4 ms·

> 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 o

> 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 Ah, we're at this stage of discourse. > 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. Not only did I not say that (but because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie), but you're clearly implying that you think there are policy grievances that fall to voters and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible. You're acutely aware of the complaint and even use it in the construction of your post, but then suggest you never implied or even imagined it? Yeah. Okay Sure. It's also worth noting you're at the phase of tactical retreat where it's important to start casting mental credibility into play. This will make it easier for you (either in a personal sense, or within the flow of the dialogue) to disengage with the proclamation, "I have determined that you lie, so therefore everything you have said must not only be untrue, and probably the exact opposite is true!" Observe: > 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. Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC and pushing conservative ideology as if the two are linked. They aren't, actually. What is linked is the CoC denial and the worst sort of behavior that festers in the US conservative communities. It's not unique to the US, even. But what's remarkable is that throughout this you've gamely accepted a tacit link between all three of these concepts, never even really stopping to question this. This is the part where I apologize for being slightly disingenuous with you. I didn't do this accidentally. I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, but having read a bunch of your material before engaging, I figured you'd simply accept this. The result is a conversation about written standards of professional conduct leading to statements like, > No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept. False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here. But at least you get back to the core of your argument, "The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, who have been violating these while insisting they haven't for decades." > [that] 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. The Linux CoC does indeed take away the power to be abusive and unprofessional. If you were not doing those things (out of, I dunno, some kind of higher moral principle), then you've lost nothing. Indeed, it'd be "another hollow SJW victory" as SoA says. To you, this is about power and control. I agree, but that power has always rested in the majority of the linux contributors, as proposed by their leadership. Now that their leadership has decided on this minimal course change. That you perceive the written standards of conduct as a power loss reinforces the need for it. I'll repeat it, for emphasis: You view a policy that condemns public abuse in a professional context as a power loss. This argument is only consistent if you felt the need to violate the CoC. No spurious arguments from final consequence, no slippery slope, no absurd category errors or examples of rules being abused can shake this single, simple fact. > I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. I didn't say they were terrorizing me. I'm fortunate that I'm not on the top of the list. But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist. We see similar reduction in legal protection of gay and lesbian people. > 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. Please stop misrepresenting your actual intent, it's annoying and part of etc etc. Please stop using your refusal to fact-check nearly anything as a basis for discrediting me, it's annoying and goes against the spirit of a fair debate. Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, it's annoying and the stakes are much higher than this conversation... in many cases it's a violation of workplace law. But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start. Please be aware, I'm not going to reply anymore. I suspect the mods will lock this thread soon, so I'll not invite any further trouble on their doorstep. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 - I quote him, "I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law", a position soundly refuted in basis of history and fact via "dragonwriter" here. I confess I was so taken aback by the audacity of the claim I did a poor job responding to it. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migr... [2]: http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analy... and I quote, "Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;" Nevermind that under Article 6 of the constitution and our participation in the UN Genocide Convention (counting as an international treaty) the president is in direct violation of a constitutional law that supercedes his authority in all cases its been examined.

smsm42 8y ago
> Ah, we're at this stage of discourse. We've been on this stage from the very beginning. From they very start you accused me (and, I have no doubt, others) in saying things that I demonstrably did not say, and imputed to me beliefs that I never expressed or held. > Not only did I not say that You did say: "In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them." You say that people who voted for Trump are "uniquely not penalized" - from which immediately follows that if things were normal, not "unique" for them, they would be. But maybe you meant something else by this, if so, please explain - if you didn't mean Trump voters should be penalized, what did you mean and why did you spend so much time proving to me how bad Trump voters are and what atrocities they have inflicted on you and the country? What was the purpose of this if not to illustrate why you think they should be penalized? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know there's no answer for this. > because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie I know, but I would like to remind you that the fact that you ignore something does not mean it's a lie. There are numerous examples of conservative speech being persecuted and suppressed, from Antifa riots to Eich case you are so richly familiar with. > and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible Responsible for what? For having an opinion? I don't see what is there to be "responsible" for - unless, as I just said before, you think having some opinions is a crime in itself (I propose to call it "thoughtcrime") and its holders should be penalized. Which is especially weird hearing from a person that apparently - from your own words - has some opinions that has been very recently and probably still are very unpopular among many, and suffered from it, and thinks this suffering was completely unjust (which btw, to remove all doubt, I agree). And yet you are so ready to inflict the suffering on others for holding opinions you don't like. > But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist There is no campaign to remove their rights to simply exist. There is no government policy to systematically exterminate trans people, there is no policy to harm them in any targeted way. On the contrary, discriminating against them is forbidden by the law (yes, I know laws are imperfect and not always followed), and in some places - like academia - you can be fired and professionally destroyed for merely using a wrong word in a conversation with or about a person. Moreover, I've seen many cases where merely arguing about political issues - with regard to trans policies or otherwise - can make you a target for personal destruction campaign in a tech world, in your professional capacity. I think you are overstating your case a bit. I am willing to admit there are people who do not accept trans people the way they would like to be accepted - and there is some actual discrimination, including recent order to not accept trans people into US Army service - but this is very, very far from "remove hard-won rights to simply exist". Nobody needs to join the US Army to "simply exist". And while you can - and should - argue that such policy is unjust, doing it this way just makes you sound profoundly unserious. > False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here. You seem to be under impression that finding any link that has word "genocide" in it proves that Trump administration operates genocide camps. No, it doesn't, and no, there are still no genocide camps. Please remove your tinfoil hat, it does nothing except making your head sweaty. The propaganda hystery about "family separation" (which is an old US admin policy way predating Trump) is one sore example of how modern Left has completely abandoned rationality and serious policy discourse for "hate Trump all the time, max intensity, facts be damned" - but even if their claims were 100% true (which is the exact opposite - pretty much everything that is commonly said on it is false), it would have nothing to do with "genocide". Even if the Trump administration would create a policy of abducting immigrant children (what for? I though they were supposed to hate immigrants and want them out, so why get more of them here for longer? But I guess you can't apply logic to some theories) and keeping them in prisons, because they are evil child haters - it would still not mean what "genocide" means. But since this is also false, we get a comic ladder of falsities stacked on each other. > Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. Your link shows nothing of the sort of expression you claimed Eich said. And no, preferring "domestic partnership" to "registered marriage" is not the same as "LGBT people are not really people". If you claim Eich said the latter, you have to provide example of the latter, not the former. This confirms my suspicion that you routinely misunderstand things said to you, or at least present as if you misunderstood them, probably to make your ideological opponents look bad. This may work occasionally, but not when one can actually read what was originally said, and certainly not when it's my own words. > But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC If you gave yourself a second to think, you would realize how obviously false this claim is. Arguing here with you, I can do exactly nothing to discredit Linux CoC - I have zero weight in Linux community, I have zero power to change anything about CoC being accepted (I understand it's a done deal anyway), and the probability that anybody who has any power to change anything there would listen to me is also zero. Granted, the probability of me convincing you of anything is also pretty low, especially given the hardship you have with simply perceiving my statements undistorted, but I think providing an example of what people like me actually think - instead of relying on distorted accounts of people like you - and providing example of debate and refutaion of your claims, has some value, even if very small. > I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" I had this temptation, but unfortunately my OCD nature got the better of me, as it proved to me a bit hard to leave a lie sitting in public unrefuted. Congratulation, you have found my weak point. > If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, I am glad you feel remorse for trying to derail a discussion. Recognizing the problem is the first step to fixing it. > The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, No, that's way too broad (and btw this has nothing to do with gender). The true purpose of these - at least for some people pushing it, not for everybody - is gaining power. Now, why those people feel they need power, can differ. Some because being part of a minority and being attacked by trolls makes them feel vulnerable and in need of strong defense, some for purely ideological reasons ("white hetero men are evil and we need to have power to keep the evil in check"), and many for the best reasons like "we are good people, so if we have all the power we could do more good", there could be tons of reasons, everybody has their own. Once the power is captured, however, the pattern of its abuse so far has been pretty consistent - productive, non-troll people get hounded out because they rubbed someone with newly acquired power a wrong way. You seem to demonstrate that you think there's nothing wrong with this - as long as people hounded out are people you dislike. This is a fundamental difference between your position and mine - I think it's wrong to hound out people for thoughtcrimes, you think it's ok as long as your side gets to determine what thoughts are to be proscribed. Of course, some people genuine want CoCs for genuine reasons of upholding civility, etc. And they would be fairly applying it and never abusing it. But those are not the people we should be concerned with, the ones that itch to abuse it are. > Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, That's exactly the point - this policy, as it being applied in reality, penalizes not for being abusive and exclusionary, but for disagreeing with people in power. Which looks especially hypocritical because it comes from exactly the people that rhetorically rebel against the existing power structures that oppress them - but as soon as they get to be the part of the power structure, they behave in exactly the same exclusionary and abusive way as they just denounced! > But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start. Your thinly-veiled attempt to insult my intelligence by suggesting it's a major achievement for me to learn to use a search engine has been noted. It does not offend me, but adds a shame point to your long list of rhetorical faults. > in many cases it's a violation of workplace law Did you just threaten to mess with my employment if I keep annoying you by arguing with you? I couldn't even hope for a better illustration of everything I have said and hoped to have said but couldn't find the means to, than this. A perfect final coda.

smsm42 8y ago

> Ah, we're at this stage of discourse. We've been on this stage from the very beginning. From they very start you accused me (and, I have no doubt, others) in saying things that I demonstrably did not say, and imputed to me beliefs that I never expressed or held. > Not only did I not say that You did say: "In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them." You say that people who voted for Trump are "uniquely not penalized" - from which immediately follows that if things were normal, not "unique" for them, they would be. But maybe you meant something else by this, if so, please explain - if you didn't mean Trump voters should be penalized, what did you mean and why did you spend so much time proving to me how bad Trump voters are and what atrocities they have inflicted on you and the country? What was the purpose of this if not to illustrate why you think they should be penalized? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know there's no answer for this. > because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie I know, but I would like to remind you that the fact that you ignore something does not mean it's a lie. There are numerous examples of conservative speech being persecuted and suppressed, from Antifa riots to Eich case you are so richly familiar with. > and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible Responsible for what? For having an opinion? I don't see what is there to be "responsible" for - unless, as I just said before, you think having some opinions is a crime in itself (I propose to call it "thoughtcrime") and its holders should be penalized. Which is especially weird hearing from a person that apparently - from your own words - has some opinions that has been very recently and probably still are very unpopular among many, and suffered from it, and thinks this suffering was completely unjust (which btw, to remove all doubt, I agree). And yet you are so ready to inflict the suffering on others for holding opinions you don't like. > But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist There is no campaign to remove their rights to simply exist. There is no government policy to systematically exterminate trans people, there is no policy to harm them in any targeted way. On the contrary, discriminating against them is forbidden by the law (yes, I know laws are imperfect and not always followed), and in some places - like academia - you can be fired and professionally destroyed for merely using a wrong word in a conversation with or about a person. Moreover, I've seen many cases where merely arguing about political issues - with regard to trans policies or otherwise - can make you a target for personal destruction campaign in a tech world, in your professional capacity. I think you are overstating your case a bit. I am willing to admit there are people who do not accept trans people the way they would like to be accepted - and there is some actual discrimination, including recent order to not accept trans people into US Army service - but this is very, very far from "remove hard-won rights to simply exist". Nobody needs to join the US Army to "simply exist". And while you can - and should - argue that such policy is unjust, doing it this way just makes you sound profoundly unserious. > False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here. You seem to be under impression that finding any link that has word "genocide" in it proves that Trump administration operates genocide camps. No, it doesn't, and no, there are still no genocide camps. Please remove your tinfoil hat, it does nothing except making your head sweaty. The propaganda hystery about "family separation" (which is an old US admin policy way predating Trump) is one sore example of how modern Left has completely abandoned rationality and serious policy discourse for "hate Trump all the time, max intensity, facts be damned" - but even if their claims were 100% true (which is the exact opposite - pretty much everything that is commonly said on it is false), it would have nothing to do with "genocide". Even if the Trump administration would create a policy of abducting immigrant children (what for? I though they were supposed to hate immigrants and want them out, so why get more of them here for longer? But I guess you can't apply logic to some theories) and keeping them in prisons, because they are evil child haters - it would still not mean what "genocide" means. But since this is also false, we get a comic ladder of falsities stacked on each other. > Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. Your link shows nothing of the sort of expression you claimed Eich said. And no, preferring "domestic partnership" to "registered marriage" is not the same as "LGBT people are not really people". If you claim Eich said the latter, you have to provide example of the latter, not the former. This confirms my suspicion that you routinely misunderstand things said to you, or at least present as if you misunderstood them, probably to make your ideological opponents look bad. This may work occasionally, but not when one can actually read what was originally said, and certainly not when it's my own words. > But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC If you gave yourself a second to think, you would realize how obviously false this claim is. Arguing here with you, I can do exactly nothing to discredit Linux CoC - I have zero weight in Linux community, I have zero power to change anything about CoC being accepted (I understand it's a done deal anyway), and the probability that anybody who has any power to change anything there would listen to me is also zero. Granted, the probability of me convincing you of anything is also pretty low, especially given the hardship you have with simply perceiving my statements undistorted, but I think providing an example of what people like me actually think - instead of relying on distorted accounts of people like you - and providing example of debate and refutaion of your claims, has some value, even if very small. > I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" I had this temptation, but unfortunately my OCD nature got the better of me, as it proved to me a bit hard to leave a lie sitting in public unrefuted. Congratulation, you have found my weak point. > If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, I am glad you feel remorse for trying to derail a discussion. Recognizing the problem is the first step to fixing it. > The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, No, that's way too broad (and btw this has nothing to do with gender). The true purpose of these - at least for some people pushing it, not for everybody - is gaining power. Now, why those people feel they need power, can differ. Some because being part of a minority and being attacked by trolls makes them feel vulnerable and in need of strong defense, some for purely ideological reasons ("white hetero men are evil and we need to have power to keep the evil in check"), and many for the best reasons like "we are good people, so if we have all the power we could do more good", there could be tons of reasons, everybody has their own. Once the power is captured, however, the pattern of its abuse so far has been pretty consistent - productive, non-troll people get hounded out because they rubbed someone with newly acquired power a wrong way. You seem to demonstrate that you think there's nothing wrong with this - as long as people hounded out are people you dislike. This is a fundamental difference between your position and mine - I think it's wrong to hound out people for thoughtcrimes, you think it's ok as long as your side gets to determine what thoughts are to be proscribed. Of course, some people genuine want CoCs for genuine reasons of upholding civility, etc. And they would be fairly applying it and never abusing it. But those are not the people we should be concerned with, the ones that itch to abuse it are. > Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, That's exactly the point - this policy, as it being applied in reality, penalizes not for being abusive and exclusionary, but for disagreeing with people in power. Which looks especially hypocritical because it comes from exactly the people that rhetorically rebel against the existing power structures that oppress them - but as soon as they get to be the part of the power structure, they behave in exactly the same exclusionary and abusive way as they just denounced! > But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start. Your thinly-veiled attempt to insult my intelligence by suggesting it's a major achievement for me to learn to use a search engine has been noted. It does not offend me, but adds a shame point to your long list of rhetorical faults. > in many cases it's a violation of workplace law Did you just threaten to mess with my employment if I keep annoying you by arguing with you? I couldn't even hope for a better illustration of everything I have said and hoped to have said but couldn't find the means to, than this. A perfect final coda.