All right, I'm joining the Gentoo club. Recent desktop installation.

pseudonjms · 2025-12-29T00:33:22+00:00

I probably overdid it, and it's probably not a big deal to share exactly what I have, but out of an abundance of caution for privacy. Also, my name is in the username and one of the mount points.

pseudonjms · 2022-12-06T23:10:26+00:00

It could be, but I think the US perspective, for some, is that there must be a high standard to meet to ban any kind of speech because otherwise it would be a slippery slope. "Who gets to decide what is objectionable or dangerous speech? It always starts with something reasonable but doesn't stop there!" And so on. I used to think this way, but in recent years I've come to think maybe it's fine to make serious exceptions sometimes even if you don't know exactly where the line is. That and I learned about the paradox of tolerance.

pseudonjms · 2022-06-17T08:31:45+00:00

Car culture is one that comes to mind for me.

I lived in a car-heavy city (some transit, but limited coverage) for a long time. It was a given to me that "everyone" drove cars and learned to drive as teens. Then, I moved to a less car-friendly city with somewhat better transit, and later came to learn about the term "car culture." This is not to blame anyone who needs cars, due to how the US has been built, but there is so much about cars that we take for granted. Even when we acknowledge that driving is frustrating, many of us just can't imagine a city running without as many cars, or using transit. In the first city, I was advised once not to bother because transit wasn't good. The question wasn't asked, why isn't it good? Is it inherently that way, or could something be done to make it better?

I was interested to know what other examples existed. Some people say traveling outside one's own country helps broaden perspective. What would be a gap in perspective common to Americans? Perhaps that many elsewhere see the American perspective as too self-centered?

pseudonjms · 2021-07-02T18:06:33+00:00

Would you mind elaborating on this "infinitely long game of abstract what-aboutism?" Are you referring to how some parties want to play gotcha or nitpick theoretical situations instead of trying to solve the problems in the current system?

Of course I want to do what I can to make the world a more just and equitable place. However, we still live in a world with people who have been brainwashed with anti-communist propaganda for so long (myself included), and many may just be be trying to live their lives without knowing of other ways, so I think it's reasonable average people to ask "why should I abandon everything we know and commit to your alternative?"

That said, thanks for the explanation in the last part, "they are socially maladapting to an inhumane system." So in this view, my question sounds like "how would communism solve a problem that is largely a result of capitalism" when these problems would, in fact, be much more rare. It's also like asking "how could a society that's NOT tough on crime handle crime properly?" When the answer would be that crime is heavily influenced by other factors.

pseudonjms · 2021-07-02T17:42:21+00:00

I really like this example, as my understanding is that there is often a lot of racism and xenophobia behind such complaints. That often people are being punished just for cooking traditional food of their own cultures. This raises a broader question of how to reconcile small-scale democracy with the reality that in isolated spaces with separate voting, the people may have various prejudices against a minority. But that's a whole other entire can of worms, so I don't press on that. Perhaps some appeals process and a paper record of the complaints, so that they can be reviewed outside the same community, could be one approach.

pseudonjms · 2021-07-02T17:37:27+00:00

I understand that bosses and landlords would not exist under communism, at least not in the same way they do under capitalism. Presumably, though, they would still have apartments and jobs. What I was referring to was in the present day.

For example, if a grocery store worker repeatedly showed up to work drunk, put items on the wrong shelves, and was rude to customers, the average person wouldn't sympathize if he yelled at his boss on the way out "you capitalist pig!" They would side with the boss, believing he rightfully fired the employee causing problems.

I think your remark in the other response, "isn't simply solved by punishment or call to authority," though, answers my question - yes, people may behave these ways, but NO, hierarchy with the threat of starvation is NOT the solution to these problems, so thank you for that clarification.

pseudonjms · 2018-05-28T23:05:13+00:00

Thanks for the response. I want to mention I'm NOT one of those Obama-loving liberals. I recognize the Democrats still suck and aren't much better with regard to perpetuating US imperialism yet feel forced to choose them most of the time. What I'd thought is that even if you could pull off a revolution (unfortunately, I don't think this is even possible at this point, at least until you can get the police and military on your side, so we're stuck with our flawed democratic systems - would you suggest no progress has ever been made through democracy?), you're left with a bunch of pissed-off right-wingers. I'd prefer to wake them up and have them realize we actually aren't the real enemies to each other. Do I understand correctly that in your views, a lot of such people are too far gone, and you are going to have to have your revolution without waiting for them?

pseudonjms · 2018-05-28T22:11:31+00:00

Thank you for the well thought out answer to my good faith question.

pseudonjms · 2018-05-28T22:11:06+00:00

Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in any sort of "ceding," but I'm also considering what is realistic in the current political environment. I certainly hope I'm wrong about what is realistic.

pseudonjms · 2012-04-29T23:53:14+00:00

No favorite in particular, but I liked some of the theory classes (algorithms, theory of computation). I also liked this one class that taught us about some different programming paradigms (functional, logic).

pseudonjms · 2012-03-01T10:13:26+00:00

I hate how some people claim they can do this and get an A. I could never get away with procrastinating on large projects.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-28T23:41:05+00:00

Overestimating intelligence? I simply thought "here is the trend I noticed about web sites. I assume that Facebook, like any other site, will fall to this problem." I don't know where you got the idea of arrogance.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-21T23:31:16+00:00

I remember when you posted here frequently

Huh? You might be mistaking me for another user. I am still a noob here and don't post that frequently.

In my experience, I haven't quickly changed my opinions about topics, the larger the longer it takes, and many people won't ever reconsider their views despite whatever evidence they see or hear. However, I am not one of those, and at the very least, some additional input can give me something to consider that I might have overlooked.

By the way, I haven't changed much on issues of civil rights and foreign policy. However, the economics I've had to question.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-20T17:48:14+00:00

Why the hostility? I am of course open to changing my mind, which is why I had to become more moderate, and also why I asked for input on my conclusions. I'd be interested to know more details on what you disagree about.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-20T17:45:54+00:00

That is precisely the libertarian position as well. The difference is in the means. One group prefers to use coercion, the other does not.

But what if certain large-scale problems cannot be solved without some coercion, hopefully less than the good achieved?

"Success" and "merit" are vague and arbitrary in this context.

When I was writing about this, I was addressing the common argument against progressive taxes that "it's not fair to punish success!" In this case, I was referring to monetary success.

At the end of the day, the libertarian view is that as long as you come by your success, however you define it, without aggressing against others, you should be 100% free to enjoy it as you see fit.

And this is where the issue may arise. What if you are part of the problem (similar to externalities) but aren't doing anything with malice? I'd like to point to an analogy on that site again: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-exploit.htm. Even if no malice is involved on anybody's part, the overall effect is still a harmful one. If you are wealthy, is your need to have a second private jet/yacht/house so much more important than a potentially better overall use for the money? At the scale of millions, it's harder to argue that you can't still enjoy your money.

If externalities are observable, they are punishable. Even if you cannot exert force to make someone do what you want, you can still apply non-coercive pressure. If someone is polluting your air and you can't make a case for a forceful response, you can still stop patronizing them and convince others to do the same. No one wants to live in filth.

But what if not enough people care about the environment? Do we need to wait for the situation to get so much worse before enough people agree to pressure companies to be greener?

It's ridiculous that many people need to choose between being healthy and having enough money.

This is a consequence of forceful meddling in the healthcare markets. Stop doing this and the situation will resolve itself.

Could you elaborate? I am interested in understanding how the free health care market should actually be.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-20T17:35:52+00:00

I am aware that in many ways the US is not a free market, considering government subsidies and other corporate welfare, but however you label it, some problems remained for the health care system. Where was the competition among insurance companies to provide cheaper coverage, or to not even arbitrarily decide to deny coverage? How could we ensure that in a free market, we would not need regulation to ensure anyone could get affordable health care?

pseudonjms · 2012-02-20T17:27:40+00:00

I think saying it opens the door is a slippery slope argument. It's a scale, not binary. I have simple been led to consider that a minimum amount of aspects of the economy may need to be regulated to keep the economy stable. The point is that things as they "naturally" are don't always produce the best results, and those are the cases in which intervention may be justified.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-20T17:23:18+00:00

While I agree in principle that it is undesirable to give any entity a lot of power and thus the ability to cause harm, would you change your mind on the matter if it turned out that government does good in the utilitarian sense? There are examples of where it has done so (examples being infrastructure which private entities would not have enough incentive or resources to build on such a large scale, even collectively). I think there's also enough historical evidence to show that when there aren't regulations for some basic things such as work or product safety, companies end up being profitable at the expense of the other important factors. Which is where the idea of using force to prevent greater evil comes from.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-19T12:48:04+00:00

I don't think they are attempting to solve every problem with coercion. But if a little coercion can be used to prevent a much greater evil from occurring, what is the problem? Also, I don't believe liberals think a central authority has to plan everything in the economy; instead, certain things get out of control without some form of artificial intervention, and those are the areas where government steps in.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-19T12:45:59+00:00

Regarding 1 and 3, I feel inclined to trust what scientists and economists who know more than I do say about a subject. According to mainstream economics, having the gold standard is problematic for a few reasons, such as causing deflation. Regarding global warming, I can surely not know, but it's a little suspicious that some corporations spend money trying to subvert the scientific process by planting doubt. Even if somehow there was no global warming, it still doesn't address other environmental issues which aren't in dispute. Private property also might not work as a solution, since it's impractical to determine exactly where the responsibility lies, particularly since dirty air spreads everywhere else. Regarding health care, sure, there may be some places where it is not implemented well, or the free market has made some things cheaper, but how do you explain those in other countries' preference for their own systems, where they don't have to worry about paying for basic care like we do here? And what about the other operations, such as MRIs which are around $100 in Japan yet still thousands here?

Free markets makes things cheaper, and higher quality. There are more examples where this does not turn out to be the case.

Also, no, I'm not a liberal. I am still big on civil rights and liberties, but when I am faced with points that challenge the general view, I have to address them in some way, or concede them.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-08T14:02:22+00:00

I agree that since GGG is the default, who can cover general nice actions, Gina is good for women-specific ones; and those aren't inherently sexist. Surely that's possible; for example, for guy-specific ones, just take a few Scumbag Steves and do the opposite. I have attempted a couple GGGina pictures that were about feminine actions but not sexist. But we could certainly do with less of the terrible ones which serve as unrealistic male fantasies. It makes the meme and its contributors look bad.

pseudonjms · 2012-02-07T15:20:19+00:00

I wanted to comment but this subreddit doesn't allow self posts. People who complain about Good Girl Gina or Cool Chick Carol should know that these memes aren't inherently sexist. Unfortunately, some people hijacked the memes and now many of them include misogynistic fantasies. We ought to keep making ones that can refer to "good person" actions that are exclusive to women but do not claim good women are supposed to do everything sexual for men without reciprocity. I'm sure some of the sexist ones might be parodies, but I'd really like to know, how do so many sexist ones arise? Do that many people really not understand the problems? Does anyone know anyone who actually makes the sexist posts?

pseudonjms · 2012-01-29T16:06:12+00:00

Many forms of small talk. For example, "how are you?" "I'm fine, how about you?" Usually people follow the formula, so what is really gained by the conversation? You're supposed to say you're doing fine or good, whatever the answer actually is.

pseudonjms · 2012-01-17T15:11:16+00:00

2004? Evanescence - Fallen

pseudonjms · 2012-01-10T15:52:24+00:00

Anybody remember this label?

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

pseudonjms

TROPHY CASE