3 ms·

I really don't care what the cause is, they can go. Why have them?

• FeepingCreature 10y ago
  Because we're liberals, and liberals are inclusive by default? Having them is the default case. To exclude them, you have to make a specific argument to that extent. That's the only way civil society can exist without falling into constant tribal battles.
• concinds 10y ago
  Go where? How do you get rid of them? The problem is exactly the same as the following: In an organization, you'll have some employees that are more psychologically healthy, and some less. Some will have substance abuse problems. The employees with substance abuse problems will be less productive, on average. In other words, they're dragging the organization down. There's no "getting rid of them". They'll just burden another company. Same as here, in open-source, you can't "get rid of them", it's logistically impossible. This problem logistically can't get fixed through exclusion. It can only get fixed by "raising the floor" (in other words, making sure that the most troubled men become less troubled). Raising the median/average won't help. Same as raising the median income won't help the people in poverty, raising the minimum wage will. In the original metaphor, since substance abuse and attachment disorders are correlated, again the best solution is early detection of attachment disorders in young children, and improving their situation. Why not help the least fortunate? I can guarantee you, the kinds of guys sending Photoshopped pics of bloody cadavers are not happy people. There's psychological inequality just as much as economic inequality, though for psychology, most people find it harder to be compassionate.