Every now and then I come across a post on the Fediverse on the subject “not @ me” and I always find it interesting to see the point to which people go to stand for their right to use this formula in order not to receive any response to whatever subject they are writing or venting about! They even become aggressive and impolite!
From my stand point, this is a very easy way to avoid having to reply to someone with a different opinion and I can't understand it unless I look at it from the perspective of someone who is extremely selfish. I can't even fathom the reason why someone would want to say something in the middle of a crowd and expect/force everybody else not to answer, no matter what he/she/they is/are saying! Why would someone do that in the first place?! And, how come that someone might think he/she/they is/are entitled the right to deprive the others from their own rights?! Is freedom of speech something that is only good when applied to oneself?! Can I deprive the others from the rights that I treasure so much?!
This issue is also related to my first bad experience on the Fediverse: after more than two decades on the Internet, I came across a lady that felt very offended because I had replied to a “not @ me”. I didn't know the meaning of that at that time because I didn't use to use certain networks. I wasn't impolite and I apologised. And I kept receiving aggressive replies to my apologies! I stopped, obviously!
How come that someone's right to “not @ me” can take precedence over their duty to respect the others? Can't anyone make a mistake these days anymore? Perhaps it would be good if those people who fight with such aggressiveness for their “God given” right to “not @ me” started learning some manners too! They come handy everywhere!
This post deals with some serious stuff, as you may have guessed by its tittle, stuff that worries me as we see the growth of the Capital Punishment or Death Penalty in various forms.
IRL (In Real Life) the Capital Punishment is still present in many countries, — fortunately not as many as it used to —, and has the aim of putting an end to the life of someone that has committed any crime that violates the country laws or to silence the voice of someone that has ideas which are in opposition to the will of those in power. In the later case the ones who hold the power lack the ability of persuading that person of the virtues of the politics they are implementing. So, they turn to this radical measure as a means of avoiding other/different opinions from spreading.
Recently, unfortunately, we've been witnessing the resurgence of radical forms of punishment IRL and also on the virtual world, that world where people thought it wouldn't be possible to have this type of punishment and where people thought they could create a world of freedom where democracy, free speech and liberty would reign.
We're used to read about governments imposing measures like censorship, both IRL and online, and the Capital Punishment when they want to preserve power or pass laws that result in maintaining that power regardless the people's will. But we aren't used to think about other forms of censorship and Capital Punishment. I'm referring to individuals imposing the same hideous measures.
What's interesting is that we tend to find these measures unacceptable when they are imposed by governments but accept them when they are applied by individuals, even though they are as hideous as when they are applied by the former!
It is also interesting that we find this daily on our beloved Fediverse, a place where FOSS reigns and where, I believe, open mind, free speech and respect should prevail! Not so, in some cases, I must say!
Yes, “I have a dream...” is the title of a very famous and marking speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963. It was a speech that wanted to make a stand, a stand for freedom, for the fulfilment of the “promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”, he said.
And he ended his speech saying:
“And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Sometimes, —far too many times, I would say—, I find myself in the situation of landing on a webpage for the first time because one of my online friends shared it and I found it interesting.
Then, one of two things usually happen: either I am presented with a pop-up window asking me to select the type of cookies that I will accept or I I'll have another pop-up window asking me to accept the entire family of cookies that resides there! And I find this very strange and, at the same time, stupidly interesting!
How come that webpages that are supposed to abide by the GPDR try to force the reader to accept their cookies to be able to access their content?
How come that not giving the readers the chance to choose the type of cookies they allow to enter their computers is abiding by the GPDR and respect the reader's freedom of choice, privacy and security?
How come that these sites are still allowed to be online?
How come that we continue to accept this situation?
These sites aren't showing any respect for their readers when they give us the ultimatum: accept if you want to read or leave!
Fortunately, we still have the choice and, unless it's really mandatory to use it, I LEAVE!