@swiley Thank you for pointing out! #pmOS is one of those promising #Linux mobile distros… that never seem mature enough 
My #phone (Moto G5s Plus, XT1805), is [not supported](https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices), and although I would love to contribute to the project myself, I lack the time and the attention atm 🤷♂️
> _“#Google defended its service fees, which it says ‘helps keep #Android free’.”_
Where can I pay a monthly subscription to support a mobile OS that is free software, customisable, feature-rich, ad and spyware-free, and that uses open protocols and formats? I do want to pay. I mean it. Please take my money.
> _“Most users are now silo'd inside an officially approved feature set. Except for #Linux, which is still figuring out how audio should work.”_
tripu
boosted
@tripu Espeluznante. Y luego los privilegiados que viven en Occidente pidiendo comunismo.
@gasull This week I listened to this #CurtisYarvin interview by #MichaelMalice (over several days, while working, not focused).
In it, #MenciusMoldbug says he's #rightwing because he's for order and not for chaos. As in: more secure streets and fewer homeless people is more orderly. Who could argue against that?
Some of the other easy examples he fails to mention are: one human race giving the orders while the other races do the work is also more orderly than the “chaos” of mingling all skin colours; there's more order in a society with no drugs than in a society where people seek inspiration and comfort and silliness in drugs. Top-down autocratic hierarchies definitely generate more “order” than voluntary agreements between peers. Heterosexual relationships, mandatory marriage and monogamy are “order”, while free love and tolerance are more chaotic. etc.
To me, more signs that he's a very dangerous and charismatic demagogue. Shamelessly dog-whistling to advance the most retrograde of causes :(
@codewiz Oh, it was about that panel explaining the parallelism between those alpine train networks in CH and in JP. I found it interesting — two extremely prosperous and interesting cultures, united by their special relation with trains, even at very high altitudes and under very harsh conditions… 💖
@codewiz very cute!
@eslibre, ¿hay novedades sobre los vídeos de la edición de este año? Algunos estamos deseando revisar lo que no pudimos ver en su momento 😊
> _“Thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces.”_
I replied in five toots to avoid a single very long post, and to try to disentangle our discussion by splitting up sub-arguments for the sake of clarity.
> _“It’s not a sex inequality issue cause it can’t be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution.”_
Let me blow your mind: yes, I would consider “equal number of women dying” a better situation.
Like so:
[In my country, last year, there were 751 work fatalities](https://qoto.org/@tripu/106800194929488927), of which 696 were men and 55 were women. That is so mostly because men are overrepresented in dangerous industries and hazardous jobs. If those _same jobs_ were filled in roughly equal numbers by men and by women, we would end up with roughly the _same number_ of total work deaths, but split more evenly between the two sexes. That would not be a worse net outcome (it's the same unfortunate number of fatalities), but the gender imbalance itself would be gone. (And yes, obviously, every sane person would _at the same time_ advocate for more safety equipment, better work conditions and security checks, etc. for everyone. But that's a separate issue.)
There you go. I just proved to you that this mostly-male issue can “be solved by sex equality” (your words).
For the last time: **will you admit that work deaths are “a sex inequality issue”?**
(Also: you retorted dismissively _“unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution”_ but, how could _“equal number of {women/men} {outcome}”_ ever be a bad idea, if one considers him/herself an egalitarian, a feminist, a non-sexist? Try it: “equal number of women managing companies”; “equal number of men earning PhDs”; “equal number of women using drugs”; “equal number of men working at nurseries”… _“Equal number of {women/men} {outcome}'”_ should be quite literally the motto of someone who is for equality of the sexes!)
> _“Yes men hate OTHER men.”_
This one sentence summarises very nicely where you're coming from.
**Men hate other men? Speak for yourself!**
/cc @b6hydra
> _“Objective devaluation of men's lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women's, and yes it is patriarchy”_
So we live in society that is “controlled by men”, and men decided to use that power to devalue their own lives (so that they die younger, live more often on the streets, are incarcerated more often, etc) and to value more the lives of women (so that they get more degrees, work shorter hours, are not sent to wars, etc).
I think I get it now.
> _“That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context... obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime... major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues...”_
Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men _only_.
Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related, and that it would make no sense in the context of a society where men actually “exerted absolute authority” and “used their power to their own advantage”?
> _“Same goes for most of your other "men issues" that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes.”_
“_Just_ mortality”. You mean _staying alive_. As in, the very thing that all human beings hold most valuable, and the only common prerequisite for all the other good things we might value.
Also: homelessness, imprisonment and drug abuse are among the worst situations anyone can experience. They affect men overwhelmingly.
Again: what is your definition of “sex equality issue”? I'd like to read it in full.
> _“What's your solution, make sure more women die at work so it's equal, yay, we're done?”_
I'll ignore the captious question.
> _“No, the solution is to make sure less people die in general and that has nothing to do with their sex.”_
That is very cute. How did I miss that simple solution? Nobody has to die!
Now let's talk about the real world.
My point is that the same people who defend female quotas, public campaigns to increase the visibility of women, subsidies for feminist initiatives, tax exemptions when hiring women, more funding for research in female illnesses, special treatment for females in male-dominated fields, etc. — those same people should be asking employers to better protect their male workers specifically, campaigning to get insurance companies to give male workers better quotes or coverage, donating safety equipment for men in hazardous industries, pressuring to get laws passed to alleviate the physical toll in male-dominated manual labour sectors, etc.
I personally do not support the former, and thus I do not support the latter. But if someone is in favour of special measures for women, _they should be in favour of special measures for men where that makes sense, too._
> _“How the fuck is work deaths a sex equality issue?”_
How is an extremely bad outcome (_death_, no less) affecting 1,165% more men than women (ie, men being _>12× more at risk_) _not_ a sex equality issue?
Issues with a much, much smaller imbalance in favour of men (eg, the “pay gap”) are invariably considered a sex-related issue.
Your points seemed all very confusing to me. And you did not argue against any of mine, _specifically_. But I'll try to answer. I hope you'll reciprocate.
If that's your takeaway, I must have done a really bad job at explaining myself.
What does “not all men” even mean?
Which of the steps in my argument do you disagree with, and why?
