e-v
[1] https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/continent/186...
California has very little in common with Nordic social-democracy. Even when looked at relatively to the rest of the US. And this is particularly true when one looks at the subject at hand, which is social safety nets. The "relative" approach has its limits.
Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.
It is a universally accepted fact that physical exercise is good for you, and a lot of people enjoy it. If you don't exercise, it's either because you don't have the time to do it or you can't be bothered (or a bit of both). If you do have the time, then just go for a walk and stop finding excuses not to. I'd rather see people not go for a walk because they can't be bothered than convince them to do it because it'll make them more productive, better adapted to the job market, improve their "human capital", or whatever ridiculous reason "life hackers" come up with.
1. On "pedophilia in Algeria": a. You are probably referring to the rumors started by Guy Sorman which mention crimes allegedly taking place in Tunisia, where he lived and taught, rather than Algeria. b. As described in a report (in French) published in the Obs[1], Foucault was under strict police surveillance when he lived in Tunisia, because of his political activities. The State was desperate to find a reason to convict him. One would think that allegations of rape and pedophilia wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Moreover, Sorman himself admitted that his allegations were not founded[2]. c. Even if these allegations were true (which they don't seem to be), I failed to see what they would have to do with the argument you are answering to. This would make him a criminal and a despicable person; it would not imply that nothing he wrote was philosophically and historically pertinent.
2. On the age of consent laws in France: your argument is simply dishonest. At the time, the age of consent for heterosexual relations was 15 (and it still is), whereas homosexual relations were forbidden until the age of 18, which was (rightfully) seen as discriminatory. However, some of the people involved in that movement were indeed despicable. 3. "most of his books are extremely anti-historical" That makes absolutely no sense. What does "anti-historical" mean? a. "filled with literal falsehoods". This is a gross overstatement. The accuracy of some facts described in some of Foucault's books have indeed been disputed, it doesn't make them "filled with falsehoods". b. "anti-scientific": that's ironic, because, for reasons that I cannot explain in much detail here (do study Foucault and make your own opinion about his work rather that believe what random strangers say on the Internet), it is, to some extent, precisely the point (but it is dealt with in a much more complex manner than what your comment leads one to think).
Think whatever you want about Foucault and his work, but please do your homework and don't spread ridiculous rumors and over-simplifications.
[1] https://www.nouvelobs.com/idees/20210506.OBS43714/michel-fou... [2] https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/michel-fou...
I've never understood that sentiment. Are there things I don't know about I should be doing?
I installed Arch probably four years ago on my laptop, and have never had to do anything but install updates and read the announcements on archlinux.org since.
I do understand the appeal of Manjaro - I did use it briefly when it first came out - but I don't see how maintaining Arch Linux would appear as being particularly complicated. I literally don't do anything with it I wouldn't do with any other OS.
The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft.
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html:
"Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free."
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....:
"The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."