jwiggler

jwiggler , 7 days ago

Could you tell me where I can read more about this ? specifically the french-canadian new england stuff ?

jwiggler , 7 days ago

My late Catholic grandmother believed this. She read some book by a Catholic "mystic" who had visions. Surprise! Racist visions.

jwiggler , 9 days ago

"You are shredding the UN charter...with your own hands."

As he shreds the UN charter...with his own hands.

jwiggler , 11 days ago

Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment, or want to condone slave-owning in any way, but Thomas Jefferson only had children with one of his slaves, and from the historical record it appears to have been a consensual romantic relationship, insofar as one can have one with such a vast power difference (you cannot, really). He did oppose slavery privately, however he owned slaves, himself. Although, again from the record, it appears that they were more a part of his household, and treated (relatively) well, rather than how we typically imagine slaves in the South. Again, still not right, but compared to his contemporaries, you would call Jefferson a good owner. Still fucked up to say. A further disappointing fact is that, despite the fact that he deemed slavery reprehensible, he also deemed it to be political suicide to try to change the status quo. He brought the issue up a few times during his very long political career, but quickly abandoned the efforts. Additionally troubling is that, like many other in opposition to slavery at the time, he thought the solution was to ship black people to an island in the Caribbean so that they could form their own nation. This was not an uncommon opinion during that era -- I believe even Lincoln bought into this "solution," at one point. Also fucked up, but somehow better than the at-the-time alternative of continuing slavery.

Anyways, I don't mean to undermine your point that many of the individuals who established this country did so with the idea that black and brown people, women, and the lower-class, were less-than, and established it in such a way that made it difficult or impossible for them to participate. However, I think your specific examples aren't super accurate, and since I just read a pretty fair biography of Jefferson recently called Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty by John B Boles, I figured I would chime in. Really interesting and very much puts a great (in terms of historical stature) and flawed (in terms of our modern sense of morals) man in the context of his time and place.

jwiggler , 11 days ago

I'm not really doing any mental gymnastics, nor am I sucking him off. I'm just pointing out that you weren't historically accurate in your comment, despite the sentiment being correct. I also happen to think that history is interesting (despite most of it being about rich white men -- lots of credit to People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn) and that its important not to always paint over it with a wide brush soaked with our own modern sense of ethics and politics.

Edit: Also, I'm literally a socialist. You could be less reductive.

jwiggler , 10 days ago

That is all true

jwiggler , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

I mean, it's not defendable on any level, except that the prevailing notion of the time was that black people were inferior to whites. Obviously that doesn't make it right, and by today's standards Thomas Jefferson is a monster.

I'm not trying to defend Jefferson as being a good person, but expound upon the (what I consider) false assertion that Jefferson had no issue with slavery whatsoever (from his private letters, he held views against slavery) and that he fucked a bunch of his slaves. I agree with the point of the individual above that the US was built by white men for white men. But, as I said earlier, if you're going to invoke history in your argument, it's best to do it with some level of accuracy.

Since I recently read that John B Bole's biography on Jefferson, I figured I'd chime in. The biography tries hard to put Jefferson in his time and place, establishes him as somewhat of a renaissance man (which, again, shouldn't be praised much due to his privilege and use of slave labor on his projects), and also highlights out his hypocrisy and disappointing refusal to support anti-slavery movement publicly.

jwiggler , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

I didn't say you stated them. The person above did -- the person I originally responded to. When I say "If you're going to invoke history..." I mean, "If a person is going to invoke history." Maybe I should have been clearer there.

I personally don't believe Boles sanitized Jefferson's biography. Again, I think he did a good job of outlining his life without letting him off the hook. It's cool you've been to Monticello, and that you know about Jefferson. But if a person is looking for a fair depiction of Jefferson, is that really the place to go? I mean, certainly slaves were the ones who built up that place. I've never been, so I can't say for sure that they (the curators) don't condemn Jefferson in the way that you'd like, so doesn't that point kind of undermine your argument? Hey, I've never been, so I don't know. I'd guess Monticello is just as likely or more to have sanitized Jefferson's life than Boles' book.

And sure, there were people that opposed slavery centuries before Jefferson. But I'd wager to guess they were in the minority (ie, not the prevailing notion) considering there was an entire industry revolving around the slave trade during Jefferson's time, consisting of more than just two individuals.

Edit: Sorry, this doesnt really cover your entire comment because of your edits, but yeah I think the general jist is that we disagree about the level of Jefferson's "alrightness" with slavery. I mean, yeah he's totally a hypocrite, and you could argue it makes him worse that he acknowledge slavery was wrong, but still perpetuated it. I'm hesitant to do that, because of the time and place that he lived.

I'd very very VERY softly compare it to the fact that today, we know Nike has bad labor practices. Am I going to condemn everyone I know who wears a Nike product? Probably not.

jwiggler , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

I mean, I never said it was okay he had slaves. It's obviously monstrous. And yes, it was cowardly not to be public with his private opinions on the matter. My whole point is Jefferson was not completely okay with slavery, although evidently he was okay enough to own slaves (depending on your viewpoint, that make your opinion of him either better or worse), and that he didn't fuck a bunch of his slaves.

Edit: And i suppose that contradicts my Nike comparison (hence why I emphasized "softly" there). Still, I'd say Jefferson was a product of his time and place, for the worse.

Edit2: actually no, it doesn't really. My point was that a person can be uncomfortable with a thing (Nike's labor practices) and still perpetuate it because of the just vast vast acceptance during the time

jwiggler , 10 days ago

I didn't think about it as a dog whistle, but I'm sure it is. That is me being ignorant. I'm not trying to use it in that fashion. It's not right he owned slaves. Once again, my main point is that he was not completely okay with slavery, as the original person I responded to was asserting.

You're getting into his role in drafting laws, which I havent commented on because I simply don't know, off the top of my head, what is attributed to him besides much of the original Constitution. I can only guess in regards to that, and I would guess that, being a white man, he considered and heavily favored the interests of other white men in the drafting of laws, and is responsible for much of the inequity we still see today.

By the way, Nike has been accused of utilizing forced labor in the past.

jwiggler , 18 days ago

Military industrial complex says hello.

jwiggler , 25 days ago

Lol, that's exactly what the article says. Literally the last three lines summing it all up:

Despite Trump’s public insistence that he deserves widespread immunity, his own legal team seems prepared to have their claims rejected by the highest court in the land. Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers are bearish on their odds of success — but it’s not all doom and gloom.

“We already pulled off the heist,” one source close to Trump said, adding that regardless of what the court decides, they’ve already managed to severely stall the DOJ’s election interference case.

jwiggler , 25 days ago

Hate saying it, but Ubuntu just works for me. I'd rather focus my computer configuration and maintenance efforts on clients rather than my own laptop. If I have to reinstall for whatever reason, its pretty easy because I'm already very familiar with the (shitty) installer, and I don't do much customizing because I'd rather not have to go through that every time I reinstall.

Granted I've never even bothered to run Arch, or any really other desktop distro for that matter. Ubuntu + Gnome looks nice, seems to just work, all I need to do is apt install nvidia drivers and firefox post-install and I'm up and running. I don't want to do work on my laptop, I want my laptop to enable me to do work.

jwiggler , 25 days ago

I dont really fuck around with the GUI stuff tbh...I've always just done ubuntu-drivers autoinstall

I guess my issues with the installer have mostly stemmed around the software raid and manual partitioning. Simply installing on a single drive isnt bad.

jwiggler , 24 days ago

Ideologically Ubuntu makes me cringe, but I also use Google and a host of other technologies that fuck my privacy, so I guess I have accepted the world we live in.

In the same way that I think it's noble when people try to live waste free, I think it's noble to use things like GrapheneOS, or selfhost all your services, or de-Google your tech. But it's unrealistic for all of the world to live waste-free or customize their tech so as to be private. In the end, the government needs to step in and force these giant-ass companies to behave better, because they are the primary forces pushing forward the destruction of the environment and personal privacy.

jwiggler , 1 month ago

Aw:( I dont think an annoying website design should shy you away from playing music. Being able to express yourself with guitar is more than worth having to deal with UGs shittiness, or calluses for that matter, even if it just means playing your own rhythm of G-C-D, or some simple chord progression.

Maybe if you pick it back up one day, try not to think of it as a chore to learn songs you like from tabs, and instead just explore the instrument and the sounds you can make with it.

jwiggler , 1 month ago

That's too bad, but if you didn't enjoy it then there's not much point in continuing.

I guess my point was you don't really have to deal with UG or be very skilled to enjoy playing, but if you didn't like it (calluses are kind-of a must, tbh) then it's not worth sinking time into, imo

jwiggler , 2 months ago

Yeah, I'm not sure why a Democratic politician would waste their time trying to appease leftists or try to play hard-ball. They already have registered Democrats in the bag -- they need to appeal to Independents and traditionally conservative voters, because those are the ones that are going to be deciding elections, or at least the upcoming presidential election.

It's advantageous to show as much aggressively moderate, bipartisan, and hawkish behavior right now, because that is exactly what reminds those voters of the old republican party, pre Trump. Hell, that's what Biden is all about. And it's gonna piss off leftists, especially on this site (and rightfully so), but what are we gonna do? Vote for Trump?

It's unfortunate, but the Democratic party has had to shift to the right in order to accommodate the extremism of Trump and his followers. Here's hoping we'll see a shift to the left if Republicans can somehow take hold of their own party, but we'll see.

jwiggler , 2 months ago

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. All I said was Democrats strategy is to appease swing voters, which it is. Look, Biden is having trouble messaging on the genocide in Palestine right now because he's in an election year trying to be as popular to swing voters and conservatives as possible right now. If it weren't an election year, I bet we'd be seeing stronger pushback from the US toward Israels atrocities.

Also look at the killed border deal. That was a pretty conservative bill that was about to be passed until Trump nuked it. Democrats are able to use that debacle against the Republicans saying "We want to govern and fix problems, you want to use those problems for political gain," but in the end, it was still a pretty conservative bill they were about to pass. Democrats messaging for the next 9 months is going to all be centered around the word "reasonable."

jwiggler , 2 months ago

I think you're right in that the majority of people want better salaries and healthcare, enshrined abortion rights, etc, athough I don't think I'm understanding your last sentence.

But I don't think the "groundswell" of voters is left of democrats in the way you're saying, and my comments weren't really my "stance," they're just what is happening in politics right now. I mean, it is true that if not enough leftists come out to vote for Biden, it could be trouble for him, but what we're seeing right now from polls is that it's the independents and the on-the-fence voters that Biden needs to capture, and we're seeing him actively trying to thread the needle on topics such as Israel/Palestine.

It's funny, there was an episode on NPR politics podcast that came out today that pretty much outlined exactly what I'm talking about: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Lohgbw0EgGSRtIcc3edcM?si=P-w1lelBRBmTNzMShZ4KwA

jwiggler , 4 months ago

US colleges after 10,000 Palestinian children are killed: "We need to stop antisemitism on campuses at all costs!"

jwiggler , 4 months ago

I'm not really sure what theyre talking about tbh. I've lived here my whole life -- my entire family is conservative catholic -- and I still know plenty of poor and rich democrats. It's different in the more rural areas though -- they tend to run red. Southern NH probably helps outweigh the red rural areas.

jwiggler , 4 months ago

Dude. I found a working baratza preciso at savers for $11 a couple days after I realized the same thing and decided I'd start hunting for an espresso grinder.

It was the perfect confluence of timing, interest in making different style coffees, and unwillingness to spend a fortune.

Undoubtedly my best thrift store find.

Now I can get pretty much like 75% of the way to real espresso (won't get crema, but whatever) with my free secondhand aeropress and my $11 grinder. It's amazing. Another $15 for a milk frother and I'm making yummy cappuccino style drinks easy peasy

jwiggler , 4 months ago

There are a lot of weird cringey exchanges in this show similar to this that end up being stylized writing to trick or subvert the viewer. You should continue watching

jwiggler , 4 months ago

Humanity = maximizing ad revenue. All you need to know about reddit nowadays.

jwiggler , 7 months ago

Problem is usually wars are justified by money or lies or politics, not by things like “defending democracy” or “stopping a genocide”

Those justifications are usually made up at the time it becomes convenient or politically necessary to enter a war.

jwiggler , 8 months ago

Obviously this article is meant to cast the Pope in a bad light, but honestly I’m not going to fault the dude for invoking historical figures who proved to be beneficial to his own order.

I mean, how many times do people invoke the image of Teddy Roosevelt in the US? Dude was hot for war, all the time. Or Abe Lincoln, who, prior to freeing the slaves, would claim that whites were still superior to blacks (depending on his political audience), and would advocate for the relocation of blacks to another country, similar to the US government’s efforts made against Native Americans.

Invoking historical figures is so often a bad move, but how can you fault a person for not knowing these things? Roosevelt and Lincoln are gods in the US. Andrew Jackson was the king of the free man, a paragon of libertarianism, rose straight up from the ground to the presidency. But I’m sure the Native Americans felt otherwise.

As for the Pope thinking the attack was provoked by NATO and not wanting to condemn Russia, well that’s kinda horseshit. Because Russia deserves condemnation for preemptive war in the same way that NATO deserves blame for outfitting more bases along the Russian border, and the US deserves blame for their interference in Ukrainian politics in 2014.

jwiggler , 9 months ago

*Except if that country is Palestine. They can get ploughed

jwiggler , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

The fact that you’re assuming this person is a Fox “News” consumer is emblematic of the overall media’s coverage of the war in Ukraine. A person can be anti-war and still part of the left. But not according to you, or others who immediately jump to things like, “go back to licking Putins boot, watching Fox News, etc.” You are shutting down any sort of constructive conversation.

The media has made the war in Ukraine a moral imperative by making it democratic Ukraine vs authoritarian Russia. War makes everything black and white. So it becomes impossible to say something like, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong” while also saying “The US should not support Ukraine with weapons.”

I am anti-war. I do not think the US should support Ukraine with weapons. To me, I am extremely skeptical of the simplistic idea that we are aiding democracy and staunching authoritarianism. I think that kind of of rhetoric pervaded the conflicts in the Middle East, and I think in those cases, it was more accepted by the public that the US was acting in a more imperialistic manner. I think that fits closer to the mark here, too.

For one thing, the US was directly involved in Ukraine’s revolution in 2014, trying to position people in power who had a more EU friendly demeanor. And they helped expand NATO bases closer to Russian borders. These two things, while they certainly do not justify Russia’s invasion, I’m sure made them feel threatened. Now, I don’t have much historical knowledge of Ukraine or Russia, but certainly they’ve had more than just a geographic relationship over the past century or so. If Russia was involved in a Mexican revolution, trying to make them friendlier to Russia rather than the US, I’m sure the US would have a problem with that. Still, the US would not be justified in invading Mexico, as Russia is not justified in invading the Ukraine. This is just to point out the same type of meddling that the US does all across the globe in the name of “democracy” or “free market capitalism”, we were doing here, too.

I think it’s doubtful that this is all purely in the name of democracy. After all, look at what is happening to Palestine. They are a country occupied by the authoritarian state of Israel, and we do nothing. So, to me, there are other factors at play in Ukraine. One, I think, is that war is profitable. “Defense” companies like Raytheon and BAE actually have an interest in perpetuating war, as it brings in profits. So big firms are going to support giant aid packages, as it means they’re going to get business.

Another, I think, is that war is politically profitable. When you can get your party to demonize an individual or country and unite around the noble war effort, it’s just another issue you’ve manufactured to get their vote.

Anyways. I just don’t buy that this war is about democracy or any higher moral value. I think it’s about money, to be honest, and politics. Mostly money. It’s a proxy war between the US and Russia and I think the media has pushed the narrative that it is a morally imperative war between Ukraine and Russia because it is financially interested in perpetuating the conflict. I don’t think the US has an interest in actually ending the war.

And overall, I just think war is one of the greatest evils, and I will almost never support it. Real people are dying for fucking what? If that makes me a Fox News watcher, or conservative, or Putin lover, or whatever name you want to sling my way, I guess so be it. It’s dumb, but so be it.

Edit: if you’re downvoting me without a rebuttal, you’re part of the problem that I’m referring to – a complete dismissal of dissenting opinion on the war. If you disagree with what I’ve said, please comment why because I’d like to hear your viewpoint so that I can adjust mine appropriately. I’m not interested in name-calling, but an actual conversation about this topic would be cool.

jwiggler , 9 months ago

Dude we were denying their agency in 2014 when we were helping install their new pro-EU government

jwiggler , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Thank you for the insults, I guess the point of my effort dump is moreso that I dont think it’s really as black and white as people make it, I think it deserves some nuance. Which is a little ironic because you summed the whole thing up in six words! Haha

But no, I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to be against a war. You do? I do not support Russia. But I don’t think the US should be sending military aid to Ukraine.

Edit: or, I mean against this war

jwiggler , 9 months ago

Well, I actually didn’t say any of that, but thanks for stripping any nuance from what I said, creating a strawman, and then attacking that, instead.

jwiggler , 9 months ago

I never claimed the revolt itself was a result of their actions, I claimed that we were actively involved in installing their new government, which we were.

jwiggler , 9 months ago

I don’t think they should be condemned to genocide, but I don’t think we should be sending them weapons. I think Biden should be talking to Putin in some capacity, which he is not. Radio silence. I think that exacerbates the war.

I don’t think this weird moral imperative is real, like we’re America so we ought to do something. I don’t think that it’s real because, just like in Russia, where you’ve got an active conflict and you’ve got some Russian propaganda calling for the denazification (what you’ve correctly referred to as genocidal) you also have, in Israel, active conflict of genocidal nature between Israel against Palestinians, but we do nothing.

So you’re saying, we, America should condemn Palestine to genocide? Or how about the Uhygur peoples? Should we engage in a proxy war with China? Certainly, according to your claims that otherwise we are dooming them to genocide by their occupying country.

That moral imperative you’re talking about is fabricated, because if the US government actually cared about these people – Ukrainians, Palestinians, or Uhygur – we’d be sending military aid to all of them, or else we’d be “condemning them to genocide,” as you say.

This aid is not going to Ukraine to help them endure genocidal forces. It’s going there to perpetuate our constant war economy that is reliant on conflict. It’s going there to unite the political party against an outside evil and to further the US geopolitical and global free-market goals.

jwiggler , 9 months ago

Its just a lack of consistency, I don’t know what to tell you. You can’t tell me the US sends military aid to Ukraine in order to “defend democracy,” when in numerous other cases of sovereign countries being occupied, we do nothing, or we even support the occupiers, in Palestine’s case.

This lack of consistency lends itself to the idea that there are further interests besides “defending democracy” for which we send Ukraine weapons. I’m not sure how else to put it. If it were about the moral imperative of defending occupied people’s, you can pick out numerous similar examples where we have not acted, and you just have to conclude that there are other factors behind the US sending aid to Ukraine. One is the perceived threat the country feels from Russia, which I think is probably exacerbated by the press. One is the perpetuation of the constant war economy we have, and one is the increased political unity that war brings.

But I’m curious about your position, you’re dismissing my arguments as “whataboutism,” but what exactly would you assert instead? Do you think that Ukraine deserves our aid more than Palestine does? Is it that Russia is a grave threat to the United States? I’m genuinely curious

jwiggler , 9 months ago

This dude is totally content with 300,000 years of subjugation of women by men, but has problems when a single feminist movie comes out. Comedy can only make fun of the other, apparently. Soon as you (men) get made fun of, they’re all up in arms.

Get with the program or get out of the fucking way.

jwiggler , 10 months ago

I have a vote for defederation, because fuck a big company. They're not hurting us yet? They will.