any space, any where, physical or virtual). This is our own, our common property. Simply disengaging is just ceding power.

Of course, the best strategy is not necessarily always to take on power directly. You maybe de-platform to create another platform and by your action inspire confidence and serve as an example for others to do the same. The problem with that process is that the disengagers tend to conceive of this as "starting over" - which it is, in a way; but as in "this is the real thing, now it will really be the good thing". The "it used to be good, but then it became corrupted" kind of thinking. And maybe that is a valid description of a real process (it does look like a recurring pattern), but then the real thing you restarted will also be corrupted or stagnate, and when people notice this many of them give up altogether. "It always turns out the same anyway / Things always become coopted / ... ", they land in some wisdom like that. But then the error was that they thought "it has to be this thing", rather than we have to continue doing this and reinvent the thing over and over because this process of tendency to stagnate, and that's the fun of it.

Another problem is the mental relationship to the previous body, the corrupted organization, being carried along and constituting the new body in their self-conception, as being formed against that other, and better because of its small size, its relative lack of dependencies, its directness, and similar. They then come to see vastness and complexity as in itself bad things, with not much of a grounded reason for why other than sentiment. It simultaneously prevents them from thinking intelligently on different levels of scale (which might afford them chances to see their own significance in relation to greater contexts), as it blinds them to the problems inherent to a smaller organization (power being closer is not always preferable).

In the same way, nothing says necessarily that the larger organization cannot regain its vitality and renew itself.

These kinds of just-so stories are prevalent in everything from anti-EU sentiments to complaints over corporations to anti-globalization as a whole really. I totally get it, I have went through many of these fears myself, still am. I think everyone deserves to be listened to when speaking of their fears. But try to get at what the fear is and if this particular fear is misplaced or ungrounded. Not in like a government agency spokesman trying to persuade, just people handling our environment. I think in almost every case you can recognize that there are large, overarching structures that someone depends on for the things they value and which don't feel oppressive to them, meaning that the reactive response to a similar structure on simply that basis is not well-founded.

Also, returning to the second paragraph, this group would continue to be ignorant of how power really functions, including the power (is it really the power? what does that idea mean to you?).

So, rethinking the relation between common and private and how they can have dynamic interplays like this. (I hate introducing with "rethinking" here, it sounds like corporate-speak. But I can't come up with another word.)

I can understand how there come to be camps formed in universites, in academiaworld. The somethingians and the somethingotherians. Cuz I wanna go around waving Hegel at everybody, saying "Read this shit seriously. It teaches you everything about thinking."

[Blah.]

After a lot of reading and deliberation I will get my 9 year old son a Pfizer shot

Dear Mozilla: you don't need to update Firefox every fucking week. Once a year is fine.

jamal knock it

ErickC wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:57 pm Dear Mozilla: you don't need to update Firefox every fucking week. Once a year is fine.

This would be true if malware was only released and updated yearly.

BROWSER FIGHT!

That 98% of podcasts bore me after about 10 minutes.