The real question is: How in the world did Ventrillo continue to exist after TeamSpeak came along?
Vent was an object lesson in hostile UX. It sounded like shit, changing any kind of setting (even basic things like individual volumes) was a a gymnastics routine, and mics constantly clipped despite settings.
Unpopular opinion, ventrilo was better than team speak. It didn’t sound like crap especially when you had good server codecs and it was extremely easy to use and lightweight.
I don't think that's unpopular at all, I only ever used vent in highschool and uni, some of the groups I ran with even went back to vent from TS becauae of the sound quality. It was simple and easy to use and pretty much everyone had it.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Words mean what they're used to mean. Even the word "government" is wildly different between Europe and the US. We flip out over headlines like the government of Belgium has collapsed! and it's only as much of a kerfuffle as the House trying to elect a Speaker.
If ever there was a real world example of Newspeak, it is how—thanks to class war and three red scares—the working class no longer even has a word for socialism. So now welfare capitalists like Bernie Sanders call themselves socialist despite never calling for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. It’s an amazing achievement of the capitalist class’ propaganda machine.
I don’t care about the religion of the oppressors and settlers. Israelis are oppressor and settlers who are living in stolen Palestinian land. Israel is an illegitimate settler colony that the UN has condemned since its inception and creation by antisemites who believed that Jews had no place in Europe and wanted to get rid of them. The majority of Jews condemn Israel. Israelis do no represent Jews and thinking so is antisemitic.
So, first of all - I basically agree with you and will be playing devil's advocate a little bit here. But some things I want to point out:
The majority of Jews condemn Israel. Israelis do no represent Jews and thinking so is antisemitic.
Definitely not all Jews or Israelis support the Israeli government as it is. But over 40% of Jews in the world live in Israel, which makes it not the majority, but a very big chunk of Jews. While they might condemn the current government, it is difficult to argue that they condemn the idea of Israel when they are living there. However, a second point follows right from here:
Israelis are oppressor and settlers who are living in stolen Palestinian land. Israel is an illegitimate settler colony that the UN has condemned since its inception and creation
Yes. But also it was created a long time ago. Not too long ago, but long enough so that there are generations of people who have been born into this state as innocent people.
Basically, I dislike the idea of how Israel was created and claiming some birthright to return to a land. Depending on how far you want to go you can always find different peoples living in any region. No one would reasonably argue that we should evacuate Manhattan and return it to Native Americans. And this analogy works in both ways: evacuate Israel to give the land back to Palestine as well as evacuating the region of Palestinians to create Israel. Shlomo Sand once said he is a post zionist because the mess has already been created, maybe that is the take I most agree with, although really, there is no fair or "right" solution to this. Which is why it makes this conflict so complicated and frustrating.
The fair and right solution is to give the land to the people who have been living there for thousands of years and let them decide what to do. The West has no right to tell them what to do after all it has giving them is colonialism (UK) after colonialism (USA and Israel) . It is as simple as that.
And many people want also to give the Americas back to the natives who have been living there for tens of thousands of years. However, this is a more difficult endeavor. Israel is the first one that needs to be abolished.
I don't think this is what you mean, but it sounds a lot like you want to replace one ethno state with another ethno state by pushing out all the Jews that have migrated to Israel during the last 80ish years as well as their descendants.
I doubt this is what you would want, but I just want to point this out, because it sounds dangerous and might be taken like this.
My guess is that you, just as most people, would not want the "migrants" displaced, but not in power and especially not suppressing the rights and targeting the people who lived there and are still living there. We all basically want them to be a big happy secular family who don't care about each other's background and see the person. (Which is the big problem because this family hates one another.) Yes, a lot of Israel's population has come to Israel somewhat unlawfully, but again: the mess has already been created. Telling a 17 year old whose grandparents migrated Israel from Hungary to please fuck off and go back to Hungary would be not more rightful than displacing Palestinians back in 1948.
Palestine has always been a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic place, so no, it never was and will never be an ethno state. Also, I cannot make decisions for what the Palestinians decide to do with the settlers, but they have in the past given asylum to the Jews who faced persecution in Europe. There has always been Jews living in Palestine. Israel should be abolished and whoever wants to be part of Palestine can go through the nationalization process. Westerners have no right to dictate how the Palestinians handle the settler-colonial problem, that is for the native people to decide, and they have that right given to them by international law. This is the right of self determination.
You got a source for "the majority of Jews condemn Israel"? Idk what that means but Im sure it doesn't mean "the majority of Jews think Isreal has to go"
Netanyahu will just be replaced with another genocider in a long line of genociders, stretching back to the Nakba. If you try letting up on the genociding like Yitzhak Rabin, you’ll just get whacked and replaced.
IT's so crazy to run into a comment that speaks about this. I recently got the urge to play Mass Effect, and wanted to replay through the series. I have had the game bought when it went on sale. I download all 100+gb of the game, and launch it to see some performance. EA app required. I might just request a refund, and then pirate the game, to be real with you all.
The launchers are pretty lightweight and don't consume much. It is just annoying to buy the game on one store, it launches another store, only to launch a game launcher, then you can pick r̶̶e̶̶d̶̶,̶̶ ̶̶g̶̶r̶̶e̶̶e̶̶n̶̶̶,̶̶ ̶̶o̶̶r̶̶ ̶̶b̶̶l̶̶u̶̶e̶ I mean ME 1 2 or 3
I think human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and capitalism is best equipped to use this in a way that benefits society. Workers are motivated to work harder and learn new skills to find the most rewarding job they can. Businesses are motivated to create products and run as efficiently as possible. Consumers are motivated to get as much value as the can out of their money. Everyone in the equation is acting selfishly and in their own self-interest (which I believe humans are inclined to do anyway) but when applied on a societal level, everyone benefits.
However I will concede that this is a balancing act that requires some level of government regulation to maintain.
On the other hand, I think communism only works when everyone acts altruistically. Which is noble, but unrealistic.
I agree. Businesses and owners have too much influence. I want more unions, trust-busting, and consumer protections. Workers seem to be organizing more at least, which is a good start.
It's the inability to see the forest for the trees. We were raised in a capitalist economic system, as were all of our past family members. The failings of capitalism appear to be the failings of human nature. In reality, meta analysis of multiple studies on human greed show that people will be inherently more kind to each other than be cruel. Quick search will bring up many articles on these studies. Plus, exchanges in material goods within communities where money hadn't been invented would show that people didn't barter, they gave their goods away to their neighbors, and the good deed would be remembered and reciprocated in times of need. You can look up "Gift Economy" in Wikipedia.
I also highly recommend reading or listening to the audiobook for The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wingrow. It is extremely interesting and eye opening.
Human nature is co-operative and altruistic, there's evidence going back to barely recognisable AS human and it's literally a key reason why we're the dominant species.
@Taleya Is there any scientific material on this? I've had this discussion again and again with my family, from the far side of ultimately altruistic to vastly egoistic... and if there is (hopefully unbiased) scientific material on this, we might settle this argument.
off the top of my head there's the ancient remains found multiple times of disabled and/or badly injured hominids who were treated (signs of healing) and lived long into adulthood despite requiring extensive care from others, the fact an extended childhood in our species means that our young are vulnerable for a far longer period than any other animal (a necessity since you can't fit a fully formed adult brain through a human pelvis) and require cooperation with others to raise and continue the species, the fact we have developed specialised skillsets (that are shared between us rather than developing and being held isolate and then lost when the person who holds then dies).
When you have a group that works together go up against one that doesn't, the former comes out on top. When this competition is for resources and survival, it becomes an evolutionary pressure.
If you do a quick googs you should find scores of whitepapers - but the egoistic argument falls flat on its face out of the gate because we have the word 'sociopath' and it's not considered something to emulate. Neither is 'egotistical'. We've literally got coded into our language that isolation, self-absorption and 'self serving at the cost to others' are bad concepts. Being a self absorbed shithead is documented as wrong as far back as our tales can possibly go.
Not going to downvote, but I do think you're lacking quite a bit of insight into the reasons human society exists at all. Cooperation is the reason human society exists at all, so saying we're inheritly selfish is kinda laughable in that context.
I would encourage you to look up information on dialectical Materialism and the necessity of capitalism as a stage in that dialectical.
Capitalism had a purpose, and it's past time for us to move on.
Explain open source, free software, linux community, lemmy / the fediverse, and many many other things not formed around profit, largely maintained by people in their free time motivated by community over profit.
People aren’t inherently greedy. People are born into a system that rewards greed, and punishes altruism. There have been many different societies with many different political and economic systems, and capitalism is a fairly new one all things considered.
Rational self interest is irrational. If only a few can succeed, chances are you fail. If everyone only looks out for themselves, then everyone fails. Humanity’s biggest strength — what set us apart from many other animals — is our ability to work together and look out for each other.
Capitalism doesn’t work, and is destroying the Earth.
Freeloaders, like large corporations taking open source and then not giving back, is yet another symptom of a system that rewards extraction and self interest.
FOSS exists despite capitalism. The fact that people are willing to work on something out of their own passion, or sense of community, directly contradicts the fundamental assertion of capitalism.
Fuck that, I do not concede the point. At least, I don't concede that humans are /more/ selfish than we are compassionate. Our emotional wiring evolved for hundred-human tribes that required a lot more empathy and cooperation than competition.
You don't have to go so far as to disincentivize greed. Greed is socially useful in small doses. Adam Smith wasn't a total idiot. Just stop letting the people who shape society make it so only the greedheads survive.
You’re preaching to the choir. “Concede the point” is a figure of speech which means the speaker is going explore an assumption despite not believing it themselves.
My point is that the whole “capitalism is the best economic system we know about because humans are greedy” argument is sophistry. It doesn't even make sense in the context of its own flawed premise.
Even if it was true that human nature was inherently greedy and selfish then it would be an argument for creating systems that discourage such behaviors. What you're arguing is akin to saying that you should encourage a person struggling with alcoholism to drink more.
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
Human nature is not inherently greedy and selfish because human beings possess an inherent capacity for empathy, cooperation, and solidarity, which when nurtured within equitable social structures, can create a collective ethos centered on mutual aid, communal ownership, and the pursuit of the common good, transcending the narrow confines of greed and selfishness perpetuated by systems of exploitation and inequality like capitalism.
Greed, selfishness and our hyper-individualism is a product of our society, not society as a product of our nature
These sentiments are something encouraged by those in power as it is advantageous for them to have the masses in want
There are underlying instincts for survival and dominance that have manifested today as greed and selfishness, but that is something an equitable society can address given the chance
To suggest otherwise is incredibly degrading humanity
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
There is nothing bad about the collective ownership of the means of production. I can, however, think of many things that are bad about one person owning the entire means production despite not doing any work, which is what exists under capitalism.
Dialectical Materialism. Right now, they are. You either work towards communism or capitalism moves towards consolidation of capital. Those are your choices.
thats not a mix though, it was just a bandaid over capitalism, borrowed from socialistic ideas. the capital accumulating class was never extinguished, eventually leading to the same problems today all over again.
hence why we advocate for a systemic change, if you can't accumulate capital, you can't buy back the system again like it is rn. this is pretty much the crux of the issue here.
I mean, it's just literally what they call themselves. Sure, they lie or don't know what the fuck they're talking about, but that's kind of their whole deal.
Power dichotomy will always slander any "third option". They'll even say something dumb on its face like third way is "x".
There are only two solutions, "with us" or "against us". Anything outside these choices is literally unthinkable for the power structure. The power structure cannot imagine a future where it does not exist. If you ask the unthinkable alternative, they will default to "oh you must be one of the enemy". We know that category well. They stand for every thing we don't stand for.
Describe what you consider the "third way" that isn't capitalists owning the means of production, workers owning the means, or the state owning the means.
No, I asked for a third pill. I didn't say "take my third pill". I also hope we can escape the narrow minded concept of a society centered on the tug of war to "own the means".
Boeing has since been expanding who they kill to include passengers on their commercial airplanes along with whistleblowers. Can't say they're not trying.
The "empty" half of the plug (with the two hollow squares) is either at the top or on the right in 99% of cases. Once you realize that you barely ever have to flip it even one time.
Do you mean the empty half of the cable? Because the plug itself has the empty half on the bottom.
Usually easier to look for the USB logo or company's branded logo on top. The bottom is usually blank or containing legal info. The bottom also has the zig-zaggy join in the metal.
Maybe this is an American English thing, because to me the plug is the socket. The two words are synonyms. Like I'd talk about the electricity plug in the wall.
Could be, though I've heard people use plug interchangeably.
Connections for data, the female side is usually called a port; for electrical, it's officially called a receptacle, though more commonly called an outlet or sometimes a socket. The male side is always the plug.
I'm European but I'm an English second language speaker, so that may be the reason I use this words that way. However wikipedia for example calls the male part the plug and the female the receptacle as well
Americans often call the wall plate the plugs, but technically in electeical hardware ordering catalogs the wall end is a female receptacle, and the cord end is a male plug
Part of the reasoning is that dust can't really settle on the contacts if they are facing down. It's the same for the most part with rj45 (ethernet) ports.
No joke last time I launched team speak was scary lmao. I didn't have my server anymore so my buddies and I joined a random one. As we were chilling and gaming random people joined in and called us the n word and then left over the course of our session lol definitely felt like a 360 CoD lobby
Hey now. That "emerald mine in apartheid South Africa" but is not true at all. He benefited from being the son of a rich white guy in apartheid South Africa. The emerald mine was in Zambia. He materially benefited from colonial rule in TWO countries.
lemmy.ml
Top