I read this title 5 times before parsing it properly.

Indeed, the rate of democratic backsliding is considered to be fast, compared to other countries. Below I include some links and quotes. What I really wanted to say is that the resistance is too mild, and too slow. Also, you know that book “On Tyranny”? Very relevant under the circumstances.

We are sliding towards an illiberal democracy. The phrase, first popularized in the 1990s, took on new urgency in the United States as major figures in Donald Trump’s orbit came to view Viktor Orbán as a leadership role model. As Bill Kristol posted, “ABC’s settlement with Trump feels like it could be an inflection point in the Orbanization of our politics.” To be clear, the United States is not yet an illiberal democracy, but the movement towards it has accelerated in the weeks since the election. What is most disturbing is that Trump has not yet even taken power. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/we-are-on-our-own/ (2024-12-22)

The scary thing is that I’ve watched a Trump/Musk style takeover of the government in my home country of Hungary a long time ago and it went great for them. Turns out the general population accepted every institution being gutted and stripped in obviously corrupt ways. They were simply distracted by a constant stream of culture war shit which normal people cared more about than institutional change, and those who did look thought “the boys are fixing the system” or “it was corrupt anyway”. https://mas.to/@Techaltar/113943270068786481 (2025-02-04)

In the last few days alone, Trump has smashed past several new milestones. He’s just called his predecessor’s pardons void and vacated. He gave a bitterly partisan speech at the Department of Justice, demanding the prosecution of the media and certain adversaries. He threatened numerous universities with sanctions. He invoked a 227-year-old war measures law during peacetime — for the first time ever — to deport accused gang members without due process. And, most importantly, when that deportation plan wound up in court, he may have — although it’s still in dispute — defied a court order, cracking the ultimate constitutional safeguard. It’s not just the scope of what Trump’s done that has Lindberg envisioning the once-unthinkable: removing the U.S. from the democratic list and shifting it to the second-lowest tier among five, to a so-called electoral autocracy. It’s also the speed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-democracy-report-1.7486317 (2025-03-18)

By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time. There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/us/politics/trump-putin-russia.html (2025-02-26)

Yet another report out Thursday from Freedom House, a Washington, D.C.-based democracy think-tank, said that among free countries, the U.S. joined Bulgaria and Italy in registering the largest declines in political rights and civil liberties last year. “The developments in the United States are moving towards dictatorship, what the founders wanted to avoid,” said Staffan Lindberg, the V-Dem Institute’s founding director, who spent seven years in the U.S. “It’s the most rapid decline ever in the history of the United States and one of the most rapid in the world.” V-Dem stands for Varieties of Democracy. More than 4,000 scholars contributed data to the report, which is the largest of its kind. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/20/nx-s1-5754021/trump-democracy-autocracy-dictatorship-reports

And this complementary piece, for no reason whatsoever.

How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days - He used the constitution to shatter the constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/

He feels safe enough to utter that shit. If only the left had a fraction of the right-wing propaganda apparatus. There should be three times the January 6 crowd taking him straight to the scaffold. Yet here we are watching a fascist dystopia installing itself, in slow motion.

How about Pinker? You dig Pinker? I am not delving in the books of this jester without a little wager. Just tell me any linguist you esteem, they probably state somewhere that English is a peculiar language. Then you’ll strip for Lemmy if you are wrong mf.

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let’s not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.

Thanks for the tip, but I would appreciate if you actually read the post. TL;DR I do mention its Nazi issue.

“/c/[insert_community_name]” is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. “Badlinguistics” was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

Well here it is not that popular. It has two members and since you are not the mod, you are probably the one. Since there are no posts why don’t you write proper essays instead of attacking random people on Lemmy. I am not gonna respond to this shit.

English is a human language, ok fucker? But it is an uncommon one, thus making it hard to generalize from English to other languages. This is well known in linguistics. I would bother to get you some quote, but I prefer to leave you seething here.

the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense

Let’s see.

“Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:

Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can’t have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

EDIT: “do” = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

Who is not authoritative on the issue. I might agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think it messes up an “ought to” with an “is a”. Let’s replay this: Every open source license should be a copyleft license. Sure! It should. Like all property should belong to the community.

But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code. They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.

(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as “Some rights reserved”.

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.

This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is “permissive”, you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.

So “free as in speech” is not even a good analogy. “Liberated” is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly…

Well, I look up the community, no posts. I look up your post history, your sole contributions are calls for a badlinguistics community, or calling out comments for being badlinguistics. I find your crusade rather amusing, and I am here to respond to any possible criticism you have about my greatlinguistics.

If you’re using Gentoo, no nerd will tell you to switch to another distro.

Funny! Lmao

And this is no accident, as the cursing of that girl in Hogsmeade was no accident: These people are on the same camp with Joane…

Ambiguity is inherent in all human languages, agreed. But English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a “slopometer”).

I am probably just old, but I remember the days when “free as in speech, not free as in beer” was enough explanation.

The legal scholars at Heritage Foundation give me the creeps more than their ICE stormtroopers. They exploit the very concepts they despise, in order to criminalize supporters of human rights. For example, transgender inclusion in high school sports? Title IX violation. Affirmative action? Selective bias against white men. Undercover informants in the Proud Boys? Supporting hate-groups. When they themselves do not consider them to be hate groups. This really grinds my gears with these fascists.

Speaking of undercover informants

Anyhow, this is gonna play out in court. Given that not all federal judges have capitulated to the White Supremacist’s House it can go both ways. It is actually a good reminder to donate to them (I have been procrastinating…)

Well, it is a bit far-fetched. Don’t you think?