lmmarsano

What's yours?

Needs text alternative.

Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:

• usability
  • we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
  • text search is unavailable
  • the system can't
    • reflow text to varied screen sizes
    • vary presentation (size, contrast)
    • vary modality (audio, braille)
• accessibility
  • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
  • some users can't read this due to lack of alt text
  • users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
  • systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
• searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
• fault tolerance: no text fallback if
  • image breaks
  • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

another case of willful ignorance of meanings of words & political science

not providing alt text is right wing

If the world seems unreal & you feel like you’re watching yourself play a role in a movie rather than living your life, then that might be a psychiatric disorder worth evaluation by a professional. It's normal on occasions, but not beyond that it interferes with your regular ability to function.

Yes. Problem?

Their weirdness doesn't affect my activity.

Needs text alternative.

Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

• usability
  • we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
  • text search is unavailable
  • the system can't
    • reflow text to varied screen sizes
    • vary presentation (size, contrast)
    • vary modality (audio, braille)
• accessibility
  • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
  • some users can't read this due to lack of alt text
  • users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
  • systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
• web connectivity
  • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
  • we can't explore wider context of the original message
• authenticity: we don't know the image hasn't been tampered
• searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
• fault tolerance: no text fallback if
  • image breaks
  • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

TPUSA always means toilet paper USA in my mind.

maybe !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

The obvious solution is to coopt their language to make them hate it.

Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights.

Was answered with

What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.

and counterexample of liberal socialism.

And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property.

Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about "personal property" & "means of production”.

Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[^unownable], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn't prohibit the right to have property.

fucking Proudhon

Don't know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn't an economic philosophy.

You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.

China at least is fucking big

That doesn't explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don't need it.

social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right

Again

The actions of governments don't necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.

Lapses from a philosophy don't inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.

Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?

[^unownable]: those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess

Nah, straw man & bait.

1. The actions of governments don't necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you're criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?

2. Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn't imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn't imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.

3. Now you're just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the "means of production". It doesn't reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.

4. Even so, your objections don't imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. "Generally supported" in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren't essential to the philosophy.

   Moreover, changing economic systems wasn't a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn't a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.

   Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.

   So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you're liberal.

If we're going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.

Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.

Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn't make it untrue. You don't speak for all socialists.

classic weaponization of "antisemitism"