melmi

The American Dream is inherently capitalist, it being a myth doesn't change that.

The crux of the American Dream is that you have to suffer on the bottom of the totem pole, but eventually you'll get the chance to be on top and exploit the others on the bottom. The American Dream is very useful to the capitalist class because it gives people motivation to stay in the rat race, to believe that they have a stake in capitalism as a system, because one day their hard work will be rewarded and they will be a capitalist as well.

Outside of the context of capitalism, the American Dream doesn't really make sense. If realizing that it's a lie helps push people to the left, that's good and should be encouraged, but I don't think that makes the Dream itself anticapitalist.

I agree that chaotic characters would be more inclined to break laws. But I suppose to circle back, I don't see why that makes them any less Good.

Even your description of "law is an impediment to justice" sounds like a CG character would just do whatever they want without letting laws stop them, while NG might be more likely to consider whether or not to follow the law in any given circumstance and perhaps adjust their plan to be slightly more lawful, while CG might not respect the rule of law at all and just break into the prison and free the slaves or whatever.

Neutral Good (NG). Neutral Good creatures do the best they can, working within rules but not feeling bound by them. A kindly person who helps others according to their needs is probably Neutral Good.

Chaotic Good (CG). Chaotic Good creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect. A rebel who waylays a cruel baron's tax collectors and uses the stolen money to help the poor is probably Chaotic Good.

Side note: I agree that law and freedom aren't necessarily in opposition as pure concepts. But part of my argument is that CG characters wouldn't innately hate objectively good laws like "don't keep slaves". The laws they'd take issue with are ones that limit freedom, like "don't steal". Most probably wouldn't be ideologues campaigning for the destruction of the government but they might just steal to fund their Good.

Maybe I'm confused what you mean. Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn't mean you need to break them; you can still think "people shouldn't murder" or "slavery is bad". I don't think incidentally following laws makes you not Chaotic. You just don't care what the law is; you'd be doing the same thing regardless of whether it was the law or not.

Besides, I'm not sure "opposed to the concept of laws" is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG. It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.

The chaotic good alignment isn't any less good because they can simply follow the just laws and break the unjust laws. They might resent the institution of law, but they aren't obliged to do the opposite of the law, they just will do it for their own reasons instead of the legality. They're still fundamentally good.

A lawful good character would probably prefer legal methods to fight legal injustice, while a chaotic good character might prefer to break the law as they don't see legal methods as worth anything/don't recognize its authority. Both are Good, but they might use different methods when confronted with the same problem.

as long as it's about a month per area

Seems pretty arbitrary. Why confine Pride events to a single month?

.i la lojban cu mutce lo ka smuske tinsa .i ku'i ly. na logji prane pe'i .i loi jbopre cu piso'iroi da'asnu lo ka prane nitcu .i ru'a lo klamburi cu na'e lojbo ka'u .i jy. xebni lo malgli .iseju lo nu lojbo klamburi zbasu cu nandu ba'a jeku'i cumki

Lojban is very semantically rigid, but not perfectly logical IMO. Lojbanists often argue about the necessity of logical perfection. I suspect that puns might not be seen as culturally Lojbanic. Lojbanists hate Anglicisms or bits of English leaking into the way they speak Lojban. Regardless, making Lojbanic puns might be difficult but it's possible.

That's configurable since Git 2.28. You can change init.defaultBranch to main or trunk or whatever you want.

You would think...

This is interesting! I've been exploring this and it seems like a neat little license.

I'm not a lawyer, but one funny edge case I noticed is that the Extractive Industries module seems like it makes it a breach of license for crystal shops to use your software since you're involved in the sale of minerals.

I would tend to agree with FSF that it's not FOSS, though. There are so many restrictions on this license and who can use it, based on fairly arbitrary things like "if CBP claims you're doing forced labor" or "you do business in this specific region". It might be more moral, but it's a different approach than FOSS, which is less restrictive than more and prioritizes "Freedom" above everything else. Maybe it's time for a different approach, though?

Tbh Trek isn't very gay, it seems like most people are straight/gender conforming by default. There are only a few gay characters. Compare it to the Culture, where trying out new sexes and sexualities is so normalized that there's one character who's explicitly mentioned to be cishet and another character remarks it's weird that he's never explored his sexuality at all or tried changing his sex.