Linux is toxic

Every day that goes by seems to prove this topic correct. XLibre anyone?

Once upon a time I thought about starting a LUG in my area and always thought it would be cool to meet another Linux user in the wild. Now it’s like a red flag to stay away from that person. At least 99% of Windows users are just normies going about their day. But Linux users… who knows what kind of evil fantasy they’re writing about in psychotic blogs.

Remember when FOSS used to bring up an image of innocent ol’ Richard Stallman in your head? How things have changed.

Sorry for the black pill.

5 Likes

Richard Stallman is one of the biggest culprits in the politicisation of software.

4 Likes

I feel more comfortable here than I do in any other Linux community. This is my safe space from the weirdos.

9 Likes

Someone needs to check the hard drives of the community admins at Gnome, Suse, Canonical, and Fedora. I have a feeling there’s a lot of cheese pizza to be found on those things. :face_vomiting:

5 Likes

As a weirdo myself i am offended by your wierdophobia and you are not safe from me. I will look for you, I will pursue you. I will find you, and I will cancel you on every forum, and every social media platform.

10 Likes

Some people value their freedom and autonomy as a matter of principle.
Some others value it because they want to get up to all sorts of weird shenanigans.

5 Likes

There lies the problem with freedom. The Wokesters, pedophiles, criminals, terrorists, and so on have a much easier time doing their activities in a free society than if they were in a dictatorship, communist, socialist, or whatever.

Unless, if the government approves of their activities, there is nothing to stop them from doing their criminal activities. Which means a closed down society can equate to more freedom for them, while at the same time far less to no freedom for everyone else.

Given a choice, it is better to be in a society based on freedom rather than a society where the government decides who has freedom and how much is allowed.

7 Likes

I think a truly free society would deal with most crime much better than the system we’re saddled with now.
The idea that the same system that is there to deal with a kid stealing a bicycle should also deal with large and well-organised crime syndicates is absurd. The “one-size-fits-all” approach that is necessitated by centralised authority isn’t very efficient, IMHO.
If I may be so bold, I would like to suggest this essay on the topic:

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

I’m not suggesting that this sort of thinking is the great answer to life, the universe and everything (as we already know its 42), but they do merit some serious consideration, IMHO.

2 Likes

I just gave the preface a quick once-over. While much of what he wrote is correct, he did get two things wrong.

Leftists don’t believe in freedom. They want total government controlled censorship of anything that doesn’t comply with their agenda, just as it was in the Soviet Union, currently is in Communist China and other communist countries, was in National Socialist Germany, and still is to a certain extent in most countries. But give them credit, they are experts at convincing the multitudes that they are all about freedom when not in power, while doing the opposite once in power.

Another thing he gets wrong is drugs and alcohol. For instance, driving while stoned. If the drug user wants to get stoned, do it at home and stay there. But the minute he goes out on the road behind the wheel of a vehicle, he now endangers others. Good luck with pointing that out to the overwhelming majority of those who demand legalized drugs.

At the same time, banning drugs has worked out about as good as Prohibition did.

Regarding how Prohibition really worked…

…Per what I was told by some old timers, Al Capone had supplier operations in Wisconsin. Many were conveniently located near railroad stations. The feds would drive up there to do a bust. One problem. The telegraph went faster than the fastest vehicle. By the time they showed up 8 hours to over a day later (roads were gravel or less, got mud?), the evidence was well hidden or destroyed. “Alcohol? This is spring water. Here is the spring. Inspect the bottles for yourself if you don’t believe us.”

Then there was transportation. The Feds would stop traffic and inspect freight cars and baggage cars. But they never inspected locomotive tenders. Why? That is too much work, requires getting dirty with all that coal dust, and the railroads are always adding water to tenders. Any alcohol would be diluted down to being worthless. Right? But where did the bottles of alcohol end up? In the tenders to be fished out at the engine servicing facilities in Chicago. Of course, everyone but the Feds were in on it, each getting his cut.

Who were Capone’s suppliers? Everyone from the farmer with several milk cows, a fruit and vegetable garden, and perhaps an orchard to small cheese factories. Most people don’t realize that equipment used for making cheese is easily converted over for making alcohol.

As for one size fits all justice system, I believe that it has shown it is broken. Some states have the death penalty. Others don’t. When the death penalty was added to the books, was there any real reduction in murders? How are the innocent getting what they deserve when falsely prosecuted for something they didn’t do and end up on death row? Then there is the fact that people are punished simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or for not having the “correct” political views.

Regarding the death penalty, what I find disturbing is those who proclaim themselves to be very religious are the most in favor of punishing the innocent, “if only it will prevent one more crime.” They are the same ones who are first in line to scream “death and let my god sort it out.” Why is this? That is all they know, as it is what they were taught.

2 Likes

@richp - your post was funny :grinning:, reminded me of… “but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

4 Likes

As far as booze and drugs are concerned, I’m not scared of sharing the road with people who are impaired. Sure, its dangerous, but whatever. Anecdotally, I know a couple people who have engaged in habitual impaired driving for decades without an accident.
Now, reckless/erratic driving is something else altogether, and should be dealt with by whatever authority is in charge of a given stretch of roadway, according to policies set by the owner of said stretch of highway.
Again, anecdotally, I remember back in the 1980s, driving through an indian reserve, a bunch of kids in a car that they used a cutter to cut off the roof, and using a big set of vise-grips locked onto the steering column in lieu of a steering wheel.
Now its illegal for kids to ride in the bed of a pickup or the back of a station wagon, and forget rumble seats.
As far as regulating transportation is concerned, well I think the ownership of the rails, roads and vehicles should decide how they want to run things.

Prohibition is just dumb, as it essentially invites ruthless entrepreneurs to take over the market, to the exclusion of everybody else.
As far as the death penalty is concerned, while I agree that some people need killin’, my trust in some centralised authority to decide who these people are and when they should be killed is pretty much zero, and I think negotiations between private security/arbitration outfits would be preferable.

“By education most have been misled; So they believe, because they were bred. The priest continues where the nurse began, And thus the child imposes on the man”

1 Like

I wish I could say the same. But I can’t. I know of several people who drove home drunk. In both instances, they took out a father who was driving to work because he needed to be there at an early hour.

In both instances, the drunk driver still claims it was the fault of the victim. “What was he doing out there, driving when only drunks are on the road!?!?”

Myself, as a truck driver, I have not been lucky. I sent a woman, who was driving while under the influence of her cell phone, into a field, missing two utility poles. She ran a red light while busy texting. I destroyed the load and her vehicle trying to avoid killing her, along with tearing up the fiberglass hood, plastic bumper cover, and headlight on the truck. The truck lived. Four long years later, management still reminded me of this incident and how it was all my fault, despite six weeks after it happened the insurance investigator and the police released reports to the contrary. That happened nine years ago. Every day, it still bothers me. The worst part is nobody understands. I still have the reports to remind me that it was not my fault.

This happened around noon, not at night. Proving that loose screws are on the roads at all hours.

About 25 years ago, on my way to work, another woman was busy talking on her phone and ran into me from behind. Why? Because, according to the police report, the light was red, so she assumed I was going to keep moving into cross traffic. My old pickup truck destroyed her car. To the point where the tow truck driver had to call a second tow truck with a hook to lift the engine and transmission, as they had completely separated from the rest of the vehicle. Fortunately, it happened near my house, in a state with a law that held her responsible for not maintaining control of her vehicle. She took it to court and easily lost. The traffic court judge was having none of her excuses.

I miss that truck. An airline mechanic killed it when he was driving home from work after an all-night shift, fell asleep, and ran a stop sign. His one ton van beat my pickup truck. No physical damages to myself. But it makes you wonder about the number of planes flying with loose or missing parts.

Just because you know people, able to drive while impaired, doesn’t prove that everyone is able to drive while impaired. It proves that so far, they have been very lucky playing Russian Roulette.

Now, please excuse me. I have to go clear my head. Again.

6 Likes

I still think that just because something is dangerous, is no reason to ban it, and once one behaves truly dangerously, then throw the book at him. By “behaving dangerously” I think it takes actual dangerous/erratic driving, no matter how blasted the driver may be.
Just driving on the roads is Russian Roulette, and the very idea of using state force to make that game safer sorta bugs me.
Agian, anecdotally, I remember drive-ins when I was a kid, with 200+ cars full of drunken and stoned kids all leaving the drive-in theatre at around 2 am. Good times!
Trying to bubble-wrap the world to make it safer is an exercise in both futility and totalitarianism, IMOH.

1 Like

Sorry, my toxification efforts have been unproductive lately! Redhat and ubuntu are doing such a good job of making linux seem dementedly unhinged that what more can one minor supervillain accomplish?

3 Likes

I fear you may have a rather valid point there, even though I had been a big fan of his way back when…

1 Like

Let’s steer this back onto the comedy track if that’s cool with y’all. It’s actually kind of thrilling being one of the “rebel” groups. We’re the “Bastards” that must come together and connect with the other bastards that have been outcasted and reclaim our entitlement of sensibility.

2 Likes

Well, you can go consummate yourself if you don’t like it. :laughing:

5 Likes

You should use phpBB, like everyone else [~cit.]
Shame on you!

1 Like

Enough of this toxic Discourse!

1 Like