Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)

Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)

Happy to hear this. That’s the danger of implied things, your message ends up way worse when you dont say them out loud

Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

• It’s probably best to say ‘kill Russian invaders’ or even ‘kill invaders’, since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it’s still what you said is good)
• Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that’s what you’re talking about, i advise you to say ‘fighting’ instead of ‘killing’, so it’s not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad

Alright alright, promoting killing of people based on their country without bothering giving a reason, i see what type of asshole im talking to

Yeah, like it never happened thar US weapons send somewhere to fight Russians were then used for even worse purposes Besides, is killing Russians a good thing? I mean fighting back the invasion is necessary, and it will cause deaths in russians troops but we should wish for a minimum of casualties, we are talking about human lives

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating “Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them” and “Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us” ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it’s funny it’s the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.

Ooooh ok, got it. Thank you very much for explaining !

Hey, noobie question here, I dont know much about fediverse, so don’t mind correct me :

Is it a good thing ?

I first had the feeling that it ain’t, but everybody in the comment section seems happy with it. My knowledge of the Fediverse is this :

• Federation aims to decentralization
• The aim beyond decentralization is to prevent one entity (like Reddit) to have too much power over the content created and shared.
• When Meta said they wanted to connect Threads to the fediverse, people seemed concerned and/or opposed to it. It seemed coherent to me as the federation with Meta was seen as a danger for decentralization, because a big entity could have access to the content. (I feel like I probably misunderstood that part though).

Now, I (personnally) consider that any state is as a big entity as big companies, and that we should feel as much concerned about their power over content and informations. This is of course debatable and maybe the origin of my misunderstanding.

So here’s my true question : do i miss any point in this, that could make me understand why you consider it a good thing ?

I’m not an expert on how the social media make money, but from what i know it is created upon the information they gather (either personnal information or content, that they can then sell to advertisers or thing like that). So the more data they collect, the more they are able to sell i guess ? And i think that because fediverse already generates data for free (and will do so more and more), people in the business of selling this kind of data are eager to get access it Only my humble opinion, not sure at all if this is theway it works

I’m confused too, but my interpretation so far is that some people are choosing piracy because they want to get a fast and easy access to the things they’re looking for, and that the protest is making things harder so they are just mad because it’s not easy anymore