In contexts where mistakes don’t cost people’s lives.

deleted by creator

If you wanted a privacy angle.

Turns out “move fast and break things” doesn’t work that well in the auto industry

I meant something a little more peer-to-peer than lemmy/mastodon actually. Each person self-hosting their own.

So in other words this is a tech issue.

As someone who’s written in-browser player and transcoding/server code…the lemmy/mastodon etc. version of this can work, especially if flexible bitrate handling is baked into it (i.e., bitrate offer/acceptance matching over a protocol). You can get this down to YouTube interface + install some software + open a port on your firewall.

Like “AOC” didn’t spend the last year talking out both sides of her mouth about a genocide, including endorsing one of its perpetrators. AOC isn’t a “progressive”, she’s the epitome of the Democratic party, all appearance and no justice, “where protest movements go to die”.

Activists have already moved on from her, what is taking the rest of you so long?

I suspect you have better answers to that question than I do. Though the more pertinent question would probably be the reparations they’re owed from the genocide perpetrated against them by the U.S.

Uh yeah, so the point of the meme isn’t to make the association of anyone with lizards, it’s to point out the ridiculousness of land claims based on ethnic/religious identity and ancient historical associations. You can’t just preemptively neuter every analogy or metaphor because there’s some conceivable way that somebody could take it wrong.

An appropriate response would be that Native Americans are still being oppressed, marginalized, having agreements violated, to this day, that they’re rightly due actual reparations and land back on that basis, but that the statute of limitations for these kind of claims, if you’re trying to devise some kind of universal ethical system to deal with them, may extend 100, 200, 300 years, for various types of claims, but not 2,000. And the population dynamics and methods of displacement and so on are not the same at all either, which have critical implications on who they would expect reparations from. The Palestinian people did not displace the ancient Jewish population - genetically it’s been shown that they’re the descendants of that population, religious identity notwithstanding. The Romans and other groups instigated that displacement. The Jewish groups in the diaspora are not solely descendants of that population either, they’ve intermingled with other populations, such as in Eastern Europe. Native Americans on the other hand have a direct claim against the people still occupying the land they inhabited, and I’d say have remained a more distinct group today, if you want to deal with the question of ethnic homogeneity (which is of questionable importance in the first place).

Picture some scenario where you were going to have some kind of hypothetical international lawsuit, assuming all things were on the table in terms of what you could dedicate for reparations, and that you’re just slapping reparations onto different ethnic groups for their historic grievances. Who would the Jewish people as a whole be looking for reparations from first? The Post-WWII migration was spurred by Nazi Germany. They were alienated of their property in Europe. Germany pays some marginal form of reparations today, but for some reason the question of their compensation has been answered by depriving a completely unrelated people of their rights. What cause of action do the Jewish people have against Palestinians? None. The Palestinians today have a cause of actions against the subset of Jewish people who participated in their ethnic cleansing and genocide. The situation is not comparable to that of European settlers vs. Native Americans at all, unless you invert it to say, the Native Americans have a cause of action against European settlers for ethnic cleansing and genocide. What you are doing is inverting it into some hypothetical situation where Native Americans have performed ethnic cleansing and genocide against white people, which they have not, not in any meaningful sense. The way you have to understand these questions is that one group has been put into a lesser position of wealth and privilege than another, and that attempts to deal out justice would have to resolve that imbalance, but only to the extent that it’s reasonable and just.

One of the more jarring facts is that the so-called “post-colonial” era was more of a move to outsourced administration of colonies than actual independence. The fact that “intervention” is still performed basically only when some area has valuable resources or some kind of strategical advantage really says it all.

Saw an excellent video from some Al Jazeera offshoot yesterday. The guy was explaining the concept that Europeans actually tended to put in minority populations in charge that were sympathetic to their interests - Alawites in Syria, the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, European Zionists in Palestine - and that the borders were essentially designed for colonial administration instead of representing existing groups.