5 ms·

> And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized

> And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda. > NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi? Not very fair, is it? But nice try. > that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse. But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms. > Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record. > Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace. His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights. > If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)." > It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are. > And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president. There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you." The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.

smsm42 8y ago
> And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand. > It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda. No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept. > I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi? Sorry, I couldn't understand anything from the above. DSA positions are certainly not "centrist" in any serious meaning of the word, unless you think the center begins on the left of the Democratic party. And DSA is being embraced by the most mainstream press outlet we have here in the US. And some of its rank members openly brag about being communists (btw I never heard about a Republican openly bragging about being fascist...). > Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse. No, it is not - not nearly enough compared to the seriousness of the problem. When we have countries that are still unsure if it's OK for a woman to leave home without a male relative following and completely sure any woman showing her face in public should be jailed (or worse), and that anybody gay should be just put to death, then mentioning it once a month in the "curiosities of the world" section of the paper, next to gardening tips, is not reporting. At least not if you want to make an impression you take the matter seriously. Nobody is quashing this reporting but the fear that serious discussion would be called cultural imperialism, racism, islamophobia, etc, - which is exactly what happens. > Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record. Whether you personally discussed anything with him is immaterial for the point unless you had any key role in hounding him out of Mozilla. There was no discussion leading to that event, there was an attack and Mozilla folded and Eich was out. The fact that you privately discussed anything with him doesn't matter as that discussion did not have any weight in the events that followed. > His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights. Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not. > Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)." Again, given the above, I am pretty sure "treating you as less than human" is wildly inaccurate description of what is actually happening. More accurate description is probably "they disagree with me, and that offends me a lot, so I would claim they dehumanize me, because this shifts the focus from the matter of disagreement to them being bad". > Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are. That sounds as you are saying CoC is not needed for the purposes of preserving "basic civility", inclusiveness and so on, and "you just need to behave" is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project. Which is exactly confirming the original complaint. I guess we got some kind of the consensus here? Or did you mean something else and if so, what? > There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you." I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. US government does a lot of terminally idiotic things, hundred times more plain stupid things, and more things that are outright evil that I would care naming here, to not make this unbearably long comment twice as large. And I mean any goverment, none excluded (of course Trump's too). I think you exaggerate a bit (actually, a lot). But, I don't see how it systematically terrorizes you - could you explain what you mean by that? > You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. I do not. I know some people vehemently disagree with the government and its policies, and that's normal and OK. I disagree with it too all the time and on many issues. However, I don't see anything it is doing - excepting some classes of people that can legitimately claim being a target of systematic government persecution, such as illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, drug users, and some other classes like that - that warrants descriptions that you are using. If you mean any of these classes, please point out which one, otherwise it's very hard to understand your complaint. P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand you.

smsm42 8y ago

> And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand. > It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda. No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept. > I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi? Sorry, I couldn't understand anything from the above. DSA positions are certainly not "centrist" in any serious meaning of the word, unless you think the center begins on the left of the Democratic party. And DSA is being embraced by the most mainstream press outlet we have here in the US. And some of its rank members openly brag about being communists (btw I never heard about a Republican openly bragging about being fascist...). > Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse. No, it is not - not nearly enough compared to the seriousness of the problem. When we have countries that are still unsure if it's OK for a woman to leave home without a male relative following and completely sure any woman showing her face in public should be jailed (or worse), and that anybody gay should be just put to death, then mentioning it once a month in the "curiosities of the world" section of the paper, next to gardening tips, is not reporting. At least not if you want to make an impression you take the matter seriously. Nobody is quashing this reporting but the fear that serious discussion would be called cultural imperialism, racism, islamophobia, etc, - which is exactly what happens. > Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record. Whether you personally discussed anything with him is immaterial for the point unless you had any key role in hounding him out of Mozilla. There was no discussion leading to that event, there was an attack and Mozilla folded and Eich was out. The fact that you privately discussed anything with him doesn't matter as that discussion did not have any weight in the events that followed. > His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights. Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not. > Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)." Again, given the above, I am pretty sure "treating you as less than human" is wildly inaccurate description of what is actually happening. More accurate description is probably "they disagree with me, and that offends me a lot, so I would claim they dehumanize me, because this shifts the focus from the matter of disagreement to them being bad". > Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are. That sounds as you are saying CoC is not needed for the purposes of preserving "basic civility", inclusiveness and so on, and "you just need to behave" is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project. Which is exactly confirming the original complaint. I guess we got some kind of the consensus here? Or did you mean something else and if so, what? > There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you." I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. US government does a lot of terminally idiotic things, hundred times more plain stupid things, and more things that are outright evil that I would care naming here, to not make this unbearably long comment twice as large. And I mean any goverment, none excluded (of course Trump's too). I think you exaggerate a bit (actually, a lot). But, I don't see how it systematically terrorizes you - could you explain what you mean by that? > You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. I do not. I know some people vehemently disagree with the government and its policies, and that's normal and OK. I disagree with it too all the time and on many issues. However, I don't see anything it is doing - excepting some classes of people that can legitimately claim being a target of systematic government persecution, such as illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, drug users, and some other classes like that - that warrants descriptions that you are using. If you mean any of these classes, please point out which one, otherwise it's very hard to understand your complaint. P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand you.