Honestly I wouldn’t expect Kluxers and normal old world fascists to understand each other. One of them is about race, the other is usually about cultural and ideological divisions. Even if the latter use race as one excuse to murder someone en masse, it’s not the core of their ideology, the core is that they should be able and need to practice to murder someone en masse. While American racists are something extremely weird.

As someone from Russia, I grew up seeing movies where you all over there sue each other over unfortunate rude word.

Perhaps that last paragraph is where you really should try suing someone, no jokes.

In an environment most convenient for making webapps people make webapps.

It’s not even such a wrong idea honestly, if the “web” in “webapp” were a bit leaner and you’d make local applications with something document-oriented for GUI looking at a local service. It’s just a decent bit of structure to make application design easier. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

But, ahem, when by “webapp” we mean that we have a browser fulfilling the role of an operating system, and there’s one company making it, then something is wrong.

I’ve recently gotten to think that the company which made the basement for all these disgusting companies is usually viewed as not just not disgusting, but almost holy. Meaning Sun. So, maybe, judging the tree by its fruits, the most disgusting company was Sun.

I mean, I know that everyone who used their products and of course people who worked there are still in awe and remember it like a Soviet summer camp shown in the Everlasting Summer game.

But perhaps that’s misguided. They’ve built the hierarchical systems, the infrastructure, for all the dystopia of today, and their code still powers much of it.

Also you know how the second competitor in an almost monopolized market is sometimes considered an accomplice of monopoly? Because they are strong enough to support some of its ways, while the rest are not. So they reinforce it. I’m also looking at Firefox writing this. Literally.

Perhaps we’d have a better environment office-wise if LibreOffice and OpenOffice were not a thing. They support MS formats, thus indirectly contributing to MS dominance. The network effects work in a few different ways, while were it different, those desperately needing MS documents would use MSO, at the same time those just needing some office suite would possibly not.

Perhaps that can also be applied to Unix and Unix-likes, Sun made a lot of momentum for Unix and Unix-like desktops when they contributed to TCL/Tk so that it became a tool for making Unix and Unix-like desktop applications easily. And when they created Java and Java applets in web browsers prepared the public for scripts in browsers and cross-platform applications served over net.

Yes, it all felt like heaven behind the corner, but perhaps they are to blame. What if.

After all, much of that was free or for the cost of a CD then, and free cheese usually is part of a trap. Perhaps if instead commercial competing platforms, like Amiga or even Apple, were to gain more following, we’d have a different world. All those development resources couldn’t have been gifted (Sun in the 90s, I mean, and honestly many universities) out of nowhere, something made that worth the expense.

Or, if we want free and open, Lisp environments are somewhat easier to hack on (also again about TCL, it kinda approaches that in convenience for a non-programmer to make something simple, quick and dirty, but good enough), and accessibility to wider, eh, masses is meaningful here. So maybe GNU shouldn’t have gone with a Unix-like system idea. I mean, OK, they do have a Lisp environment fit for everything, it’s called Emacs.

BTW, about disgusting companies coming to mind first, I’m not disgusted by Oracle, in comparison to most other big ones they do honest business. I dunno why they are hated, uncle Larry says dystopian shit with enthusiasm and no remorse, but at the same time his company sells exactly what it advertises. It’s all kinda open and straightforward, it’s the “one rich asshole called Larry Ellison” company, which may not be what someone likes, but is certainly better than companies actively building worldwide digital fascism (it, of course, offers expertise and help to those who do in case they need it). Also he’s really a self-made man. Unlike all those other types from good families, good environments and with good education.

OK. I just have that conspiracy theory brewing in my mind about Sun actually being evil. Sorry.

It’s the most obviously flawed ideology o have ever seen.

It’s the exact opposite. It’s the only one incorporating all the basic necessary principles.

Which is why Cato institute is the only ideological authority which I can read without starting to curse.

And I’m certain you don’t know shit about ancap just like every other person I’ve met saying this. Maybe you should LYAO over how you repeat one and the same statement on it never providing arguments. Laugh over yourself, you know.

It’s the point which all decent ideologies approach. Left or right, doesn’t matter.

If you don’t have private property, then you have group property, which in human nature means group leader’s property (and also decisions made in a group don’t make anything better, might read about Khmer Rouge, they didn’t have such a strict vertical hierarchy, the results were not nicer from that). If you don’t have non-aggression as a principle, then you make it acceptable to attack those you (or your group) decide to be wrong people (say, suppose you’re a white supremacist commune), and forfeit any moral justification of tolerance to your own ideology. If you don’t have natural law as a principle, then your ideology is self-contradictory and you’ll have violence as the main justification anyway (also see USA as a nation, all liberal and moralist around except when it’s about natives’ rights). If you don’t have personal responsibility and freedom of choice as a principle, then you erode any idea of obligation and decency, since obligations and decisions will be imposed by various jerks upon you left and right and you’ll learn to discard them. And if you compare imaginary heaven of some ideology to today’s real world and think that the result of such a comparison is an indicator of anything, you should see a therapist.

Just look outside and see that this but worse is a terrible idea.

This doesn’t mean anything. I pity you if it does for you.

But that really is a bias too. Everything has a bias relative to most existing points of view. That’s why the “free speech” thing was invented, because when your world is larger than one isolated village or even one isolated, even if moving, royal court, then you can’t make everyone think the same subjectively correct way. Free speech was a way for nations to survive modernization. There are more dimensions to the world than any single person understands enough to not be what you said. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is an idiot in something and would want to shut everyone up in that dimension.

Not only it’s a right first and foremost of those you disagree with, though, but it also can’t ever be based on good will. It can only be based on inability to break by force. Like any other institution.

I think many bad things in our reality are due to reliance on good will having been covertly put into many key places of the mechanisms.

Sorry, but that’s all permanent political -isms. To find -isms which are not centered around that proposition, you have to leave politics and look for various ephemeral ideas, which only become popular in response to disturbances.

As an ancap whose views have been called repugnant too, I say you could be more specific and say he’s racist, misogynist and mixes up social prowess, intelligence and wisdom, while these are three different things.