home

{% load static %}

{% get_language_info for LANGUAGE_CODE as lang %}

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

{% endblock description %}

{% block main %}

<section class="emphasis">

<h3 id="ĉirkaǔ">{% trans "Activism?" %}</h3>

<p>{% blocktrans %}You see, the world gets better all the time. Mostly, this is

    thanks to people 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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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 an cause without disrupting your life radically.

        (Like vegetarianism; it's a good thing, really, but replacing ⅓ of most

        people's daily diets is too radical for most people to do anyway.)

        I hope it allows you to partake more in activism.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktrans %}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>:{% endblocktrans %}

	<blockquote>{% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}</blockquote>

</p>

</section>

<section>

<h3 id="procreation">{% trans "Urgent: Do NOT procreate" %}</h3>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}Having no children allowed me to study whatever I want,

        and might be the biggest contribution to planet Earth I'll ever make. At the same time,

        I've seen a member of my family give up a possible job as police inspector because she

        got pregnant. These are just personal anecdotes, but I doubt I'd have to look very

        far for other examples where somebody had to stash per dreams because of an oncoming child.

        (If that person even gets to see that child very much: My parents got divorced, which

        is not only bad for the children of said parents, but in my case, my father

        didn't get to see me very often when I was a minor.)

    {% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

{% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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 problem. 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<!--Albernheit für Deutschland?--></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, that's why they

	should be called the

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

		<strong>pro-death</strong> movement</a>; because of these people, the US

	now has

	<a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world">

	the highest number of maternal deaths in the developed nations.</a>{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

	{% blocktrans %}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.

    (To continue on that: The government should focus especially on immigrants

    and lower income households, because these groups have statistically the

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

    than with other types of households.)

    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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

{% blocktrans %}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, ...{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

</section>

<section>

<h3 id="glossary">{% trans "(Anti-)Glossary" %}</h3>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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. Most of them are mine, but if I did not coin a term, I

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

</p>

<dl>

    {% if lang="nl" %}

    <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 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>

        <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>

        <li>...</li>

    </ul>

    <p>

    De lijst zou ik kunnen blijven aanvullen, 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 />

    Ze 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. Als klap op de vuurpijl heeft de partijtop de ontmaskerde

    neonazi Dries Van Langenhove als lijsttrekker opgegeven om hem (met succes) in het Vlaams

    parlement te kunnen krijgen. En als je niet weet wie dat is, wel... Kijk

    zeker dan eens de volgende reportage als je tijd hebt:

    Om onze radicale ideeën te verwezenlijken, moeten we gematigd

    communiceren.

    </cite>

    Als Vlaams-Belachelijk dit soort mensen vrijwillig uitnodigt als

    <em>lijsttrekker</em>, trek dan zelf uw conclusies over wat deze partij

    werkelijk voor ogen heeft.

</p>

<p>

    Het is ook belangrijk om verder te kijken dan de leugens die de partij zelf

    verspreidt. Zelf zullen de partijleden niet toegeven dat ze racistisch

    zijn, dat ze fascisme wel zien zitten, of dat neonazi's toch wel plaats

    hebben in de partij. Dat is natuurlijk een techniek om mensen voor hun

    partij te winnen: Geen weldenkend mens zal stemmen voor een partij die

    openlijk toegeeft aan neonazisme. De technieken worden mooi uiteengezet in

    deze video van

    <a href="https://www.patreon.com/contrapoints" target="_blank">Natalie Wynn</a>:

    <!--HOW TO RECOGNIZE FASCISM-->

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

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

    andere partijen. Met de regelmaat van de klok komen

    <a href="https://www.hbvl.be/cnt/dmf20181002_03801720/vijftien-nazisympathisanten-kandidaat-voor-vlaams-belang" target="_blank">

        partijleden in het nieuws omdat het neonazi's blijken te zijn.</a>

    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> 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 %}

    {% comment %}TODO Albernheit, Affigkeit?

		<dt id="afd"><s>Alternative für Deutschland</s> Albernheit für Deutschland</dt>

	<dd>{% blocktrans %}This is a German political party that has repeatedly

	espoused racist and discriminating ideas, with the usual bullshit sauce of

	"traditional family values" as a shield. Following the same reasoning for

	calling the "Alt-right" neonazism, I call this party "Albernheit für

	Deutschland", because "Albernheit" {% endblocktrans %}{% endcomment %}

    <dt id="alt-right"><s>{% trans "Alt-right" %}</s> {% trans "Neonazism" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}What is usually referred to in mainstream media as the

    "alt-right" movement is a collection of groups that espouse nazi ideology,

    that spread hatred amongst society, and propose blanket discrimination and

    racism to the fullest extent possible, with the eventual goal of destabilizing

    everyone and everything, just for the sake of destabilization.

    They call themselves "alt-right", which is a

    portmanteau of "alternative right". This wording is used to describe their

    views as an "alternative" to other right-wing views, but what they're

    standing for (neonazism) is <em>in no possible way an alternative

    political stream for which support can reasonably be defended.</em>

    Calling it alt-right fails to indicate the

    imminent danger these people pose, and hides the fact that they are

    neonazis. Calling things by their actual name removes this mask of being

    "alternative".{% endblocktrans %}</dd>

	{% comment %}

	<dt id="{% trans "winning-elections" %}"><s>{% trans "Winning elections" %}</s></dt>

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}All media <em>love</em> to talk about so-called

    "winners" and "losers" with every election, what parties are "winning",

    and so on. What this does is diminish the vital

    importance of a democratic election to the idea of a stupid match, as if the

    goal is to be "the best" and "win" or whatever the fuck that means. This

    inspires the idea that votes are something you should win over from others,

    and nothing else; consequences be damned, as long as you win.

    It also causes people to restrain from voting for smaller

    parties that align more with their thoughts, because "they won't win anyway

    so I might as well vote for a party that might become big enough". America

    is a prime example of how bad the idea of making elections a contest can

    damage the entire nation, where the elections are a downright insult to

    democracy (do note that America is not a democracy, but a <em>plutocracy with

    a democratic façade</em>). The simple solution is to <strong>not</strong>

    talk about winners and losers. Instead, talk about who got the most votes,

    who got less votes, and so on, but avoid contest lingo at all costs.{% endblocktrans %}</dd>

	{% endcomment %}

    <dt id="pro-life"><s>Pro-life</s>{% trans "Pro-death" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}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>{% endblocktrans %}</dd>

</dl>

    <dt id="pro-choice"><s>pro-choice</s> {% trans "Pro abortion rights" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}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>{% endblocktrans %}</dd>

    </dd>

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

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}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".{%

    <dt id="computer-science"><s>{% trans "Computer science" %}</s> {% trans "Informatics" %}</dt>

    <dd>{% blocktrans %}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".{% endblocktrans %}</dd>

</dl>

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

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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.{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<p>

    {% blocktrans %}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!{% endblocktrans %}

</p>

<h3 id="facebook">{% trans "Get/Stay off Facebook" %}</h3>

<p>

	{% blocktrans %}Facebook 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.

		{% endblocktrans %}</p>

		<!--<h3 id="gender-prenouns">{% trans "Gender neutral prenouns" %}</h3>

        Ja ik ga toch eerst al de rest afschrijven anders blijf ik bezig-->

{% comment %}

<h3 id="human-rights">{% trans "Moral provision for civil actions" %}</h3>

<p>{% blocktrans %}

	I want to make a general call to activism that is less a matter

	me to guard your human rights more effectively, and to stand up against

	those that seek to violate it, be it by democratic voting, civil

	disobedience, or even violence to stop an immediate threat.

	I've thought about this a lot, in a philosophical way: About how to

	justify not following laws, why we do so, when it can be morally

	justified, accountability, ...

	I haven't studied jurisprudence, but I don't think that makes my reasoning

	automatically worthless. It might be that some things seem out of the

	ordinary. I do know I am not crazy, and I can assure you I didn't think of

	this on one louzy afternoon.

	Eventually, I have created a general rule I named: "The protection of human

	rights and the moral integrity of their limitations". In full detail,

	the rule is as follows:

		<quote>

			All humans are entitled to human rights at every point in their

			lives, in all contexts.

			Being rights, they do not require justification to exercise

			them, and can be applied in the broadest terms possible.

			Should there be an entity looking to restrict those rights, the

			burden of justification falls on that entity; it must provide a

			valid reasoning as to why a restriction needs to be put in

			place. The people that the restriction applies to (and <em>ónly</em>

			those people) shall decide on the validity, not the

			entity arguing in favour of it. Should said entity fail to provide

			valid justification, the restrictions that follow (for 

			example: laws or contract terms) are implicitely

			<em>void ab initio</em>, because their existence lacks any ground to

		    be morally enforceable. It follows that every violation of, and

			resistance against said

			restrictions is (by default) morally justified. The entity

			responsible for putting the restriction in place, <em>ánd</em> those

			that enforce these restrictions, remain guilty of a human rights

			violation and must be prosecuted as if the restriction didn't exist.

			Because of the moral void, it cannot escape prosecution by invoking

			<em>nulla poena sine lege</em> (i.e. "It wasn't prohibited to do

			so"). The burden of providing compensation for the damage inflicted

			by humans violating the restrictions falls on the imposing entity.

			Should the entity not be a natural person (for example: a company or

			authoritative body like a government), the people responsible of

			that entity are accountable. Whether others that served that entity

			(or were conscripted in doing so) handled in bad faith is to be

			decided on a per-case basis.

		</quote>

		The rule has vast implications that secure our integrity as humans, and

		the rights that come with being on this planet. It pardons Edward

		Snowden. It makes politicians that deny climate mayhem responsible for the

		damage. It opens a path to prosecute Apple for violating our digital

		rights. In general: <strong>It stops using legislature as an excuse for

		moral accountability.</strong>

		The lack of strictness is key; cultures and people change, and so do our

		morals. Building a coal plant during the industrial revolution was

		understandable, but today it conflicts with our right to live because we

		know coal plants accelerate the climate mayhem. Sabotaging the

		construction is now morally right, it wasn't in 1800. This is just an

		example, but there are many more.

		I don't seek for everyone to use my rule as a justification for total

		anarchy. I do want to provide a reasoning that allows us to

		My rule doesn't discredit the existence of a state with laws and justice

		system, rather, it works with it. It also strengthens their power where

		it should, and diminishes the extent to which power can be abused,

		because my rule functions as a deterrent to do so (for example: If

		there's a law allowing you to kill homosexuals on sight, and you try to

		do so, you can expect people trying to shoot you to defend that

		homosexual's right to live).

		I think humanity is ready for more democratic oversight and

		transparency, especially in the European Union.

		You might argue that you could infer a validation for absolute

		anarchy from this

		rule, but that's not right. What it does, is give the power to the

		democracy to decide whether doing

		something is right or wrong, holding others accountable for the powers

		they have, without being able to abuse legislature to escape moral

		accountability.

{% endcomment %}

</section>

<section>

{% comment %}

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

<p>{% blocktrans %}

    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. Always 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.{% endblocktrans %}</p>

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

<p>{% blocktrans %}

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

    often get the same two answers:<p>

    <ul><li>You won't lose much money when you get pickpocketed.</li>

        <li>You don't risk accepting counterfeit money.</li>

    </ul>

    <p>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:

        {% 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>