It is useful to have lots of stupid laws. It makes people feel powerless and frustrated. It means the police can always find excuses to persecute you.

The technicalities of the individual laws are not important. It’s the psychological effect of the whole body of laws on a people.

Yes you couldn’t change something so widely used. Look what happened with python 3.

Fortunately there’s already a tradition among Git users of building a UI on top of the git UI. My project is just a slightly better version of those. It lays a simple sensible interface on top of the chaotic Git interface.

Git is a great invention but it has a few design flaws. There are too many ways to confuse it or break it, using commands that look correct, or just forgetting something. I ended up writing simple wrapper script codebase to fix it. Since then no problems.

This is exactly what happens. The highest quality land in a country is used for tillage. The less productive parts are used for grazing. This is how farmers make the most money. They’d be fools to use productive land for grazing and grow crops on poor land.

greenhouse gases and water usage are different issues i didn’t address here.

the usa is one of the “few parts of the world” i was talking about, that it is a bad example of sustainable farming.

yes lots of people cant understand that others can have other ideas about the world. in fact the historical norm for humans is for everyone in the same community to believe the same thing. this time of ideological diversity we live in is anomylous.

of someone says “i believe the earth is flat” most people will not accept that immediately. it’s triggering.

people are triggered by alien ideas. it’s not bad. it’s just being human.

or at a stretch or could be an argument against beef. but the question was about meat generally.

what kind of erosion?

are you thinking of “overgrazing”?

depends on the land. normally livestock are put on land which won’t grow anything else.

that’s true in a few parts of the world. it may not be valid at all, depending where op is from. in general livestock is the most sustainable land use food.

people have lots of different reasons. some don’t like the idea of killing a big animal with feelings and expressiveness. some because of how farms abuse or torture animals in some countries. some think Anibal farming is worse for the environment. some have religious prohibitions. some think it’s bad for your health. some people don’t like the taste or can’t afford it but don’t want people to think they are weird so they tell people they have a principled argument for it.

It is all teddits.

The “slur filter” was causing so much arguing that the devs stopped hard coding it. Now the whoever is running the instance can choose any or no filter.

Thanks for the detailed explanation

reused some discourse about laïcité but amended it so much that it completely lost the spirit

I guess this is the most important point. Laicite was originally the same as secularism, but the idea has been strategically manipulated by politicians, to sow divide within society. I did not know that. (TBH I didn’t know the other historical points either)

destroy any sense of belonging or cultural identity

I do see that pattern. Being French means being nothing but French. You cannot have a second ethnicity. France made a big effort to destroy any local identities (most famously langue-doc). The modern laicite is like a new vergonha, shaming the muslims, while creating a convenient divide within French society. A classic political strategy, old as the hills.

all true. but France is also explicitly sectarian. it uses this “laicité” concept, which is often mistranslated as secularism. but France is not secular - it’s a distinct thing.

it means the state is allowed to forbid religious practices. where secularism is tolerant, laicité is intolerant. and it is exclusively used against Muslims. it’s a unique legal and political justification for state sectarianism.

i find it mad that so few people know about it. the French politicians say “it’s just like secularism” and everyone is fooled by that.

Very interesting. It shows that Lemmy was always a political project. It was always meant to advocate certain politics and discourage others.

IMO this is not what new users expect. So we keep seeing these posts of people realising, and being shocked, and sometimes rage-quitting.

Only a certain portion of people will stay with Lemmy after that realisation, and the others will flee. Is that what you want? (again just IMO)

If not, is there a way to make this political vision more evident, to try to stop this effect?

TBH I’m against the politics of Lemmy. But (IMO again) despite that it’s still a valuable project, and maybe a historically important one.

They might just be full of alt-right because they are small and few. If there were more free-speech spaces they would fill with normal people, so you wouldn’t notice the alt-right, like you don’t in bigger platforrms today.

More free-speech plaforms could be a good thing. Like wikipedia and openstreetmaps - as long as the normal people drown out the crazies, it works brilliantly, much better than a more tightly controlled space.