Back to Index Page
To The Hackers
blenderdumbass
The Absolute Ultimate Mega Hacker [?]
Activity Score: ⭐ 6409
Brought By:
blenderdumbass
Opinions!
( 66 )
On
articles > Political Engineering or The Lack Thereof blenderdumbass
No a child looks the way it looks
"it"? I hope it was not intentional. "it" is used when talking about not people. And if it was intentional, then it means, you think children are not people? Did I understand you correctly?
About the rest I have two approaches.
1. Religious
God is almighty. He can do anything. And he wants something from humans. Something from humans to do for him. Why, if he is almighty, he doesn't just make it impossible for us to do otherwise? Well here is a religious answer, actually coming from Jewdaism: God wants people to have Freedom.
It is extended even more with the story of Exodus. There were slaves. And the story about re-gaining freedom. And how challenging it is to regain freedom. People walked around for 40 years, when they could have done the trip in a week. Because slaves are not prepared to be not-slaves. It takes time to think like a free person. The whole story has a message about freedom. It is about freedom.
The best illustration of the this duopoly between the true belief in God and the pseudo-poser way of the ultra religious belief, which is all just theatricality, is illustrated wonderfully by Lars Von Trier in his film "Breaking The Waves". I suggest you to take a look.
2. Scientific
It is meaningless to even ask the question of "Is there God?" because answers on both sides are what's called "Unfalsifiable". Meaning that there is no conceivable test which could be done which will stop all debates about it. And the test doesn't exist because it doesn't actually change anything, whether there is God or there isn't God. Both ways there will not be a measurable difference in the world.
By any means, everybody's equality before the God, as a concept was very helpful to establish the modern ideas of individual Freedom. All people are equal. And trying to be God-like ( as in trying to take control over other people ) as something bad that should not be done, also came from those religions. Freedom as we know it, on which the whole western philosophy is based got out of those religions. And if you are a true believer, and not just a theatrical poser, you should know it.
blenderdumbass
I'm not even going to talk to you about egotistical, god-like syndrome, social coercion, etc.
Are you talking about yourself? Egotistical means liking himself. Lets think about it. One of us argues from the perspective of a small entitled group "natives" to have God-like power against the entirety of the rest of the world. "Us vs them", remember? To convince people that this Egotistical, god-like violation of human rights is somehow "better" one requires to do hell of a lot of Social coercion. I guess you are talking about yourself here after all.
Now, if you are talking about the "woke" a lot of the extreme ones poses those egotistical, god-like syndromes. And those people oppress people who disagree with them. And I truly believe that it is wrong. Also because the left is so reactionary, they tend to support things out of spite. And I agree that it is a bad thing. Though generally speaking the ideas of the left way better reflect freedom than the ideas of the right. If only those ideas were achieved in such a way that does not introduce more oppression in the system than there is already there. And I don't think the left does a very good job at this at the moment.
Children are not owned by their parents, except perhaps for leftists who have a designer-lab-baby with the "right" hair-and-eye-colour etc.
I agree. It is up to the child to choose what the child want to look like. What cloths per wants to ware and so on and so forth. Including what genitals per wants to have.
those are just blank words
The fact that you cannot or do not want to understand what I wrote, doesn't mean that what I wrote has no meaning.
is also when original people of a country are made to feel guilty, and made to do things that they don't want, and made to eliminate themselves by taking in huge masses of foreigners
If by "do things that they don't want" you mean, somebody is restricting their freedom, it is wrong, with that I agree. And it should not be done. If on the other hand, what they ( the natives ) want is restricting somebody's freedom, and they are made not to do it. They shouldn't do it. And there should be somebody who will stop them from trying. This is also true of immigrants too, btw. No side should oppress. Each side should have freedom.
blenderdumbass
It's not you who is allowed to choose which country to live in.
If that is the truth, it needs to be fought against, since it is oppression.
People are the children of their parents.
I made a whole movie just disagreeing with this viewpoint. It is called
I'm Not Even Human. In a nutshell children are humans and owning a human is directly violating this human. So parents who behave like they own their kids are direct oppressors of their kids. Kids, as any other human, should have the same rights and any other human. Otherwise there is age discrimination.
Like some Moslem who wants to be in Isreal to bomb away some jews?
I know Muslims that live in Israel and they are nice people that respect other people. It is too bad that some people ( that just so happened to be Muslims in this case ) decided that killing Jews in the way to solve their problems. And it is too bad that Israel is very bad at solving those problems in a peaceful way.
No, you can actively work towards making own your country better reflect the way you want it to be.
I agree, work in your own country, to make it a better place, is also important.
But you can not come to other countries and bring your conflicts with you. Or come to other countries and undermine, subvert, manipulate, exploit, take advantage of the people there.
I agree, it is unjust to oppress people. In general. But if you are not oppressing, there is no injustice in your presence in a country you were not born into.
No to woke propaganda!
Perhaps I was wrong when
I assumed that the right isn't as reactionary as the left. Just look at this statement. You are disagreeing with it not because you can see how it is wrong, but because it is "woke". It is very much reactionary.
blenderdumbass
Most of the people have their own original countries. That's where they should be brought back to. That's where they can fully create and form their own countries, and reach their destinies.
I see countries similarly to instances of the Fediverse. Different ones have slightly different rules and cultures. Therefor if you are in one you don't like you can move to another one, where you will feel better.
Nobody chooses where they are born. But people can choose where they want to be. If a person is born in a country that is actively not for that person, the person should be able to get to another country where the life would be better for that person.
Similarly how a person who is born into a gender that this person doesn't like, should be able to move to another gender. And similarly how a person that is born to a religion he doesn't like should be able to move to another religion.
blenderdumbass
Answering to
Anonymous User. I am saying that I don't see how it could be justified to move entire groups of people against their will anywhere. I'm saying that perhaps certain countries are better, and therefor it is mathematically more justifiable to send somebody there, rather than somewhere else. And I am not claiming that Israel is by any stretch of imagination a good country. There is a lot of work that has to be done in Israel before I would recommend anybody to come here.
Maybe if you do the math, I could see that it could be potentially justified, somehow. But the crimes that they are committing should be so great, that I fail to imagine this kind of crime.
Actually wait
Global Heating could be the kind of crime that would justify some extreme action against it. Perhaps we should depart all oil magnates to some terrible countries. Actually no it would help for shit. We should take their companies from them. That should be more than justified. But is there a lesser method that would achieve the same result? If there is we should do that instead.
blenderdumbass
About the second point of
Anonymous User about immigrants.
Deporting immigrants is a limitation of their freedom to move around and if they are deported to a country with less freedom, it is also a limitation of those freedoms. If we are talking specifically about Trump and US. And deportation to say Mexico. Mexico is a way less free country, which means to deport those immigrants to Mexico is not just to violate their freedom to move around, but also to violate their other freedoms ( I need to look into how exactly Mexico is worse in this regard to answer this properly ). If lets say the deportation is instead done to a freer country, or comparably as free, then we are talking about violation of freedom to move around.
No... Wait. If those immigrants happened to have real estate in the United States, then it is also theft. Even if we pay them back with money. Because a person might not want to sell you pers house.
In this case a statistic needs to be carefully studied. How many of those specific immigrant commit what type of crimes. And is deporting them actually is a lesser crime? And not just that... Is it the least crime that could be done to stop their crime?
I doubt that it is as straight forward as to just deport them.
blenderdumbass
Answering to
Anonymous Guest's first point. I spoke to Richard Stallman on email about ideas in this article, he brought up similar concerns. A more nuanced way would be to make a list of freedoms, like: Privacy, Free Speech, Control Over One's Body, etc.. And multiply effects on those freedoms over time of the oppression. So murder in this case if a violation of all freedoms, ( attempted murder a violation only of the body ), with full murder, all freedoms are being taken away, and it should be multiplied by the rest of the expected life of that person. So let's say the life expectancy is 80 years and the person was killed at 20, the difference is 60 years. Which is 60 years of all freedom being lost.
This compared to the example in the article, will yield a different result. In which case a very short violation of just privacy, may actually not exceed the violation caused by murder. In which case some of it could be potentially quasi-justified.
Only "Quasi" though, because the goal is to engineer the system to have that oppression be minimized. And if that killer could be stopped with less oppression, it should always be the way to do it.
On
articles > The Cult Of Safety blenderdumbass
Interesting.
Anonymous User is apparently agreeing with me here.
For the reference, in
another article I word the same concept like this:
By fully Free I don't mean a total anarchy. This would not be fully Free since it would be possible for people to have power over other people. Which is not freedom already. It's a different form of control.
And in a
more recent article I worded it differently:
What if you(r) action, one you don't want to be intervened, is in itself an intervention into somebody's else action? Well here you have an action that is at moment defined as freedom, but it is something, when fighting for freedom you want to stop. This is how you get to the second, slightly more nuanced definition of freedom: Control over one's self ( body and mind ) and things belonging to one's self. And contrary to freedom, Power is: Control over somebody else and things belonging to somebody else.
blenderdumbass
Anonymous Guest just proved that his comment is even less relevant to the article in question. And if it is trying to be relevant, it just comes out as a non-sequitur.
blenderdumbass
It seems like
Anonymous Guest here wrote an opinion on a different article of mine, where I support this or that Stallman view on this or that.
On
articles > Please Help Me Debunk This Theory blenderdumbass
This requires a lot of links. You can use markdown, if you want to to link stuff. Because half of the words here would benefit from having at least a wikipedia type thing.
I'm really hooked.
I see something like Police as a minimum allowable power to make freedom more sustainable. Otherwise you have
this paradox. In which case freedom is literally very unstable.
blenderdumbass
Phillip Pettit's definition gives for way more Freedom Collision cases. Since what if somebody want to dominate somebody else and being interfered with? In this case you propose that his freedom was violated. And he had a freedom to violate other people's freedom. Which makes everything way more imbalanced.
With the definition I use I make sure that violation of other people's freedoms it's not freedom already. It's power instead. And this is very important for almost everything I talk about on this website. So that's why I use this definition of freedom.
The definition of "problem" is an interesting one. And it seem like it is: Any unpleasantry caused by a lack of freedom. But it is kind of what the theory is about.
blenderdumbass
I need to perhaps add a kind of checklist system. LOL. Or something.
On
reviews > Baby Driver blenderdumbass
and never tries to be cinematic
Well
@alkyilcycloalke , it's plenty cinematic. Edgar Wright knows how to be very cinematic. He just doesn't misuse it.
If you want something very un-cinematic, you need to look at the
Dogme 95 movement. It's rules are literally designed to make the movie less cinematic.
blenderdumbass
I have not yet found a Tor2Web server that works unfortunately. If you find one. Tell me.
blenderdumbass
I don't think I will be able to make a clear-net link to this website in the near future since I host it directly from my computer and I have a shitty network ( including the router ).
There might be a good Tor to Web proxy where I could get a good static link. If I find one, I will start sharing it too. So far I didn't find one.
blenderdumbass
This is the most working way I found to connect to my website from a normal browser without installing anything.
https://www.4everproxy.com/tor-proxy
If you are using Brave it should just work normally. Though you may need to press a little Tor button in the address bar for it to understand that you want a Tor window. I don't know why .onion links do not load automatically in Tor Window.
Also for almost every browser there is a Torification plugin. One I know is Tor Button. My dad uses it on Chromium to connect to this site. On his other computer he uses only Tor Browser for all browsing.
blenderdumbass
@alkyilcycloalke lol after all this time I ended up actually making a login system. Though I had to hack it into existence since I didn't plan for it at all. But it seems like it works.
blenderdumbass
Okay, I changed the background. I hope it is better this way. I mean it look way better to me.
blenderdumbass
@alkyilcycloalke you mean like the visibility of the text? Because the point is, those are the Blender Dumbass colors. The background is this washed out greyish bluesh thing. And the foreground it yellow. Why text looks quite good on this background. I can try black text. But I believe it will look crappy.
On
articles > The Danger Of Good Intentions blenderdumbass
@alkyilcycloalke I strongly disagree. If freedom was not important for children as young as new born babies, we wouldn't have laws prohibiting hitting children. An act of violence is an act of control over the other person's body. And therefor is not good. Countries without freedom like Russia have no such laws, since the country doesn't know what freedom is. Look at the other freedom, privacy! Child pornography is not good since it's a violation of a child's privacy. And therefor child's freedom. In such countries as Russia, storing such privacy violating material is not illegal. But in democracies you cannot be a dictator to the child in your house. Because the child should have the freedom!
blenderdumbass
@Erwinjitsu so are you saying something along the lines of: Paternalism is more convenient than Freedom and a lot of people would rather prefer it?
On
articles > Debunking A Critique of Free Software by Anonymous blenderdumbass
He did not oppressed anybody in this case. He presented the reasons for his pronouns and the editors, if there were more than one, agreed to use them. Pers had all the freedom to use anything else, but pers chose to use those. Pers were convinced. Not forced.
Sometimes this kind of convincing is called "consent". Which is a foreign idea to some people, usually those that support various forms of power.
blenderdumbass
My position is freedom. I see Gender pronouns when used voluntarily as Free Speech. And when forced upon people to use as oppression. People should be free to call things with their own words.
blenderdumbass
I actually quite like the idea of "per" and have used it myself a few times. The main issue I see with it is that it tends to make people not understand what I am talking about since it is a very unusual word. But now that I am thinking about it, I should use "per" more when crafting intentionally complex articles.
Stallman's own take on "per"
blenderdumbass
Please don't mind me I'm testing something.
@elban and
@Troler are here!
This is a quote
With multiple lines
With mentions of
@Troler
and with
italic and
strong test.
and with a
link
How does it look?
blenderdumbass
I ended this article on a question because there is a possibility that with sex, a lot of exposure creates addiction instead of liberating you from it. Thought perhaps the addiction is created when you are exposed more than nominally, but not enough to make you sick of it. It's a strange thing to think about. Because both are equally possible. And therefor it's a Schrodinger's type problem.
Mentions!
( 2 )
