Communist

locked to flatpaks by default makes sense long-term, I think.

Might be a little difficult in the beginning though.

“Pick a distro” is why they’re waiting for steamos, presumably.

he never said you shouldn’t use it, just that you shouldn’t support them

using it isn’t supporting them.

wellp, most of these didn’t happen, next year is looking extremely promising though.

slight correction, you have state and government backwards.

Communism is a stateless, classless, currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production.

bluesky is foss and open to federation, why not bluesky? Also a mastodon bluesky bridge is possible because of this as well

democracy is actually key to communist philosophy, dictators simply conveniently ignored that

Your problem is that when people argue against rational self-interest, they’re arguing against what ayn rand meant by it… because she coined the term and defined it, and as she defined it, it’s really stupid.

You’re just talking about rational self interest the phrase, which has nothing to do with her ideology, and is not what is ever being criticized… because again she is the inventor of the ideology.

This is akin to if you argued with a communist, saying communism is obviously wrong because you don’t like particular communities such as terrorists and commun-ism means belief that all communities are good. This is technically a correct interpretation of the etymology, but is not what anyone means when they refer to communism. You’ve completely redefined the term that has already been defined by a particular person who coined it, because you prefer to use the etymological definition rather than the definition created by the inventor of the term. You are then arguing that people using the term as it was defined by it’s creator are using it wrong, even though there is a particular history associated with this term and people are referring to that history. Why do you believe that the historical value of the term is less important than it’s etymology? If we follow this structure, most meaning will fall completely apart.

for example, the word meaning, mean-ing, without the history that binds us in our communication that could mean the process of being mean, there’s no reason this doesn’t work etymologically, but we have history with these terms that make them have meaning beyond their etymology.

Do you believe ayn rand believed in rational self-interest?

If so, why was she against all forms of welfare and socialism? If not, isn’t she the inventor of the concept and thus the arbiter of what it should mean? Doesn’t that mean you’re changing the definition to suit your needs?