Fascists, Racists, Transphobes, Terfs, Homophobes can fuck off.

  • 2 Posts
  • 313 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 22nd, 2022

help-circle

  • Correct myself? Nope. Just reinforced my arguments.

    And I’ll stand by my original statement. Don’t bear children. Leave the earth better off than when you found it, not having children is one of the easiest way to do that.

    The only way I’m a hypocrite is if I’m a parent, which I guess you’ll just have to take my word on it when I say I’m not. Thank goodness I’m not. But hey, you and I aren’t ever gonna get along anyway, right? So you think whatever you want of me.

    Lastly, can we all just take a moment and appreciate that we got into this because of a question about the effect on fertility rates due to microplastics in our testicles?


  • Then let’s go over your post, line by line.

    “Bad for the environment” means “Bad for us humans”, nature will take care of itself, just not in a human scale lifespan. So not populating because of the environment doesn’t make sense.

    That’s incorrect. Nature is an ambivalent unfeeling aspect of our reality. This is the hand waving comment I was referencing earlier. It amounts to “The Earth will be fine. Humans should only focus on the environment as much as it relates to humans.” I heavily disagree. Humans should focus on the environment to ensure that it remains in a state that sustains as much biodiversity and life for its own sake.

    Why have a better environment for humans if there are no humans? I’m not saying we don’t need to look after the environment, on the contrary, we need to better ourselves and the environment because otherwise we go extinct anyway.

    I believe I addressed this as well. This is anthropocentric thinking. “Human beings should only care about human beings” sort of thinking. My argument is that the fight for a “better environment”, as you put it, is not for the sake of preserving human beings, but rather for the sake of leaving the Earth in a state that is better for biodiversity as a whole, that is a better world period, whether human beings go extinct or not.

    Ultimately I hold human beings to a higher standard than the average person. I believe we are beings capable of great compassion for other living beings on this Earth, but most seem to think we are little more than a thinking animal. I am less concerned with preserving human survival, and more concerned with the legacy humans leave once we are gone, even if there is not a soul to appreciate it, it is still worth doing in my opinion because I believe that is the pinnacle of what humans are capable of, i.e. Compassionate Selflessness.

    Now let’s address your latest comment:

    So first you say: Don’t bear children. And now you’re trying to counteract my point by saying: think of the children…

    Not having children is thinking of the children. Just think about it. If I tell you that having children will make the environment worse, and encourage you to not have children. Ultimately those children that do end up being born in that world with less people in it will inherit a world with an environment under less strain from less human beings.

    I’m positive you didn’t even read beyond my first sentence.

    Well I did read your post, and I stand by my initial response.

    Cause I’m literally saying we need to get our shit together.

    On that we are in agreement. The point on which we differ is on whether advocating for not having children is reasonable. I’ve made my case on this point, and unless you have anything to elaborate on, I don’t see how you’ve made a reasonable argument to the contrary. But of course, feel free to respond.

    And also, in response to your separate name calling:

    Oh no, I’m saying on a scale big enough micro plastics don’t matter. But you are missing my point, we DO need to take care of microplastics, because we want to repopulate… the poster I’m replying to is trying to convince us not to bear children. Edgy, but also quite stupid.

    Another hard disagree. The human population is far beyond what it can sustain without oil. Oil goes into our fertilizers, our medications, our daily used plastic packaged products, etc. Without oil, we would not be able to feed and sustain the population we have now, the majority of which live in relative squalor. And we WILL need to vastly cut back on our oil consumption to stabilize the climate. Depopulation will either be forced through mass starvation due to lack of oil and degradation of our environment, or will be chosen by those who opt out of having children.

    Repopulation is something touted by the rich to ensure a continuous supply of wage/literal slaves and armies for future nation states to hold dominance. Depopulation will be necessary in order to ensure the survival not only of the human race but also the majority of the currently existing life on this planet, as well as ensuring that the quality of life for those that do live in such a world can be expected to be better than what we have today.

    Edgy? Meh, your perspective. Stupid? Debate me.


  • Your statement is exhibiting a narrow anthropocentric point of view. Obviously, human beings aren’t meant to be here forever. Just like any individual life form, we live for a moment and then die.

    The question is not “how can we survive for the longest amount of time possible?”, it’s not even “how can I get the most out of my time living?”, it’s “what do I leave behind for those that remain?”

    In the case of human beings as a species, our best selves are those that leave a positive impact on our environment, stewards of the Earth. But we obviously aren’t exhibiting our best selves.

    “The Earth will be fine.” is a pointless statement akin to “The next generation will figure out this mess.” Both statements hand wave away the complicated problem that needs to be solved right the fuck now.

    A better statement to ponder is the difficult question of “how do we leave this place better than we found it even if we do go extinct?” And on a more individual level, “what decisions and actions can we take to make sure the world is better off for those that will come after me?” Which then begs the follow up question, “What does a better world look like?”, and also “How can we get there?”

    Whining about what you can’t do, or isn’t feasible in the paradigm that is modern civilization is pointless. You can’t have modern capitalism and leave the Earth a better place than it was before.

    Very soon, something major will have to change sociopolitically and economically if we’re going to simply go extinct with dignity. Let alone preserve the climate for our children.







  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlFavourite DE
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Honestly my first olkb was the Planck from DROP. A 40% keyboard where the numbers and symbols are each on their own separate layer. The defaults on the Voyager were very clunky IMHO, so I simply switched them to the defaults of the Planck, including moving the home row up one whole row. This left a few spare keys as the Voyager is a 55 key, so I simply added two Super keys instead of one as well as a few other duplicates.

    I’ve also heard of some interesting workarounds for using Vim with Colemack/Dvorak. It is funny, when I first discovered OLKBs, I kept encouraging people to use them, and I still do. Same with Vim. But ultimately I get why people don’t. I’m so used to this workflow now, going back to a standard keyboard feels clunky and slow, and I’d imagine my setup feels awkward and alien to most if not all other people.

    But it’s uniquely mine and I can type 100wpm if I am on a roll with his setup.

    The clamps are a hilarious accident that happened to work for me. I was experimenting with different ways to get that near 90° angle shoulder width apart, and this was the3 soluuon I haphazardly stumbled on.

    Glad you like it/find it entertaining! I wish you well in finding what works for you! ✌️






  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlFavourite DE
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Nah, didn’t go that far (yet), just heavily edited a qmk_firmware configuration. So yeah, I’ll admit I didn’t exactly write my own keyboard firmware.

    I have the soldering tools ready for when I have time to learn. Sadly I only have time for software lately, and hardware/firmware has had to take a back seat.

    Customizing your workflow around the keyboard is a helluva drug though! If it weren’t for Vim being configured for QWERTY out of the box, I’d probably configure a COLEMAK or DVORAK setup as well.

    I’d encourage you to go as far down the rabbit hole as you’re comfortable, the learning curve can slow you down initially, but the dividends pay off in the long run imho.

    Here’s a pic of my current setup. The keyboard is prebuilt (Voyager ZSA), just with custom firmware. Couple clamps keep it vertical for ergonomics.


  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.mltoLinux@lemmy.mlFavourite DE
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’ve been on BSPWM for nearly 2 years now. Custom scripts and keybindings all over the place. My workflow is so customized and keyboard centric with this TWM. Vim bindings in the terminal, Vimium in the browser, and a heavily customized Neovim Text Editor with Espanso Text expander global keybindings every where… Not to mention a 55 key split Ortholinear Keyboard with custom firmware…yeah… My hands almost never touch my mouse except to game.




  • Yeah, I generally agree with all sentiments. TS is handy at times, but working with poorly written .d.ts types from 3rd party libs is Hell.

    The MS acquisition of Github is sad imho. Using alternatives is nice. I’ll eventually get around to self hosting a Gitea or cgit instance.

    Ubuntu, Mint, and PopOS are probably the closest to a mainstream Linux Desktop from what I’ve seen, and perhaps one day one of those really will take the mantle and push the Linux Desktop forward into the mainstream, but I just don’t see it. I do hope I’m wrong though.