this is so incoherent, that i think you’re just being disagreeable. have a nice day.

imprisonment is literally slavery

there are different kinds of slavery, and no one is saying prison slavery is exactly the same as chattle slavery, though it is more similar to chattle slavery than it is to wage slavery.

i quite like the out-of-the-box experience of debian13 running gnome, but i had to do quite a bit of tinkering to get my nvidia card running. it is running now, and i basically feel like i have a brand new computer.

I have a filter in emacs called “dotfiles.org”

I use the tangle feature to write them out

you’d still have to boot from cd, but i do recall one of the early versions happily moving everything from your old windows install. i’m still moving around my wife’s files from her xp install every time i need to set up a new /home part for her.

this is the second day of Christmas. I got 10 more

assuming you’re some militant vegan

it’s worse than that: they’re an evangelical vegan

sunshine isn’t an anarchist, they are an instigator

anarchism is socialist. it’s often called libertarian socialist.

exarcheia, and the Paris commune

multiplayer shooters with unlockable weapons/classes

you haven’t read any critical rationalists, and it shows.

edit: I accidentally a couple letters, but look at this fucking bad faith and proud ignorance

edit: it’s understandable I guess that when your worldview is threatened, you slink off pretending you were right all along.

now who looks ignorant

duvergers “law” is more of a tautology. it doesn’t describe any actual natural phenomenon like gravity does

duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it’s true by definition. duverger’s law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.

for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis.

the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger’s law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.

Both sides"ing Democrats in general elections helps MAGA, that is a simple fact.

wrong

saying it doesn’t make it so.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

wrong on all accounts

there is no evidence they support fascists

we can see who is dancing