> Nosrat’s work to diversify the kinds of faces quite literally seen as culinary experts is directly connected to her view of food
Can there be anything on the internet WITHOUT injecting social justice talking points into it? What the fuck does the quality of food have to do with my skin color?
Misogyny is not violence. Violence may be motivated by violence, but in itself it is not violence. She follow the disturbing trend to call words and speech "violence"
> “It is without doubt that social media has allowed this to happen,” she says of the toxic moment we’re in. “It has created the opportunity for men with anti-feminist ideas to broadcast their views to more people than ever before – and to spread conspiracy theories, lies and misinformation
Even if you believe what shes trying to explain, why is it unique for men? Radical feminists do the same thing, just reversed. Anyone with any hateful opinion can speak on the internet.
Of course, esepcially the first link is definitely biased. But you find it all over if you look for it. #killallmen, #maletears etc on Twitter. You get the point.
It's not this specific decision, but this category of decisions. The EU seems to constantly legislate on "small" things that piss off some subset of the population in a country. Eventually there's a large enough number of annoyances that a majority of individuals are bothered by.
To take an arbitrary example - increasing the age required to obtain an unrestricted motorcycle license.
On the face of it it's not that significant. No-one really cares about this apart from in the abstract. It reduces death rates, and from that perspective it's a good thing.
But there's some small bit of the population that is now pissed off by this, you've told them "wait until you're older", and they don't like that and vote against you.
(It certainly annoyed me at the time despite already having a full licence and already being above the new cut off. No, not enough to vote Leave. I like my citizenship.).
Now multiply that by lots of issues which affect different people.
You don't consider this kind of crap to be one of the reasons why people voted for Brexit?
I voted for Brexit not because of most of the commonly touted but because of the breathtaking arrogance of the EU leaders. If you followed the series of referenda all around Europe regarding the EU's policies, you will see that in almost every instance the popular vote went against the EU, only for member countries politicians to ignore the peoples votes.
Britain is simply a country whose leaders promised to leave the EU if the public voted against it, and as far as we can see they are committed to honouring that promise.
It was the EUs handling of Jorg Haider's party's election victory that decided Brexit for me, ie about 8 or 9 years before the Brexit vote, and FWIW I am not white. Don't assume that all the reasons usually touted were the cause for the vote for Brexit.
Honestly, having read many EU standards, they are usually some of the most sensible, reasonable legislation you could ask, on both the consumer and producer side. Most silliness that gets blamed on them is either willfull misinterpretation of the rules ('EU says banana must be straight!'. No, EU says bananas must not be misshapen (by, for example, having a 90 degree bend in the middle of an otherwise normally shaped banana) if they are to be classed above a certain grade), or excessive risk aversion on the part of companies (usually driven by lawyers).
They claim their law applies to their citizens. Especially on the internet, where a company can be 'based' wherever will regulate them the least, this is a reasonable compromise.
National governments do crazy stuff like this constantly too. They also do useful things. So does the EU. The case (or at least this case) against the EU is pretty much the same as the case against all governments.
The right question isn't "does this organization do crazy things?" but "do the good things outweigh the bad, or the other way around?".
The other thing is that I think a lot of the "EU does crazy things" narrative is deliberately, and dishonestly, pushed by people who are more interested in making the EU look bad than in the truth. (I am not suggesting that sarcasmOrTears is such a person: only that their perception of what the EU does may have been affected by the long-running Make The EU Look Bad campaign.)
So does the EU. MEPs are elected just as democratically as MPs (in the UK), Representatives/Senators (in the US), etc.
Magna Carta was about the balance of power between the king and the barons; commoners' interests come into it only incidentally.
The American Revolution is a slightly better case, but note that its "No taxation without representation!" battle-cry wouldn't be any sort of case against the EU because (1) everyone in EU countries does have respresentation, and (2) while for some countries EU membership is a net cost (at least if you ignore the benefits of free trade, free movement, etc.) that cost is a tiny fraction of those countries' total revenue base; e.g., the UK's net contribution is about £8B/year, which is a little over 1% of total UK taxes.
The only thing that is stopping me to jump to a linux laptop is battery life. MacOs is just optimised to a crazy extent. Nothing really comes close to the same battery performance if you don't want to get your hands dirty with tlp.
I recently moved from a MBP2015 to a MateBook X Pro and what I like more is the battery life, I can work a full day without plugging it in (I work from coffee shops). One reason for the long battery life is the 15W CPUs in ultrabooks, as opposed to 45W in bigger laptops. Here are some things I did to boost my battery life (I get 7~10h)
- Undervolted the CPU (-100mV).
- Using bumblebeed/bbswitch to switch between GPUs, I never use the discrete GPU but I'm glad it's there just in case.
- Show power consumption (watts) on my status bar to keep an eye for power hungry websites
- Using Arch so it doesn't have anything I don't need running out of the box. A bit harder to install and configure though. I'm actually not sure if this helps or not
- Disabled Xorg compositor, yeah, I don't get window shadows and there's a weird flicker when I switch desktops but it gives me an extra 10~15% battery life.
There's also a utility called "powertop" that gives you stats about power consumption and a bunch of levers to improve it.
It took me a few days to set everything up but now I'm in love with the mobility.
From what I heard, this is not true for the Dell XPS 13 and other new Notebooks that supposedly run well with Linux. I get almost 5 hours out of my decade-old Thinkpad T410 (original battery). My 2018 Macbook Pro 13" with touchbar only gets me through 2/3rds of the workday (older models or 15" work way longer). Apple put in smaller batteries and optimized their own (!) apps to compensate. You're pretty much forced to use Safari if your don't want even worse battery life.
I find its all WiFi. On an xps 13 with ubuntu, I get 10-12 hours on low brightness without wifi, but often 4-6 otherwise with wifi. Its really nice for roadtrips.
I wonder whether that is causation or correlation?
AFAIK the WiFi hardware doesn't use much power itself, although I might guess that background protocol chitchat could cause CPU usage. I think that when I am usually using WiFi I am also usually using a browser that chews power.
This is my thought. Turn off wifi and you're no longer running the cpu and memory monster that is a web browser.
But this is something Apple does right. My wife noticed that she can get around 50% more battery life out of her Macbook using Safari instead of Firefox. (7-8 hours instead of 4-5).
I have the same feeling with my MacBooks. They are so perfectly tuned to the software they come with they are nearly unbeatable.
But nothing other than Linux will ever be installed on my other laptops. I moved away from Windows as my main OS in the early 2000's to never look back.
I think it's fair to say that Benjamin is somewhere in the alt-right nebula: Anti-feminism, UKIP, 4chan, anti-"political correctness"... If it quacks like a duck
Alt-right is defined by its identity politics. Anti-feminism is not anti-women's-rights. Stuff you are listing (minus UKIP) is shared by everyone to the right of the progressives. Including liberals.
I'd say what is typical of the alt-right is not that they dislike 'identity politics' (the discourse as a whole, so including right and left), but rather that they actively take a stand and engage in being anti-'identity politics'.
I know tons of people who mostly just steer clear of identity politics altogether, both left and right. But it's only the alt-right people I know, along with a chunk of the left, who seem to really invest in the whole discussion.
The alt-right is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined - (summery).
The Associated Press advises its journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition, due to its vagueness. They described the "alt-right" label as "currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists" that "may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters' actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience". - Etymology and scope
Both funkythings and namdnay comment above assert statements to what alt-right is and who belongs to it that the wikipedia article do not. Labeling anti-"political correctness" as alt-right is not supported. Journalist Mike Wendling says that alt-right share the view of anti-"political correctness" with chan culture, but that is as far as the wikipedia article is willing to go.
People just have to look at the politicians and parties he's supporting. For example in the last French presidential election he opposed the pro-capitalist liberal (redundant as liberals are by definition pro-capitalism). I wonder what's his opinion on the Brazil one. A moderate social democrat vs. fascist belonging to a party called the "Social Liberal Party"?
He's not even a good source of information as his 3 hours long videos consist of Wikipedia articles he glanced through and repeating extreme right-wing conspiracies (Cultural Marxism, the terrorist attack at the Unite the Right rally).
(Also the only decent anti-idpol people are Marxists.)
“A moderated social democrat” who defends Venezuelan and Cuban dictators and who is running (admittedly!) as a puppet for a convicted corrupt politician who he plans to put out of jail. And the other guy is the fascist?
You are either misinformed about the situation in Brazil or being deliberately misleading.
Did you even watch the video? The VERY FIRST thing he said was "turn it (his girlfriends dog) into the most unfunny thing I could think of...a Nazi". This was a joke, nothing more, nothing less.
Now, the real scandal was that the courts just assumed his intent and just assumed he wanted to harass jews. Which is ridiculous.
I mean, the law _is_ selectively enforced, and it's the CPS' job to decide who to prosecute. That's not so much a legal issue as a social/structure and purpose of police issue.
Moreover in terms of the general law and how that law should or shouldn't be written, I can only recommend this discussion which is more detailed than any discussion we could have here and a more informed source:
I did. Like I said they assumed his intent, which is exactly the opposite to what courts are supposed to do. Do you really think posting a "grossly offensive video on the internet" is enough to get you fined? People are offended all the time. Would you react the same way if Nazis were triggered by Antifa videos?
Did you watch the video? Do you honestly think he hates Jews. Honest question
I lost all respect for Boehmermann after he released his twitter block list, and just lumped in every journalist to the right of himself with real Nazis. He's part of the problem
So I looked. Every journalist, you say. I didn't see the names of any FAZ journalists. Would you say the entire staff of FAZ is to the left of Böhmermann? Or perhaps I didn't look hard enough. I admit I didn't spend very long.
I was there to witness the private mailing list that culminated in this, and there was a very clear example of that happening there.
A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal."
A sub-discussion then erupted about the etymology of "Sally" and whether or not it was technically correct to someone who preferred "Sal" to be called "Sally" instead. Instead of, you know, just calling people what they want to be called and be done with it. And not be condescending about it.
Thank you for sharing the context. One of the problems we have with written interaction is that we don't have all the information that we have in face-to-face communication.
One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?
I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.
My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...
Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.
If someone has stated what they wish to be called by, and rather than respecting their wishes, you choose to go down a tangent on how what you said is not a problem, then that is condescending, whether you intended it or not. Although I would have a very difficult time believing that someone who did that did not intend to be condescending.
From the context supplied it appears to me that this was a first offense. If it were a repeat offense, I would agree. I still recommend a softer tone. If your goal is to maintain a healthy collaboration, that helps. Either way, the offended party is inferring motives that may or may not be accurate.
That sounds utterly trivial - why was Sal/Sally so upset by an attempt to be polite by not using a short form/pet name. That must happen to her all the time in formal settings.
As for "voicing concerns with current practices", what were those concerns and practices? Technical?
It wasn't an attempt to be polite. They didn't use the long form of their name (which would be irritating but I can see that being an attempt to be polite), they used a rather infantilising diminutive. The effect was condescending and "Sal" was well within their rights to object.
In the general case, telling someone that actually you are the person who has the last word on what they are called is bullying.
Sally is traditionally short for Sarah, though if someone with a longer name like Salvadora/Salvatoria were living in an anglophone society, I could also see them going by Sally.
Because they had already stated what they wished to be called. Once someone does that, conversation on the topic should be done; there is nothing more to be said. Choosing to ignore that is a massive sign of disrespect to the person, and should not be tolerated.
In some cultures, it is impolite to refer to someone by their given name. "Mr X" or equivalent is the polite way to address them, especially in (for example) a business context.
And yet, I almost never see this happening in online communities and have never seen anyone take offence at being referred to by their first name instead, despite the fact that in an in-person context they might do.
I'd love to understand why the two scenarios are different.
It sounds like the issue in the example you state was perhaps the "talking down", not the name.
