home

{% extends "website/base.djhtml" %}

{% load i18n %}

{% load static %}

{% get_language_info for LANGUAGE_CODE as lang %}

{# NOG TOEVOEGEN:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/filip-dewinter-wordt-cafebaas-in-kroeg-waar-collaborateurs-nog-aan-de-muur-hangen-je-ziet-hier-ook-de-zwarte-bladzijden-van-de-vlaamse-beweging~bcffd103/?fbclid=IwAR2lASmVssh_oW458oOzJOnJyvy3jDm_2-Uj0Q1jcyr9iztGbQfSfaTphgw&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fold.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbelgium%2Fcomments%2Fok1qm9%2Ffilip_dewinter_wordt_caf%25C3%25A9baas_in_kroeg_waar%2F #} 

{# TEKST OP ANDER BESTAND #}

{% block stylesheets %}

    {{ block.super }}

    <!-- NOTE: This is a temporary stylesheet for this page, until I've added

    the table stylesheet to Material3.-->

    <style>

        table {

  border-collapse: collapse;

  border: 2px solid rgb(200,200,200);

}

td, th {

  border: 1px solid rgb(190,190,190);

  padding: 10px 20px;

}

td {

  text-align: center;

}

/*

tr:nth-child(even) td {

  background-color: rgb(100,100,100);

}

tr:nth-child(odd) td {

  background-color: rgb(100,100,100);

   background-color: rgb(245,245,245);

}*/

        </style>

        {% endblock stylesheets %}

{% block title %}{% translate "Activism" %}{% endblock title %}

{% block description %}{% blocktranslate trimmed %}For the greater good. Find out about some interesting things to better the world as we all know it.{% endblocktranslate %}

{% endblock description %}

{% block main %}

<section class="emphasis">

<h3 id="prezentado">{% translate "Activism?" %}</h3>

<p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Our world can only get better if people care

    about it, and believe that a better world is possible. Maybe that's naive, but

    tell that to those who believe in something, and actively strive to better the

    world. They come in all sizes and types, but they're collectively named

    "activists".

    Now, I know that most people reading this don't think about themselves as

    being an activist; most likely you're studying, or working a career, taking

    care of friends and/or family. You don't have time for activism. At best,

    you might donate to a cause you believe in, or buy a sticker. Maybe even

    just because it's a small tax writeoff.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}And you know what? <strong>That's perfectly fine.</strong>

        This page is not to tell you about how you're not doing <em>enough</em>

        or why it would matter more than what you're currently doing. There are

        enough other people that profess that already, and I personally don't

        think it helps activism a lot. Besides, lots of people already do things

        because they assume it helps. Look at recycling, blood donations, organ

        transplants (especially altruistic donations), child adoption, and so on.

        I know it's not often regarded as activism, but I do want to look at it

        in different ways than the stereotypical spreading of pamphlets and

        asking for signatures on market squares.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}That's why I made this page for activism: I think a lot of

        people really want to make a change, but don't see it as viable for their

        life. Or they're not sure what to do. Here, I present a list of causes

        and activities I believe can make the world a better place for everyone.

        It's also important to remember that nobody can do everything, plenty of

        valid reasons why that's the case. Maybe you think that organic farming

        is better for the environment, but you still buy non-organic food because

        you can't afford the higher price. But that doesn't mean that partaking

        in activism is hypocritical by default (which is a reasoning that somebody actually

        used in a discussion about activism with me). On this page, you find causes

        I believe in, that you can donate to, or small things you can do in your

        daily life that help that. You won't find the general calls to action here

        like "You should vote" and "Recycle as much as possible",

        I assume most people already see those often enough. I target more specific and

        fewer mentioned points. For some things, I propose certain replacements

        to "ease" taking on a cause without disrupting your life too radically.

        I hope it allows you to partake more in activism, because our world 

        definitely needs some more of it right now.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktranslate trimmed %}I want to end this with a nice citation,

		<a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass#West_India_Emancipation_.281857.29"

		   target="_blank">accredited to Frederick Douglass</a>:{% endblocktranslate %}

	<blockquote>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}If there is no struggle, there is no progress.

		Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation,

		are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

		They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean

		without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a

		moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and

		physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without

		a demand. It never did and it never will.{% endblocktranslate %}</blockquote>

</p>

</section>

<section>

<h3 id="reproduktado">{% translate "Urgent: Do NOT procreate" %}</h3>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}I know this sounds pretty radical, but

        allow me to explain in detail. I'm sure you'll understand.<br>

        The scientific consensus is clear: Humans are the main cause of the

        climate mayhem, period. Collectively, we are ruining the planet's ecosphere.

        It's also clear that there's a direct correlation between the earth's

        temperature, and the amount of humans that are on it:

        <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg"

		   target="_blank">This graph</a>

        shows the rise of the global population, and

        <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png"

		   target="_blank">these graphs</a>

        show the increase of greenhouse gases during that same timespan.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}I'm not the first one to state that having no children is the

best thing you can do:

        <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf"

		   target="_blank">A study</a>

        calculated that living a <em>completely</em> car-free life reduces your carbon footprint by 2.4 tonnes of CO₂(-equivalent emissions) per year,

        while having just one <strong>(just one!) fewer child reduces it by 58.6

            tonnes of CO₂. Per. Year.</strong>

        It goes without saying that having one fewer child is <em>way</em>

        easier than living without a car for the rest of your life.<br>

        You can see why it strikes me as very odd that lots of people are calling for

        small solutions like electrical cars, or a vegetarian diet, while

        at the same time omitting what might be the easiest and most effective

        solution to make a truly great impact on the world. Sure, the other things

        help, but not nearly as much as having no/fewer children.{% endblocktranslate %}

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}From that (again: scientifically proven) point, the inference is thus:

        Every ecological problem caused by humans gets larger and more destructing

        with every new human. The easiest and best solution to this problem, is to do as

        I do, and have no children. By not creating more humans, you are saving the planet

        from probably 4-10 people in the following decades.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Some people suggest that not the amount of people living is

	the problem, but that the way they live is bad. So solving the climate

	mayhem can also happen with a more sustainable lifestyle.<br>

	Let's ignore the fact that saying seven billion people is "not too

	much" is (at least) remarkable. First, for a lot of people, a more

	"sustainable" lifestyle is simply too hard to accomplish. The more

	people there are, the less resources are available for everyone. Lowering

	the population directly implies that everyone's lifestyle becomes

	automatically more sustainable, and requires practically no difficult

	intervention.<br>

	Also, this statement prepositions that there's enough resources for

	everyone. This is ignorant; if everyone lived in a decent way, we'd need

	at least 2.5 Earths just to keep up. Currently, the disgusting way

	people in third world countries have to live can't even offset a way of

	living humanely.<br>

	Finally, the climate mayhem has already started, and its consequences are

	already happening. Even assuming that 7 billion people is not too much,

	getting them all to live sustainable will take way longer than simply

	reducing the population, and we can't afford any delay.<br>

	Oh, and before I forget: Having no children and a sustainable lifestyle

	are not mutually exclusive. We can (and must) do both.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Some people tout the economy as a reason why this is a bad

	suggestion.<br>

	First, simply making this statement implies that economical progress is an

    argument that's worth

	taking into consideration with the current direction we're heading, which is

	one where the economy will be the least of our problems.<br>

	Secondly, many economists say that a constant growth is economically

	necessary, and since the economy grows with more people, reducing the birth

	rate is bad. This argument dismisses discussion out of hand ("It goes

	against our current system, therefore this will be bad"). It also assumes

	that we should always work towards "economic growth", which could work if

	the planet would also grow infinitely. Since it doesn't, economic growth is

	finitely bound, and since

	<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day" target="_blank">

		we're currenty using more of the Earth than it can possibly

		replenish</a>, we've exceeded that limit. Thus, our current economic

	situation is incompatible with the planet we all live on. One of the two

	must change, and we're stuck on Earth, so the economy must change.<br>

	While we're on the subject of economics:

	A reduction in the world population has also secondary economical benefits:

	It's easier for a government to pay for healthcare and education if there are fewer

	students/patients to pay for in the first place. These funds can then easily be divested

    to paying pensions for the elderly, or other problems that need funding.

    Also, jobs that have struggle with constant shortage of workforce (like school teachers)

    will see this problem gradually disappear.

    Of course, global heating already puts economies across the planet

in jeopardy because of all the problems it causes, that then need fixing. It

also causes so-called climate refugees, who also need to be granted asylum, and

all the costs that come with it.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}Governments ought to teach children in school about this matter,

    and spread information about (working) anticonception measures. An increase in

    abortion rights will also help, and is also beneficial to the rights of women, another

	important topic. It goes without saying that I am pro abortion rights.<br>

	Of course, many of these measures directly contradict religious teachings

	(including the thought that women must give birth as much as possible,

	<a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/01/05/vlaams-belang-wil-dat-vlamingen-meer-kinderen-krijgen---nieuwkom/" target="_blank">

	ideas that are also often espoused by extremist groups, like

    Vlaams-Belachelijk and AfD</a>),

	but we mustn't listen to that; they're fundamentally irrational, and

	their preachers would rather condemn people to parenthood against their will,

	rather than allow abortions, which are medically speaking less dangerous

	procedures than giving birth. Forcing people to risk maternal death against

	their will because of a flawed reasoning is reprehensible.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktranslate trimmed %}While I don't want humanity to disappear, I don't have to worry

	that my call to not have children will cause that; there is no way I'd ever become

	so influential that I would cause that to happen. Therefore, any change that

    I might cause is all to the good.<br>

    I also don't want governmentally issued laws that limit procreation; that is

    very unlikely to work anyway, and since lower income households have more

    children on average than higher income, the burden of such a law would fall

    on those people that have enough problems already. It would also fuel the idea

    that wanting a family should be a misdemeanour, which is ridiculous.<br>

    To continue on that: The government should focus especially on 

    lower income households and communities with strong religious influences,

    because these groups statistically have the

    largest families. Reducing the birthrate with them will have more effect

    than with other types of households, and is a good way to allocate

    government resources effectively.<br>

    Also, children that are born, deserve/need all the

    help to develop themselves, and laws need to be put in place that supports

    families, such as school and child subsidies, to name a few.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Additionally, the time that would otherwise need to be invested

in child care, is then completely up to you to use for other things. You

can go on a very long vacation, you can devote yourself to a cause, make a

lucrative career, study, ...{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}But perhaps you still want to have a family. And that's no problem whatsoever:

        Thousands of orphans are waiting for a family as you're reading this,

        and studies show that adoption does wonders for a child's development.

        By adoption (or fostering), you can build a family, without increasing

        the climate mayhem. It's a great way to devote yourself to a better world,

        and be a parent to somebody who desperately needs it.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

</section>

<section>

<h3 id="glosaro">{% translate "(Anti-)Glossary" %}</h3>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}Words mean things. Like, a lot. We use them to communicate

    our thoughts, how we perceive the world and how we organize that. The way we

    speak impacts what people think of us, and influences how they might think

    about stuff.<br>

    All that to say that another form of activism can come from using a

    vocabulary that differs from the "mainstream". By thinking about what you

    say, you can have a clear thinking process, and avoid giving other people

    the wrong ideas. This is why I put up a glossary here that you can use to

    avoid misconceptions in your daily conversation.<br>

    For a glossary related to informatics, I urge you to read

    <a target="_blank" href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">

    the GNU project glossary</a> which

    handles that off already. My glossary here is a personal one, and tackles

    more diverse topics. Some of these are mine, but if I did not coin a term, I

    will put a link to where I found it.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<dl>

    {% if lang.code == "nl" %}

    <dt id="vlaams-belang"><s>Vlaams Belang</s><br>Vlaams-Belachelijk</s></dt>

    <dd>Vlaams-Belachelijk is een politieke partij die belachelijk, gevaarlijk

        en soms zelfs neonazistisch gedachtegoed

        probeert te verspreiden over Vlaanderen, met ronduit achterlijke

        ideeën. Een korte opsomming van de meest achterlijke acties,

        onthullende nieuwsartikelen en standpunten:

    <ul>

        <li>Een soevereine Republiek Vlaanderen oprichten, zonder een uitgewerkt

            plan over hoe dat zou moeten gebeuren</li>

        <!--<li>Het lukraak arresteren en deporteren van allochtonen</li>-->

        <li><a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20180105_03281734/vlaams-belang-start-opvallende-campagne-nieuwkomers-die-maken-we-zelf" target="_blank">

            Vlaamse vrouwen aanzetten zoveel mogelijk kinderen te baren, om een

            zogenaamd "onevenwicht door allochtone zwangerschappen" recht te

            zetten</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/08/21/parket-start-onderzoek-naar-bericht-vlaams-belang-over-burgemees/" target="_blank">

            Andere politici belasteren met leugens over dat ze zouden rijden

            onder invloed van alcohol</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/01/24/krant-van-west-vlaanderen-eist-excuses-en-schadevergoeding-na-ma/" target="_blank">

            Manipulatie van beelden om onwaarheden te kunnen verspreiden die hun

            gedachtegoed zouden moeten bevestigen</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190604141847/https://www.vlaamsbelang.org/vrt-promoot-homohuwelijk/" target="_blank">

            Afkeuren van gelijke rechten voor holebi's, en in het algemeen elk

            niet-heterofiel gedrag afkeuren</a></li>

        <!-- Toegevoegd 1 juni 2021 -->

        <li><a href="https://www.apache.be/2019/01/14/het-duistere-netwerk-achter-dries-van-langenhove/" target="_blank">

                Uitleg over de neofascistische banden van VB-neonazi Dries Van Langenhove</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/11/28/vlaams-belang-verkoopt-vlaamse-identiteitskaarten-voor-warmste/" target="_blank">

            Misbruik van goede doelen om eigen identitaire propaganda te verspreiden</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/12/18/incident-op-antwerpse-gemeenteraad-je-zit-niet-in-marokko-dus/" target="_blank">

            Discriminerend taalgebruik in een gemeenteraad tegen politicus die

            polarisatie van Vlaams-Belachelijk aankaart</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.demorgen.be/politiek/vlaams-belang-wil-kindergeld-van-criminele-minderjarigen-intrekken~b267a78e/" target="_blank">

            Schrappen van kindergeld voor minderjarigen die een misdaad begaan</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20200111_04801588/dries-van-langenhove-gastspreker-op-racistisch-amerikaans-congres" target="_blank">

            Neonazi Dries Van Langenhove laten spreken voor rascisten met zegen

            van Vlaams-Belachelijk (het artikel gebruikt de term "nieuw-rechts",

            lees hiervoor "neonazisme")</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20190823_04572955/vlaams-belang-pompt-nog-eens-100-000-euro-in-online-propaganda" target="_blank">

            Vlaams-Belachelijk pompt tienduizenden euro's in online

            propaganda</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/08/27/vlaams-belang-lid-neemt-ontslag-na-racistische-en-seksistische-b/" target="_blank">

            Vlaams-Belachelijke ontmenselijkt personen met een zwarte

            huidskleur, gevolgd door ontmenselijken van vrouwen, die "objecten"

            zouden zijn</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20190411_04316129/dries-van-langenhove-lanceert-zelfgemaakt-opsporingsbericht-maar-dat-zint-niet-iedereen-werkt-hij-tegenwoordig-voor-de-politie" target="_blank">

            Zonder politionele opdracht zelf een opsporingsbericht verspreiden

            om angst onder de bevolking te zaaien als politieke strategie</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20150401_01609705/dewinter-en-annemans-in-clinch-over-racisme" target="_blank">

            "Ik ben racist en daar ben ik fier op." ~ Filip Dewinter, gewezen

            voorzitter en boegbeeld

            van Vlaams-Belachelijk</a></li>

        <!-- Bijgevoegd 22 mei 2021 -->

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/05/22/open-vld-voorzitter-egbert-lachaert-vlaams-belang-moet-steun-a/" target="_blank">

            Egbert Lachaert (Open VLD) wil dat VB daden van terreurverdachte en

            fascist J.C. veroordeelt, maar Van Grieken verkiest in plaats daarvan om link met zijn neofascistische partij te betreuren.</a>

            Later bleek dat <a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/06/01/conings-vlaams-belang/" target="_blank">

                J.C. zelf lid was van Vlaams-Belachelijk.</a></li>

        <!-- Bijgevoegd 26 mei 2021 -->

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/15/vlaams-belang-voorzitter-van-grieken-13-procent-van-de-k3-kand/" target="_blank">

                Tom Van Grieken preekt anti-transgenderretoriek in debat over

                holebi- en transgendergemeenschap</a></li>

        <!-- Bijgevoegd 26 mei 2021 -->

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/13/vb-reax-elbers/" target="_blank">

            Vlaams-Belachelijk draagt homo- en transgenderhater voor als

            raadslid van VAF</a></li>

        <li><a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/02/15/parket-vraagt-pv-verboden-wapenbezit-voor-van-grieken/" target="_blank">

            Van Grieken neemt verboden wapen mee in VTM-studio</a></li>

        <!-- Toegevoegd 1 juni 2021 -->

        <li><a

        href="https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/belgie/vlaanderen/tom-van-grieken-het-blanke-moet-een-dominante-factor-zijn/10309919.html" target="_blank">

                Tom Van Grieken in een racistische bui tijdens een interview: "Het blanke moet een dominantie factor zijn."</a></li>

        <li>In navolging van het afschaffen van het recht op abortus in de VS

        verklaarde VB op dezelfde lijn te zitten; <a

        href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/06/26/sammy-mahdi-abortus/"

        target="_blank">een vrouw mag voor Vlaams-Belachelijk niet zelf bepalen

        of ze een abortus kan krijgen of niet.</a>

        <li>...</li>

    </ul>

    <p>

    De lijst zou ik kunnen blijven aanvullen (en dat doe ik ook van tijd tot

    tijd), maar ik denk dat ik mijn

    beschuldiging wel voldoende heb kunnen staven. Je kunt zelf ook op zoek gaan

    op het internet naar nog meer vuiligheid van VB.<br>

    De partijleden onderhouden ook goede banden met andere

    schadelijke zusterpartijen zoals AfD. Ze zeggen dat ze dit doen in het

    belang van de Vlaming, maar in werkelijkheid maken ze zich compleet

    belachelijk en zijn hun ideeën simpelweg dom en schadelijk op de lange termijn

    voor heel België.</p>

    <p>In 2022 heb ik 

        <a href="{% url 'blog-post' "nl" "fort-europa-en-vb-een-analyse" %}">een omvangrijke analyse</a> geschreven over de partij en haar

    standpunten, waaruit bleek hoe ze continu de waarheid verdraait, opjuttend

    taalgebruik hanteert om mensen tot vreemdelingenhaat aan te zetten en

    voorstelt om asielzoekers en vluchtelingen af te weren, en indien nodig de

    dood in te jagen.</p>

    <p>

    Natuurlijk kent elke politieke partij haar uitschuivers en fouten. Maar de

    hoeveelheid die Vlaams-Belachelijk maakt is gewoon niet te vergelijken met

    andere partijen.

    Daarom noem ik deze partij Vlaams-Belachelijk, en vraag ik bij deze

    aan iedereen om nooit, maar dan ook <strong>nooit</strong> voor deze partij

    te stemmen.

    </p>

    <dt id="auteursrechten"><s>Auteursrechten</s><br>Kopieerrechten</s></dt>

    <dd>Dit is een letterlijke vertaling van het Engelse woord

    <em>copyright</em>, de verzamelnaam voor wetgeving inzake het kopiëren van

    creatieve werken. In het Nederlands worden dit foutief "auteursrechten"

    genoemd. Ik vraag aan iedereen om deze term te vermijden, en wel om deze

    redenen:

    <ul>

        <li>Deze rechten draaien om het recht om bepaalde dingen te kopiëren,

        in naam van het algemeen belang die creatieve werken vormen voor het

        uitbouwen van onze cultuur. Ze bestaan voor het goed van het volk, niet

        om een exclusief recht aan auteurs toe te kennen. De benaming moet

        dit reflecteren, en "kopieerrechten" doet dat perfect.</li>

        <li>Kopieerrechten "auteursrechten" noemen doet vermoeden dat elke keer

        dat iemand oproept tot het inperken van kopieerwetgeving, dat dit een

        directe aanval is op de rechten van auteurs, maar niets is minder

        waar: de huidige kopieerwetgeving in praktisch de hele wereld

        laat het exclusieve kopieerrecht

        duren tot minstens 50 jaar na de dood van de auteur. Wie heeft daar nu

        enig nut aan, behalve bedrijven die het gebruiken om creativiteit en

        delen van onze cultuur zo lang mogelijk financieel uit te melken? Hoe

        durft Nintendo bijvoorbeeld te claimen dat niemand een spelletje mag maken met Mario

        in, ook al is dit idee gekend door honderden miljoenen mensen? Dit heeft

        niets, maar dan ook absoluut <strong>niets</strong> te maken met de

        rechten van auteurs, maar met kopiëren, en het systematisch tegenwerken

        van creativiteit onder de bevolking.</li>

        <li>Het idee dat kopieerrechten altijd toekomen aan de auteurs (en dat

        daarom auteursrechten ook een redelijke benaming zou zijn) is ook fout:

        Veel programmeurs zijn in dienst van bedrijven waar zij software

        programmeren. De kopieerrechten van die software komen dan wel toe aan

        het bedrijf, maar niet aan de auteurs. En daar bedrijven geen

        natuurlijke personen zijn (en dus ook geen auteur kunnen zijn), is de

        enige juiste benaming "kopieerrechten" (die wel door een bepaald bedrijf

        in bezit kunnen zijn).</li>

    </ul></dd>

    {% endif %}

    <dt id="porvivo"><s>{% translate "Pro-life" %}</s><br>{% translate "Pro-death" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}People that fight against abortion rights see this as

    some kind of moral crusade that they are pro-life, as if to say that people

    who propose abortion rights are anti-life. This is dangerous spin: Not only

    do abortions allow many people a path out of poverty (which would also

    impoverise

    any offspring they get), abortions are medically speaking less dangerous to

    the pregnant woman than carrying the foetus to term. America now has the

    highest amount of maternal deaths in the developed world because of these

    people. Thus, they are responsible for the deaths of many people, and since

    they see no problem with their views, they are pro-death people.<br>

    <a target="_blank"

       href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/abortion-lets-call-the-pro-lifers-what-they-are-pro-death">

    I did not coin this term.</a>{% endblocktranslate %}</dd>

</dl>

    <dt id="porelekto"><s>{% translate "Pro-choice" %}</s><br>{% translate "Pro abortion rights" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Pro-choice is used by people that propose extension of

    abortion rights, but don't want to stress people with their

    views. As such they state this is a matter of choice, while omitting the

    challenge of condemnation of abortion rights.<br>

    Let me be clear that no person in their right mind would say having an

    abortion is a pleasant thing.

    And in a world where women don't ever have a

    risk of getting pregnant if they don't want to, abortion probably wouldn't

    be so necessary. But in this world, it happens. And when it does, these people deserve

    all the help they can get. Abortion rights make that legally possible.<br>

    People who do undergo abortion do this <em>because they have no choice left

    anymore</em>, so saying that this is about choice is wrong.

    It is about the right to have an abortion when necessary, an

    essential right for humans. If that rubs anyone the wrong way, so be

    it.<br>

    <a target="_blank" href="https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#pro-choice">

    I did not coin this term.</a>{% endblocktranslate %}</dd>

    </dd>

    <dt id="stem"><s>STEM</s><br>{% translate "Literally just the name of the study" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}A lot of studies have been labeled STEM in recent

    years, because some people suggest that we need a lot of people with

    knowledge in those fields for the future.<br>

    I'm under the impression that it's now being regarded as something that puts

    "STEM studies" on a better level of regard than other studies. "STEM label

    or it's not a study worth pursuing", if you will.<br>

    I find that ridiculous; lots of non-STEM-studies bring forth people that we

    desperately need, also in this ever more connected world; interpreters are

    needed for translation, lawyers are required to give citizens legal

    representation and guidance, sociologists give us a scientifically based

    idea of how humans

    interact, and so on. I've studied informatics and I'd like people to call me

    what I am: a student of informatics, not a "STEM undergraduate".{% endblocktranslate %}</dd>

    <dt id="fobio"><s>{% translate "X-phobia or x-phobe" %}</s><br>{% translate "Anti-x" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}A phobia is a psychological issue that some

        people experience, where they develop an uncontrollable fear for a

        certain thing or situation, a fear that's very excessive in relation to

        the actual danger of that thing or situation. When their phobias are

        triggered, these people undergo heavy distress. This is not their

        fault, so people with phobias should not be punished or scorned for

        having phobias.<br>

        However, the suffix "phobia" is also used when this description doesn't apply at all,

        with terms like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ... (or -phobe to describe a 

        person). <strong>These are not phobias, these are forms of bigotry.</strong>

        They're against the existence of certain groups of people and try to

        shift public opinion into supporting their bigoted views, in order to

        reduce judicial protections of these people, and eventually, prohibition

        of these people being themselves. This is in no way comparable to having

        an irrational fear of something mundane, so please don't call them

        phobias.<br>

        The correct affix when you're against something, is "anti-". The term

        "anti-Semite" is a good example of this, and we should apply the same

        affix for other types of bigotry; if you're against homophiles, you're

        an anti-homophile. If you're against transgenders, you're

        anti-transgender. This makes it clear that bigotry against these groups

        is a concious choice a person makes, and not something that person

        does against per own will.{% endblocktranslate %}</dd>

    <dt id="komputiko"><s>{% translate "Computer science" %}</s><br>{% translate "Informatics" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}In English (and sometimes also in Dutch), my study at the university is often referred to as merely

    "Computer science", as if the only thing I learned about is just

    "computers". That is degrading to my study and to my abilities, as well as

    to other students of informatics.<br>

    Informatics is the study of information: In more practical terms, that means

    a student-informatician learns about how information is retrieved, the

    nature of information itself, how we can store information, how we infer

    new information from data. The focus is really, <em>information</em>, not

    computers.<br>

    This means that an informatician wields a toolbelt of various skills: Per

    must learn about:

    <ul>

        <li>Statistics; the mathematical principles to interpret and collect

            information, as well as inferring conclusions from that

            information.</li>

        <li>Discrete mathematics; the theories behind sets, tuples, graphs,

            algorithms, and so on.</li>

        <li>Logic; this teaches about collections, making sound proofs, and

            computational complexity of algorithms.</li>

        <li>Human interactions; how do people communicate with technology, how

            can we take their data and present them with understandable

            services, how do we deal with visually impaired, ...</li>

        <li>Software engineering; what are crucial steps in developing software

            that can serve as a long-term solution, how to maintain it, how do

            you talk to clients and learn their wishes?</li>

        <li>Telecommunication; what are the ways that we can transmit data, how

            do imperfections occur and can we fix them, can we perfectly

            reconstruct an analog, continuous signal with a digital, discrete

            one, ...</li>

        <li>Cryptography; how do we secure information, transmit it without

            eavesdropping, can we safeguard vital communications?</li>

        <li>And so on...</li>

    </ul>

    Informatics is a very broad study, and computer science is a part of that,

    true. But just calling it that does disservice to what it's really about. It

    also makes it sound as if there's not really that much to it, who doesn't

    work with computers?

    The reason that it's so often called that, is because informatics is

    thorougly linked to computers, and computers are actually incredibly handy

    tools for our study. But they're not the sole focus (at least not at the

    universities I studied them), and they shouldn't be. In fact, if a wizard

    would destroy all computers overnight, lots of fields in informatics could

    still exist on their own merits. Studying a science is

    all about learning the how, the why, the fundamentals, of your field, not just the

    tools you use, that's what college is for.<br>

    Calling informatics just "computer science" is akin to calling mathematics "number science";

    it is true that

    mathematics has undoubtedly close connections with digits and numbers, but

    calling the whole study by that name does not take into account all the

    other fields that mathematics encompasses, most of which don't even really

    need numbers at all to exist. We understand that and call it by its proper

    name, so as to avoid reducing it to a portion of it that's very visible in

    our daily lives. Please treat informatics with the same

    reasoning, and don't call it "computer science".{% endblocktranslate %}</dd>

</dl>

<h3 id="diamantoj">{% translate "Don't buy diamonds" %}</h3>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}Diamonds are often mined in inhumane circumstances. The

    profits fuel cruel wars, which cause havoc on the local population and

    finance terrorism on the African people, as well as enslavement.<br>

    They're also worthless; diamond is a very abundant material, and can easily

    be made in laboratories. The price is artificially inflated by the monopoly

    on diamond distribution by the De Beers corporation. Buying a diamond

    automatically means you're being scammed.{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktranslate trimmed %}If you want to buy an engagement ring (which is a ritual

    also fueled by a De Beers advertising campaign), look out for

    (cubic) zirconia or moissanite rings. They're a ton cheaper, and look

    exactly like diamonds. The latter was even mistaken for

    diamond by the person who discovered it for the first time!{% endblocktranslate %}

</p>

<h3 id="facebook">{% translate "Get/Stay off Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram" %}</h3>

<p>

	{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Facebook (and the other social media platforms

    owned by billionaire Zuckerberg) is an immense threat to our civil rights and

		liberties. I cannot possibly overstate how important it is that we

		collectively act to make this company rot away.<br>

		The useds of Facebook have their lives completely tracked and monitored,

		everything. It's a flagrant privacy violation.<br>

		Believe me, <strong>I KNOW</strong> that leaving Facebook is a hard pill

		to swallow. Facebook facilitates communcation with acquintances and

		friends, and humans are social creatures, we long for connection with

		other people. When you've been used by Facebook, it's hard to get its

		hooks off. We cannot refer to this as an addiction, because that would

		be like calling eating an addiction to food.

		Saying "I have nothing to hide" is not what this is about. It's

		erroneous to say privacy and secrecy are the same thing. I don't hide

		from my friends that I take a bath to clean myself but I'd never allow

		them to watch me do so. I love my parents but I don't allow them to come

		inside my place without my permission. I'm not ashamed to buy orange

		juice but I pay cash because I don't want to be recorded doing so (which

		happens when you use debit/credit cards).

		I'm sure you can imagine more examples like these.<br>

		Also, even if you were a person that doesn't care about privacy, there

		are people that do, and <strong>need</strong> privacy. Facebook makes it

		harder to call upon that right, because its mere existence changes the

		<em>status quo</em> from privacy being a human right, to privacy being

		something that requires justification: "Surely if thát many people are

		on Facebook, maybe privacy isn't that important to have as a right?"

		For people that I manage to convince to leave, but just need a final

		argument to take the definitive step: I ask you to not only do

		this for yourself, but for everyone else as well: Every person being

		used by Facebook increases the power it has, but the reverse is also

		true: Every person that decides to take off the shackles, makes it

		easier for others to do as well. By not being on Facebook, you help

		everyone else with not being there either.

		{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

</section>

<!--

<section>

<h3 id="pay-cash">{% translate "Stay safe, and only pay cash" %}</h3>

<p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}

    I've written about this in a blog post, but I have to put it here as well,

    in detail:

    One form of activism is to refuse to pay with payment cards. Insist

    on being able to pay with cash!</p>

<p> Banks love to talk about the convenience and safety of paying digitally,

    without really delving into what those points are for <em>us</em>, the

    client. I'll be going over some points to convince you to stop using the

    digital payments, and pay the actually safe way.{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

<h4>{% translate "The safety myth debunked" %}</h4>

<p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}

    So what's about digital payments being "safe"? When probing further, you'll

    often get the same kind of answers:</p>

    <ul><li>It's more secure: You won't lose much money when you get pickpocketed.</li>

        <li>It's less prone to forgery: You don't risk accepting counterfeit money.</li>

        <li>It's hygienic: Cash is dirty and a vector for bacteria, viruses, and

            all kinds of pathogens, posing serious health risks.</li>

    </ul>

    <p>So let's handle those one by one:{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}The pickpocketing myth: This seems trivial at first

    glance, but it's actually the opposite. Debit/Credit cards are only

    secured with a 4-digit PIN, which is a step up from cash, true. But

    they also give direct access to all the money on your bank accounts. By 

    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_surfing_(computer_security)"

       target="_blank">shoulder surfing</a>, pickpockets can steal money from

    every card in your wallet, and every time you enter your PIN code is a

    moment you expose that valuable information. Paying with cash is safer,

    since you don't walk around with hundreds of euros all the time, and you

    don't expose access codes to the rest of your money.{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    {% if lang.code == "en" %}

    <p>And if you live in the United States, credit cards didn't use to have any

    security at all: The only thing that you need(ed) to commit credit card

    fraud was the account number, nicely featured in shiny digits on the front

    of the card. This abuse was so rampant, <a 

    href="https://creditcards.usnews.com/articles/how-credit-card-companies-spot-fraud-before-you-do"

    target="_blank">credit card companies just cover(ed) the cost of fraudulent

    purchases</a> to avoid people shutting down their accounts. I know this kind

    of security sounds retarded for something so important, but for the US, this was

    the case for decades.</p>

    {% endif %}

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}The forgery myth: The risk of EVER accepting a counterfeit note is so small it's almost

        ridiculous to even mention it. The ECB made a video with all security

        features for the bank notes (in twenty three languages, 23 hoorays for

        the EU's diversity!):{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    <video controls preload="metadata">

        <source src="{% get_media_prefix %}/home/activism/ecb.mp4" type="video/mp4">

        {% for l in available_sub_langs %}

        {% get_language_info for l as temp_lang %}

        <track label="{{ temp_lang.name_local }} | {{ temp_lang.name_translated }}" 

               kind="subtitles"

               srclang="{{ temp_lang.code }}"

               src="{% get_media_prefix %}/home/activism/ecb.{{ temp_lang.code }}.vtt">

        {% endfor %}

    </video>

        {% comment %}

        Consider all these security marks (for €

        bank notes) that

        would have to pass:</p>

    <ul><li>Optical changing ink when you tilt a bank note</li>

        <li>Paper created from cotton fiber, which has a distinct feeling</li>

        <li>Watermark on every note, clearly visible with some light</li>

        <li>Safety wire straight through the middle of the note</li>

        <li>Foil with hologram over each note</li>

        <li>Raised printing to give each note a relief</li>

        <li>The logo in the hologram is transparent</li></ul>

    <p>And those are just the safety features you can directly see! Consider

        these <strong>extra security features</strong> that you can also check

        with enough detail (or a checking device):</p>

    <ul><li>All notes have microprinting that becomes unreadable with any normal

            printer, but can easily be read by looking closely..</li>

        <li>Shining UV light on the note will make certain parts light up, like

            the stars and circles. This also happens on the back, where green

            and red light will be emitted.</li>

        <li>With infrared light, the emerald number, the right side of the main

            image, and the silvery stript become visible. But only on the front;

            on the back, only the denomination and the horizontal number are visible.</li>

        <li>With special UV-C light (yes, that's a thing), the same parts light

            up, but in distinct green and red colours. Also, the € sign becomes

            visible in the main image, but is hidden in normal UV light.</li>

        <li>The serial code on every note is a checksum, meaning that you can

            check the code itself to see if the note is valid or not.</li></ul>

    {% endcomment %}

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}And all those were just the security features of the bank notes

        themselves! Here are some extras to convince you of the safety of using

        euros as cash:{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    <ul><li>{% translate "Reproducing a note with a normal printer is often blocked by printer firmware." %}</li>

        <li>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Any reproduced note (for example in movies) needs to obey strict

                rules, that they render each "legal" counterfeit note completely

                useless for monetization.{% endblocktranslate %}</li>

        <li>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}The European Union has so much trust in the security of its

                currency that you

                can download <a

                href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/banknotes/images/html/index.{{ lang.code }}.html"

                target="_blank">images of euro bank notes directly from their own

                website</a>. For high resolution ones, you can send a

                letter, and after some security and confidentiality checks you

                can get those as well.{% endblocktranslate %}</li></ul>

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}The hygiene myth: Even that is not a problem: I wrote this during

    the COVID-19 pandemic, but because I was afraid that cash could help in the

    virus' transmission, I decided to delay posting this, since it was plausible

    to assume it did. But even that's not true: Bank of England conducted 

    <a

    href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2020/2020-q4/cash-in-the-time-of-covid"

    target="_blank">a study</a> that found cash poses no more risk than

    <a 

    href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/24/bank-notes-pose-low-risk-of-spreading-covid-19"

    target="_blank">breathing air particles in a shop.</a>{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    {% comment %}

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}But maybe you think that all this is just peanuts for real

        counterfeiters (it isn't), or you're just thát paranoid. Okay, let's

        assume your level of paranoia is justified. In that case, I have a

        really interesting argument that will surely convince you to switch to

        cash forever:{% endblocktranslate %}</p>

    <h4>{% translate "Digital payments infringe on your privacy" %}</h4>

    <p>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Oh and that's not just me saying that, that's your credit

        card supplier actually doing just that: <Link naar mastercard dat met

                                                      facebook onderhandelt</lin>

        Yeah, turns out that "safety" is not so much a myth after all, but is

        related to the bank's safety by keeping your money from you, and making

        bank on it in the process.{% endblocktranslate %}

    <h4>{% translate "Why is this activism?" %}</h4>

        <Schrijf over de constante rush voor digitalisatie van iets wat goed

        werkt en hoe dit onze privacyrechten aantast></schrijf>

    {% endcomment %}

    Paying cash is also important to make sure that high cash payments aren't

    automatically regarded as fraudulent, since it normalizes these types of

    money transfers;

    <a href="https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/06/17/_het-is-toch-mijn-geld-waarom-krijg-ik-het-dan-niet-daarom-wor/">

    some banks have started refusing paying out large sums of cash, even if the owner provides a valid reason.</a>

    While a notification to the state's authority would be acceptable, refusing

    people access to their own money without a credible suspicion is

    outrageous.

{% comment %}

<h3 id="sharing-explained">{% translate "Get/Stay off Facebook" %}</h3>

<p>

	{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Facebook is an immense threat to our civil rights and

    <dt id="sharing-economy"><s>{% translate "Sharing economy / Gig economy" %}</s>

    {% translate "<GOEDE NAAM VERZINNEN>" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktranslate trimmed %}Too often, the media (and the companies that are often

    associated with the term) use the term "sharing economy" or "gig economy" to

    describe this "new" type of providing a certain type of service, where the

    companies don't actually hire their "employees". They say they're

    "subcontractors", and make them use their own resources (like their car) to

    do the work. These companies malicously portray this as "sharing", and

    proclaim they're just the facilitators, thus making them part of the

    "sharing economy". This is spin.<br>

    First, "sharing" is something you do in a personal setting, without any

    commercial interests. People do this because it's in our nature to share

        resources between each other, it's a good thing to do. A well known

        example is carpooling, where different people share the same car.<br>

        This is <strong>not</strong> the same as 

{% endcomment %}

</section>

-->

{% endblock main %}