So they…entered the neutral zone?

Kirk vibe intensifies.

Great. Then you shouldn’t have any problem coming up with three examples for us all.

The main problem is that some, sometimes most, of immigrants don’t want to assimilate. They are creating ghettos, don’t respect local laws.

Generalisations like this are the very reason it’s a polarising issue. Opinions like yours generally derive from “observation” and “gut feeling”. Which by definition is completely anecdotal and harmful when it begins to be applied to millions of people all at once.

Betsy from insert town here sees an immigrant couple down the street in her home-town keeping to themselves and not really wanting to take part in the community. She’s talking on the phone to nosy-nessie the town busybody who says “oh…you know…my aunt said the same thing about her insert culture neighbours.” And then all of a sudden, that’s just “how those people are”…all of them…everywhere.

Maybe this couple is just a little embarrassed about their english skills and want to strengthen them more before going into public everywhere, which comes across as shy. Maybe they’re just private…who knows. But suddenly…“it’s just how (those people) are”, becomes the anecdotal “truth”.

It’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and the fact that you don’t even grasp the irony of your own comment is telling in a lot of ways.

The full saying is “Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer”

Basically the “Free” in free means that it’s free to do with as you please, modify, etc… But not free as in “here’s a free product…like getting a free beer”

This software is extensively free (as in beer)

No…it’s not. It’s free to download and to use, but the expectation that people contribute in exchange for using it is how FOSS has always worked.

That doesn’t necessarily mean monetary. But contributing can be helping with user guides, or making youtube tutorials, or even just extending the reach of the program to friends and family by talking about it.

There are many ways to contribute, and money is one. But the notion that Open Source software is “free as in beer” has never been correct. Users have an expectation to contribute…period.

Unfortunately, there has always been the issue that a not-insignificant percentage of users of FOSS software believe the FREE part means “free as in beer” and take umbrage when asked to contribute.

I’ve long been a proponent (and I know I’m in a minority) that has advocated for a shift in the marketing of FOSS applications from “donation based” to “value based”. Meaning that the expectation is that if you enjoy the software, you pay an amount that you believe is commensurate to your use. This is voluntarily of course…if you can’t pay, than please use it and enjoy it. But those who can pay, should pay…at least a little bit, to offset the costs for those who can’t.

It’s more or less that the wording of FOSS apps needs to change so that you are expected to contribute if you can.

Just my opinion. Like I said, I know I’m in the minority. Just not a fan of the percentage of users that has always existed that (falsely) think that asking for money for your project is somehow anathema to the Open Source ideal and whine whenever they’re asked to contribute.

I don’t know why I’m bothering to feed a troll. But he literally travelled there in order to put himself in a situation where he might have to defend himself because he wanted to fucking shoot someone. He purposefully created the opportunity to shoot someone without having to “technically” be the attacker.

TRUMP:  “We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

MEDIA: “Oh there he goes again with his '‘deliberately ambiguous’ phrasing…”

What fucking part of that sentence was ambiguous???

And this is why the for-profit american justice system isn’t about rehabilitation.

A supply of slave labour requires recidivism.

America is barbaric.

Yeah…this is humour. But it’s exactly what’s going to go down.

If Harris wins, Trump will call it illegal because she wasn’t the original nominee. He’ll take it all the way to the supreme court and they’ll rule in his favour.

At that point, the people say you have one president. The supreme court will say you have a different president. So when the time comes to call in the national guard to protect the government…which one do they protect?

I hate to be the doom-crier in the room; but I seriously see this happening.

I’m not even an American and I would be so psyched by a Mark Kelly run for president.

Then all we would need would be to get Chris Hatfield as or PM up here and it would be an intelligent astronaut super hemisphere.

Oh believe me, I know. I agree.

but the argument nowadays is that common usage dictates that both are now “acceptable”, similar to how apparently “literally” now effectively means “figuratively” because everyone uses it.

Ha! How much time have you got?

Shallow and pedantic is my speciality.

But for the sake of brevity I’ll simply say that hearing (or reading) less in cases where fewer would be more appropriate is like driving an ice pick into my brain.

Yes…both are technically correct, but I have to fight the urge to be that guy whenever I hear it.

It’s been a long time since I last installed Linux on a two hard-drive system, so take this advice as “likely not necessary, but will probably fix your issue”

The installer asks whether or not you want to “replace” the existing OS or install alongside. And if you’re fairly new to linux (like I was at the time) it can be tricky to see at a glance which hard-drive you want to install it to and which you don’t.

So to be doubly cautious and make sure that didn’t happen, I simply unplugged my secondary harddrive during the install so that the installer would automatically be reading the correct one. Then all I had to do was choose “replace” or “install alongside” without worrying about anything else.

The drawback to that was, once the install was complete and I re-attached my second drive, I had to configure it to auto-mount and do some work on that, but at least my computer was working.

If I’m being honest, So many little distros just come and go that I’ve stopped bothering to learn about any of them until they have enough support that I know the devs aren’t going to just vanish in six months.

I never saw those moments as Kif being homophobic. I read it as a subordinate being repulsed by the idea of seeing his commanding officer naked.

Yeah, not a high-end business.

You are incredibly naive.

Short answer. Yes.

Long answer: I’m 48. And while some of what we are feeling is certainly a sense of “back in my day” nostalgia, its certainly not the only cause.

We are from a strange generation who were old enough to remember a world before all of this, and young enough to adapt to all of it with relative ease. ( “this” being a transition to an online existence)

Even one generation before us just simply struggles with it. And just one generation after us, while still “born” before this all became a thing, were to young to truly experience it.

So we have a very unique and valuable perspective to offer; one that says "yes, things seemed better back then, and that is likely most certainly true for many things. But some things were likely just as fucked up back then and we simply didn’t have the internet screaming it at us 24-7. And perhaps right and left were not quite as polarized as they are today because of it.

Just my Gen-x take on it.

I’m going to concede defeat here because obviously I’m not doing a good enough job in explaining my position. But everything you just listed is exactly my point. When did all of those things start occuring? Was it before or after MAGA took over the Republican Party?

Essentially all I’m saying is that Correlation does not equal causation. All of those things you’ve just listed aren’t because they’re conservatives, it’s because they’re assholes. They just happened to find a party (Republicans) that told them that it’s okay to let your asshole flag fly. Conservatism and Republicanism are two different things. Always have been. Conservatism is economic theory (low taxes, high privatization, lower goverment oversight, etc…) Republicanism is political theory (immigration, law and order, militarization, etc…)

MAGA took over Republicanism, convinced everyone that it was Conservatism in order to appeal to the “common folk” in order to take over the GOP.

You’re list isn’t a list of Conservative ideals, it’s a list of Republican ideals. Those aren’t the same thing.

I guess what I’m saying is, again, Correlation is not causation. All republicans are are conservatives, yes. But not all Conservatives are Republicans (or at least they wouldn’t be if the country wasn’t in the grip of some two-party system bullshit. They’re two very different things.

But again, I’m not doing a good job of explaining that, obviously, so I’m going to back out with grace and take the “L”.

Have a good day.

Hard disagree here.

I agree with you that Conservatism is an outdated concept that it’s done far more harm than good in the world. It’s a relic that needs to be relegated to the dust-bin of history, yes.

But Conservatism is nothing more than a series of economic and political ideals. Nothing more. There are a thousand different reasons for people to identify with one side or the other. Neither Conservatism nor the left equivalent are monolithic static things. They’re protean and change depending on the motivations of the people who currently hold their reins in the public sphere.

Does Conservatism (ie. The Right) generally attract more people with intolerant beliefs and hateful dogmatic behaviours? You’ll get no argument from me there. But the number of them that are willing to pick up arms and commit treason because of it. The number of the right that is wiling to use their intolerance as an excuse for violence, is still the minority no matter how many ways you slice it.

Conservatism might be old and outdated. It might be a haven for the uneducated and the intolerant. But here’s the thing…

It always has been.

And if it always has been, than why were the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, all violence free? Why was there heated debate between the two sides, but not violence? What’s changed now?

And you know the answer to that.