🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥
Oh yeah, I have same issue. Certain things are impossible to enlarge. It’s infuriating.
Same with moving window controls on the right. You would think a “premium” OS would let you choose trivial things like this, but no.
Apple “superior” workflow means bending to use tools and workflows they designed, the way they intended. Anything else and you are generally going to be blocked one way or another.
Being in a similar situation as you (have to use for work), I would also add the fact that docking station support when it comes to displays is awful, almost nobody got 2 displays working with the dock and I have to plug one HDMI directly into the Mac. Then there is the fact that it’s impossible to turn on the computer via the docking station button, so I had to just use sleep instead, and 40% of the times the USB peripherals get disconnected, so I can’t wake it up except by unplugging and replugging the docking cable.
Besides that, I have 2 2k display and using Mac they are substantially more blurred than they are with Linux or windows.it’s like if everything is bold on Mac. Apparently it has to do with some feature which got removed for non-4k monitors or something.
Thankfully we managed to get Aerospace now installed (I.e. approved), because being used to efficient i3-like window managing, using macos native window management felt like being back in bronze age. There are so many things that apple built expecting you to use the trackpad for efficient workflows… Why would I use a trackpad in a (home) office setting, when it’s terrible for ergonomics, requires the laptop to be open etc…
If you are referring to ancient Greece/Rome as a culture where homosexuality (specifically sex between men) was normalized, that’s wrong. What actually was normal was men having sex with male kids, not adults (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece). This is clearly something we now consider a complete abomination, obviously, but men did not use to have sex with other adult men (surely there were cases, but it was not a widespread cultural phenomenon like pederasty).
This is also why I don’t think it makes sense to use historical references to help build a moral foundation about what’s right and what’s wrong. Gay sex is fine because it’s consensual adults enjoying and not harming anybody, not because there was some golden age in which this was accepted.
So, not carbonara. Pasta with lemon is awesome, I also love pasta with tuna, both also work together, but it’s not a carbonara.
I will go out on a limb here and guess those were not ravioli and some form of pelmeni instead? There are types of them that are usually eaten with sour cream and jam. But the dough used is quite different from the ravioli one, and the filling is cheese (not meat or ricotta/spinach).
Was that the case?
It actually makes sense, because Italian history is far from a continuum. In fact, most “Italian cuisine” is actually less than 100 years old!
Most of Italian recipes are very simple. The focus usually is on quality on the ingredients and if they are good, a pizza with just mozzarella and tomatoes is already delicious. That said, even in Italy there are plenty of types of pizzas, but most of them don’t have 20 ingredients, I suppose the point is that you actually want to taste what you eat, which is not the case when you mix many different things. There is a very messy and rich pizza (capricciosa) with a lot of toppings though (more than one obviously, but this is the most common).
Personally I am a margherita person, simple and boring is perfect, as long as it tastes great.
P.s. Giuseppe :)
It’s not about being right, it’s about making something that tastes good. Besides that, there are also well established cultural traditions. But as long as people call their garbage pizzas “NY pizza”, or whatever and it’s well distinguished by “Italian pizza” (or Neapolitan, etc.), I don’t see the problem.
Completely different dough in terms of consistency and taste. Bread and pizza are quite different, so many ingredients that work on pizza don’t work on sandwiches and vice versa. Having said that, people can eat what they please.
For what is worth, that’s not how (most?) Italians think about pizza. It’s not a “container” in which you put a bunch of things, but each pizza type is basically a separate dish.
I personally don’t care what people put on their pizza, I simply avoid places that make “pizzas” in a non-italian fashion, like the american (supposedly NY style) ones where you get crust, 2 fingers of industrial cheese and a whole plant of oregano.
It’s very similar for pasta, which many people think as a bread replacement.
The word has seen an expansion of meaning already after WWII. It’s totally normal today to refer with fascism to traits of the historical fascist movements, without referring specifically to them.
We invented the word, unfortunately, and this distinction is nowhere to be seen.
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/fascista/ (you can translate).
seguace, sostenitore del fascismo, come movimento politico italiano del periodo tra le due guerre mondiali: un f. della prima ora, un f. antemarcia; un f. convinto, un fervente f., una f. fanatica; anche, semplicem., chi era iscritto al partito. In senso più ampio, chi, anche dopo la caduta del fascismo, si fa (in Italia o in altri paesi) banditore, fautore o seguace di concezioni e metodi proprî del fascismo
My rough translation: Follower, supporter of fascism as an Italian political movement during the period between the two world wars: [examples], also, simply who was a member of the party. In a wider sense who, even after the fall of fascism, advertises (in Italy or abroad), enforces or follows conceptions and methods belonging to fascism.
That’s pretty much the same as the meaning 2 in the Merriam-Webster, although that definition is very diluted and just mentions “autocratic or dictatorial control”.
So at this point it seems the capitalization is just an English thing (makes absolutely no sense for me), but the underlying concept is pretty much the same, even though it seems in English the word is less specific than it is in Italian (which is a shame IMO).
I have no horse in this race, but as an Italian, I think you are actually misusing the word. Your explanation also showed that, when you called fascism (honestly, there is no distinction with capital letter…) a platform. Fascism is a method to conduct politics, it’s not an ideology per se. In general, it’s a violent way to impose political decisions, which entails the suppression of political opposition with violence, repression, censoring and suppression of freedoms, a cult of the state which embodies the authority, a call to tradition and religion etc. While there are these common traits, there is not really a common base ideology on top of which fascist governments through history have based their politics. Franco in Spain was different from Mussolini, who was different from Hitler.
Under this lens, one could argue that Trump can still be seen as a fascist, I guess. I personally find it easier to use the term for Orban in Hungary, for example, or for Putin.
I think you are underestimating just how racist certain parts of this country are, and how important racial ideology is to their culture.
I also want to expand the perspective and not be US-centric. I am not from US, I don’t live there. There are many other places that share similar situations. I can agree that perhaps in some parts of US what you are saying is true. I am saying that this is definitely not the case in many european countries where there is no such racial divide. Of course, right-wing parties still utilize race whenever they can (e.g., immigration).
See that’s where I disagree, there are progressive political parties who engage in class consciousness. They just aren’t popular, and don’t tend to attract a lot of white young men, or at least in my area.
Yeah, of course they exist, this is the same in Europe. They are not mainstream, they are not among the parties people vote to see their representative in parliament etc. This is why I stressed on the “mainstream” aspect.
Fox News doesn’t match that description? Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, a slew of other networks or anchors that specifically talk about this constantly? They have plenty of political outlets, just not a lot of healthy ones. But again, this is because those same networks are ran by the people who benefit from preserving the status quo.
You are right, and probably I did not specify well enough. I am talking about progressive (and leftist) political outlets. You quoted exactly the kind of people I was referring to when I mentioned those who end up capturing the problems for these people and then using them for their own interests. To simplify: if a poor white man sees in his interest the Carlson’s agenda and not the one from a progressive movement, this is a failure first and foremost of that movement imho. To me it is a failure in building an analysis and making proposals that people from all races and genders can understand and recognize themselves into. This is why I mentioned that imho the Carlsons are just the flipside of the coin of a neutered progressive (mainstream!) movement.
Plus, i think the same problems are endemic to minority groups as well. It’s not like this representation is really focusing on class politics, they’re all based around individual rights. What exactly is the difference between the leaders of black lives matter and Jordan Peterson, other than one may have more legitimate complaints?
Exactly my point! And yet BLM is the mainstream movement that reaches the news and essentially the only one that we know of from US on the other side of the ocean. I am sure that for locals things might be different, but that’s exactly what I am referring to as the problem. The main political discourse is occupied by movements which lost all traits of class politics, therefore laying the ground for people to entrench themselves into movements based on characteristics which are (politically) irrelevant. If you are a poor (maybe relatively uneducated) white man, your political opinion is hardly shaped on niche analysis and research, and more based on what you see around you (TV, socials etc.). If all this person sees are movement who don’t talk at all about problems they might be facing, then they will turn to those who do, Carlson and these other toxic guys.
Yes, but that is typically what progressiveness looks like outside of class consciousness, and I don’t really foresee us evolving past that any time soon.
Me neither, but this means that the struggle is completely neutered and within the boundaries of the system, and as such cannot address systemic issues. I think it’s absolutely necessary to see past it, given the global political situation.
I think we have essentially been in agreement, with maybe some differences in opinion about the scope of white supremacist ideology being practiced in America.
Very likely, and probably also because I live in a different world and I have a different background, so I did not want to dismiss but also did not want to focus solely on US issues/perspective. I also believe that the people the article talks about are -unfortunately- not only is US. I remember Peterson having a talk (or whatever you can call those) where I live and it was fully booked…
Would that person be claiming that young white men are the most disadvantaged class?
I don’t think so, and I don’t see why it’s relevant. Young white men are not a class, also, and I don’t see why they should think in those terms. The fact is, if you are told that you are on top due to the population you belong to, but you effectively are not, you are alienated by that movement. I think it’s fairly straightforward, no? A movement that considers “young white men” a class (a privileged one), is alienating because it fails to capture the reality of class structure.
Only that if you were to for some reason break class down to race and gender, young white men would not more discriminated against than anyone else.
And I agree with this.
I mean we are talking about people who are claiming that young white males are being ignored or specifically discriminated against. So they’re already drawing conclusions based on race. In America a common trope is to blame minorities for economic disparity. Going back prior to the civil war, where poor white farmers blamed the slaves for ruining the labor market.
Yeah but we are not talking about the people of this article specifically, are we? I am talking about generally poor men. Why these people should think that they should be more privileged based on race? I think that the majority of people would simply want to have more, exactly like everyone else. The idea that people should deserve more based on their race seems closer to white suprematism which is a minoritarian ideology. Also this is very unlikely in countries that don’t have the same racial divide as the US.
The premise was that young white men were specifically disadvantaged.
And this - to some extent - is also my argument. Specifically, they are because their oppression is not acknowledged nor part of the agenda for the progressive movements. They are alienated as oppressed and they are not member of the upper class by virtue of their population, hence they are as oppressed as others, without anybody representing their problems. So they are specifically disadvantaged from this perspective as there is not even a movement that they can support in which they recognize themselves. Some of them, turn to reactionary ideologies/people (like the ones in this article) that capture their problems.
And white men do not?
Not in the same way. Again, the mainstream cultural discourse lost a lot of the political connotation and flattened purely on gender/racial issues, so no, white oppressed men don’t have a political outlet that capture their struggle in the same way, right now. This to me explains the growth of the Jordan Peterson & co., which act as representation for those people’s issues, and are the exact reflection of the progressive movement who -failing to put class struggle at the center, and focusing on individual populations- pushes the idea that oppressed populations are actually in competition with each other for vital space (sorry, nothing to do for white men, you are already on top, now we need to support [POPULATION]).
When I said the top, I meant in policy.
Well this in my opinion is an extremely limited perspective, because oppression and inequality is not solved by policy.
And if they told you they were progressive about mens rights?
I would answer the same I answered before, I don’t care about mens right per se. I generally strongly oppose this idea that class should be divided in the different population, each with its own set of problems and demands. This to me seems like a perfect way to shatter class unity which becomes purely based on mutual support (being an ally) rather than on common interests and reciprocal recognition as members of the same class and victim of the same dynamics.
First I do think we live in statistics, some of us may be unaware of this but it affects nus either way.
What I mean is that if I am a white unemployed, poor, knowing that 90% of rich people are white and male doesn’t make me any richer or privileged.
a poor white person is likely to believe they should be more privileged based on their race
based on what you think so?
Finally we are discussing social class, not how individuals react to the idea of social class. I didn’t say all white people were privileged people, I said white people belong to a privileged class. It’s the same as saying San Fransisco is a rich city, instead of saying everyone in San Francisco is rich. If you are not a rich person in San Francisco, and I said the problem is inherent in the wealth of San Francisco, would you take it personally?
But this is the problem. Class is not tied with demography in itself, class has to do with relationship to wealth. White people don’t belong to a privileged class, the privileged class is mostly composed by white people. They are not the same thing. I would take it personally if you defined policy that worked on the assumption that “San Francisco” is rich, if I am one of the thousands of homeless people, indeed.
Right, but who does have that kind of representation or voice if not white men? Even in your example you highlighted how intersectional feminism never got its time in the mainstream.
Women and other minorities today have that representation. Mainstream discourse involves a lot these topics. Unfortunately not intersectional feminism, because that’s way too threatening.
I mean, I think that’s fairly natural if there really isn’t much room for men to progress in a society. If you’re already at the top
That’s the thing, being a man doesn’t make you on top. Thinking this way, with airtight categories is indicative of the kind of idea that as long as “a proportionate amount of women” are going to be “on top” (i.e., in position of power), we are fine. We are not. This always leave a significant amount of people oppressed. That’s why I think feminism should be (and partly is!) a transformative movement, and why I think it’s a problem that it has been swallowed by the status quo. This, to me, is the wrong battle. If someone told me that since I am man I am “on top”, and therefore I should just be an ally, I would feel alienated, because this fails completely to capture the mechanism of the system that oppresses both me and women.
You don’t need to embody someone’s personal lives to understand that your grandfather lived an upper middle class working at a factory, and you can barely afford to make rent. That your father married his highschool sweetheart and started a family in his twenties, and you’re thirty and can barely afford groceries for yourself.
Sure, and that’s why I spoke about expectations. But a feeling of being prosecuted requires something else, in my opinion. Everyone in the situation you describe would realize that the problems are common, and not “mine” because male. What I thought you were referring to was the dissonance between expecting a privileged life and having a regular one, such as not being handed over things on a silver platter and having to simply “work” for them.
Right…but can you claim in an academically honest way that a poor white man has historically been offered more opportunities to succeed than a poor black man? That poor white men and poor black men have the same opportunities to lift themselves out of their class structure?
Sure, but that doesn’t help anybody, because we don’t live in statistics and we don’t live historically. If I am a struggling person, telling me that historically the category that I happened to belong to was privileged hence I am privileged feels like adding insult to injury. In fact, the moment arguments such as “sorry, it has been centuries the turn for [CATEGORY] now it’s the turn of [OTHER CATEGORY]” are thrown around is the moment those categories will see themselves as adversaries for vital space, and not on the same side fighting against an oppressor, which is exactly what I think happens in many instances today. And make no mistake, I think this is by no means a coincidence, this is absolutely functional as such struggle is less threatening to who detains power.
Idk, I would say the majority of the United States Congress has been very open to mens rights advocacy. This discourse revolves around people like Tate who have created space specifically for men to air their grievances.
I am talking about mainstream and daily life. And it’s not even about men’s right, it’s about struggle of people independently from the individual social group(s) they belong to, but more focused on class (for example). The “men’s right” movement is a reactionary movement that sees in feminism and other movements a threat, and to some extend, they are a threat. Intersectional feminism is not mainstream, it did not really breach the social norm or discourse. What did breach is the superficial/apolitical version of it that stays on the surface. This is what people see everyday in movies, TV series, on the workplace, on social media etc. This is what I mean by not having representation, not having a voice.
They are included vicariously, the progressive ideology of supporting young people doesn’t preclude young men. It just isn’t solely focused on them.
I can’t talk about what’s going on in US, but what reaches on the other side of the ocean, doesn’t include men at all. In fact, the main cultural result of progressive movements that I can observe from here is “woke”-ism, which I lack a better term to define, which is basically apolitical and fully focused on individual elements within the status quo, but lacks a proper political frame and analysis and therefore is very narrow in scope (women, race and LGBT).
so long as the upper class threw enough scraps down from the table, the pet class would support the hierarchy.
I mean, the biggest political struggles happened almost 50 years ago. I really don’t see what you are referring to, nor I do see right now in any form a coherent political movement who focuses on the class struggle as main objective. Am I missing something, maybe?
That is my problem with specifically focusing on mens rights, it’s just another division in class solidarity.
I addressed this point earlier, but I will repeat it just to elaborate. I don’t care about men’s rights. I care about a class analysis and a political movement that uses it, which is able to channel all the struggles from oppressed people, starting from women and other minorities, without alienating some of them due to irrelevant differences. This is in essence my problem: the current mainstream “progressive” discourse has been so neutered politically that has become individualist and as such doesn’t capture the whole dynamic of class oppression. To make a concrete example, in tech the debate about women and other minorities is extremely hot and it’s absolutely common to be the sole focus of diversity initiatives etc. Obviously this is posturing from the companies’ perspective, but even the progressive people often fail to talk about other issues such as ageism (and many other things, ofc), which is an even bigger discriminatory factor in tech. It’s not that one is more important of the other (or viceversa), it’s that they are both results of the same exploitative dynamic and focusing on one of them without capturing the higher level problem becomes neutered and alienates people.
it’s just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives
I cannot speak for “that country”, assuming you mean the US, as I don’t live there. That said, I think people don’t have actual past lives as a reference. If my grandfather or father lived in a different world, this can at most create expectations, but cannot be really generating a feeling of prosecution, because the current one is the only life I have actually lived and I know.
Then there is another issue, which is that in reality there are a lot of factors that determine whether you are born “in third base”. Gender, historically, has been one of them, but it’s far from being a guarantee. However, the political discourse often flattens this issue and makes it almost two-dimensional. If you are a white man, you are privileged, period. Fact is, there are tons of white man that are absolutely not privileged, and are also victim of an unequal and oppressive society. These people are substantially alienated because their voice is simply not represented anywhere. My leftist interpretation is that some of the egalitarian discourse (feminism, LGBT rights etc.) has been to some extent swallowed by the status quo, and lost a lot of the revolutionary potential it had, becoming more focused on individual perception and rights, rather than on systemic issues that therefore could capture also the dynamics of a white man being also oppressed, even if from a different angle. In other words, if feminism is purely focused on battles of women as a group of individuals, and not as part of a system that oppresses them within a wider mechanism, then oppressed people that don’t strictly belong to that category have a much harder time to see in women a reflection of their own oppression.
Basically, a realization such as:
We’re all the same to them now, and will all be exploited as such.
was true already decades (centuries) ago, and that’s why lots of feminist battles were linked to socialism and leftist ideologies. This is nothing new, really, and forcing to read the current issues only from the racial perspective or only from the gender perspective (etc.) makes it much harder to build solidarity between groups who are instead left to fight battles within the system, without a perspective or a struggle to move past it.
Yes, but it breaks so many other tools that it is basically not worth. For example, all shell shortcuts (Ctrl+A, Ctrl+E, Ctrl+W etc.).
Neither me nor anybody in my company found a viable solution which is to ultimately learn to use cmd for certain things on Mac (like copy/paste).