this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
2642 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7907 readers
3102 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just how fucking dense do you have to be in order to be surprised that a man who created one of the most popular operating systems on Earth, and then gave it away for free, might be a leftist?
Right wingers are extremely stupid and don't really understand what the left stands for, they fall for all fox news strawman arguments and rage bait.
This is unfortunately true of both sides.
For example, conservatives think pro- choicers are callous baby-killers who only care about abortion because it allows them to "whore around" without consequences. Liberals on the other hand, think pro-lifers are misogynists who want to ban abortion because banning it will hurt women and because they want to make the country more like The Handmaid's Tale.
...and leftists know that the "abortion debate" is culture warfare injected into the less-educated by billionaires to distract from class warfare.
I was just using that as an example.
Another great one is immigration. Liberals thinks conservatives want to restrict immigration because they hate foreigners. Conservatives want to stop immigration because the job market sucks and has sucked since 2008.
The reason why the job market sucks is that unions got defanged and international capital movement freed from the 80s onwards.
That’s why life for working people took 3 steps backwards compared to our parents and grandparents who could buy a house, go on holidays and have a boat on a factory wage. While we are going to have trillionaires soon and the only thing that’s cheaper is the fuel of capitalism: telecoms and wages.
The problem has never been another wage earner - the problem is pitting us against each other and us taking the bait.
I agree with you on the unions, but the other issue is that a lot of jobs have been outsourced over the years. Unfortunately, those jobs probably aren't coming back.
Well yes, but how did we get here? The same forces that brought us are still working to keep wage slavey alive and well.
Free movement of capital, weakened unions and ceaseless propaganda pitting people against each other (welfare queens, immigrants are taking your jobs, eating the cats and dogs, work harder and you’ll be rich too, these other people are lazy, stupid, bad genes, wrong religion, the rich are better/smarter than you etc) - that’s how that happened.
There’s only one enemy and it’s not other wage earners.
When did I say that other wage earners were the enemy?
To consolidate posts:
None of their stated reasons against abortion hold any water. There are clear ways to reduce abortion, such as comprehensive sex education and widespread availability of birth control. Since conservatives obviously are against those things, we can only conclude their reasons are bullshit. Cruelty fits the data perfectly.
Except there is no real link between those two, and even economics framed in conservative terms disproves it. Labor generates profit, which should mean every new worker adds to the economy, not takes away. That is, the resources they use (food, housing, etc.) are offset by the extra resources they produce in their work. There is not some fixed amount of labor the economy can have, and anything beyond that is parasitic overflow.
So again, if the stated reasons are clearly bullshit, then we are left with a question of why they're doing it, anyway. Cruelty fits the data perfectly.
Tbf this isn't entirely true. Hanlon's Razor states "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," their reasons could be bullshit (as in intentionally, maliciously deceptive), or they could just be dumb enough not to connect the dots. In fact it could be (and likely is) both. The leaders at the top are maliciously lying about their reasoning, and the base is dumb enough to believe the lies, never underestimate the dumb shit people will earnestly believe due to cult brainwashing since birth, you ever talk to a born-in scientologist or Jehova's Witness? Fucking wild. People telling me dinosaurs absolutely are planted by the devil to test faith and that OT levels are in any way real and shit, fucking crazy out here dude, there's even a murderous vegan cult called the Zizians now.
In short: Dumb people be dumbing.
I am a former born-in JW; over a decade out at this point.
You're not entirely wrong, but the leaders at the top are lying, and that's all that really matters. They know these policies don't work, but pursue them anyway.
Yes, I get that. I'm saying it doesn't undermine the central point, because enough people at the top clearly know why they actually want these policies.
Depends on how you interpret "their" and "conservatives."
If you interpret it as "those at the top of the church" then yes, though if you mean "those at the top of the political conservatives" then well some of them may be brainwashed by their cults too, rather than malicious, but likely also yes.
If you interpret it as "also those at the bottom of either" then again Hanlon's Razor/brainwashing comes into play.
Anecdote: Japan has many foreign workers on visa like the US, "jobs that no one else wants to do". When I visited, I saw a van of the right-wing party driving around with a loudspeaker: "Chinese, get out! Koreans, get out! Japan is for the Japanese!" It was a bit familiar. 😑
Conservatives wanted to stop immigration long before 2008...
Democrats too.
I think we know that those on the life begins at conception side have been lied to. That they're not out to harm women.
But the men and women in power on that side are callous bastards who don't care that their law has already killed people
Just like Democrats, black people, and other groups, pro-lifers are not a monolith. There are good ones and bad ones.
Are we just going to ignore the fact that this one is actually true though? Like, look at what the right is doing in the US...
Or do you mean this isn't accurate because the right actually wants to ban abortion as a way to control women and keep them under their thumbs (like trying to ban no fault divorce) by removing as much agency as they can?
I actually know pro-lifers. I used to be a pretty ardent one myself. I used to be the sort that believed in no exceptions. Pro-lifers, or a least, a lot of them, don't see it as a means of controlling women or being detrimental in any way to them. They think they're helping the unborn and women by preventing abortions. They really do believe that. I'm sorry that you never got to meet any pro-lifers, or at least ones who aren't misogynistic.
Bruh, I've known plenty of pro-lifers, and grew up in a very pro-lifers area. I'm seeing on the national level what pro-lifers want, and you would too if you actually paid attention.
Congrats on being the minority that isn't completely fucked in the head, though. And I mean that with 100% sincerity. But you haven't met enough pro-lifers if you think you're in the majority.
There's some libertarians in the FOSS community as well, so it's not a guarantee, but yeah, generally you'll find that correlation.
In my experience the Foss community tends towards the "legal weed and less cops" style of libertarianism and less the "police exist to protect my right to 3 12 year old wives from the tyranny of criticism" style.
I can generally get along with the "coercion bad" libertarians better than with the "abolish the government because rules shouldn't exist" crowd.
Oh yeah, definitely. A lot of the people that pretend to be libertarians are actually fascists (see Musk, Thiel, Ellison), and it's ironic that all of these people made their fortunes building on top of FOSS stacks. And even though they owe a lot to it, they still don't understand why anyone would give away their software for free.
He didn't created it alone and "then" gave it away for free. Since it's begging Linux was free and that created a community who made it the most popular OS.
Yes. It's called summarizing. Obviously it's a bit more complicated. I'm not writing an essay on the history of Linux here.
Well it's due tomorrow by the end of class, Mr. WoodScientist, so you better get cracking.
We would all settle for you not making idiotic comments that mislead anyone who isn't already informed about this, you might know them as "the vast majority of people"
That comment isn't misleading, unless you interpret "creator" as "sole contributor"
"...or as I like to call it gnu plus linux..."
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
I use Chimera Linux. None of what you said applies.
It's a famous copypasta
There it is. 🥲
Yes, yes, and it's NT/Windows or as I've taken to calling it NT+Windows...
This point is pedantic and tired to the point that it has become an infamous copypasta.
It's also, at least as stated here, not even technically correct. A kernel is an operating system all on it's own. It just can't do much.
GNU just provides the software that the user interacts with.
Additionally, there are a number of Linux distros that are entirely free of GNU software.
Just about everyone understands what you mean when you call Linux an OS. The pedantry is unneeded.
GNU is not even a requirement.
Look at Void Linux. Look at Alpine Linux. Look at Chimera Linux.
MUSL instead of Glibc. Clang instead of GCC. Alternative userlands. More and more Linux distros arrive with these traits everyday (many more than I listed).
TBF, linux is not a requirement either. You can run pretty much all the same software on BSD as you would on a typical linux system.
I think the only thing present in all *nix distributions is Xorg, so what you call linux is actually X11/Linux, or as I've taken to calling it, X11+Linux...
You can even go full GNU if you're willing to live on the bleeding edge and run GNU hurd (now at version 0.9)
It's actually a sandwich.
Good thing, too; I thought it was a song .
But is it an indicted ham sandwich?
i cant believe this guy invented popcorn :o
I'm sorry Richard, I'm not calling it GNU plus Linux no matter how accurate it is.
How so you differentiate with non-Linux GNU systems?
The kernel is the OS
That is arguable. The opinion that an OS needs userland apps come from those with a Unix background, you need those apps to be a Unix, you need them to be POSIX compliant.
The kernel is necessary but not sufficient, and the S in OS is for system, the kernel is part of the system, not a system entire
I never know wether to upvote or downvote this comment
I do. It is incorrect.