If you have Nautilus as the filemanager, you can write a Nautilus script that does this for you, you just then have to right click and select the script. You can run essentially any script this way, I use it for some preset file conversions.
But that’s not socialism, is it?
Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can’t argue that the needs are being ignored.
But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for “Jesus was a socialist”, is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “you should vote for needs-based welfare programs”.
The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.
Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.
If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.
“Arab spring …” So you cite an example of social activism that disastrously failed (by your own admission) to justify a similar action by your hand?
Even then it doesn’t disprove that individuals that contribute more are statistically more likely to be noticed when absent. If you want to have an impact, especially a positive one, it helps to not have anger as your sole motivator.
“So there is no ruling class”
What exactly is a ruling class to you? There will always be a deciding group. Even in anarcho-fantasies that rule by consensus there will always be a small group that refuses to negotiate, they become the ruling class in that circumstance. So do they get deported to an archipelago for refusing to come to a consensus? Don’t the deporters become the ruling class then?
Any sort of organized society outside of intimate groups needs some sort of hierarchical decision making. It’s one thing to advocate for positions to be more logically allocated, and another to be completely destroyed.
“Don’t put words in my fucking mouth”
I’m impressed that you aren’t apparently a hypocrite by holding others to a logical standard that you don’t follow. Unfortunately that logical standard is that being angry justifies spreading textual diarrhea all over Lemmy.
How do you abolish the profit motive? It’s literally just the motivation to benefit from a transaction.
“Put the ruling class in work camps”
So create another ruling class to imprison these people? Do the new ruling class have to be subject to imprisonment as well? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is now oppressing the previously wealthy? Shouldn’t they also be subject to imprisonment for abuses?
“At least that way my vote might mean something”
And it will mean more depending on how much you contribute to society.
“I’m so tired and angry all the time”
So am I. I’m so tired and angry, I have no recourse but to criticise you. Oh, that’s not a legitimate reason, you say? My mood doesn’t justify my behaviour you say?
Pretty standard in manufacturing sector. There are so few people with the skillset and reliability to operate a factory, that they perpetually pay out overtime because they really have no other option.
You joke, because you have nothing to contribute. You’re not demoralised, this has no effect on you.
“They murder us… nothing but meat” And you are offering alternatives how? Stop pretending to be outraged when you care so little that you can’t even be bothered to investigate the causes of issues and proffer solutions.
Whenever you read “X-year old does something”, it’s usually already been done or a slight modification of something already been done.
You realise that most encryption can be decrypted by third-party? Many cryptography libraries have huge flaws, even the Handbook of Applied Cryptography was encouraging using Damgard et al’s parameters for prime selection even though the original authors never claimed the accuracy that others assumed (without basis). Even now, can you guess how many cryptography libraries would be broken if someone found a BPSW pseudoprime? And we have arguments that they probably exist, but crypto developers just ignore it either out of ignorance or laziness.
In summary, it’s all theatre, you just want to deny access to enough parties that it makes you comfortable.
Encryption only works if certain parties can’t decrypt it. Strong encryption means that the parties are everyone except the intended recipient, weak encryption still works even if 1 percent of the eavesdroppers can decrypt it.
The mersenneforums have users solve an obscure (to a non-mathematician) but relatively simple number theory problem.