5 ms·
I wish people would stop being so concerned about what other people think. If treating people well is the right thing to do, then do it. If people are nasty whe
by mikeash 8y ago
I wish people would stop being so concerned about what other people think. If treating people well is the right thing to do, then do it. If people are nasty when they try to make you treat people well, ignore them.
When people say that they wanted to do the right thing but got pushed away because the advocates were jerks, that just sounds like an excuse.
That’s not to say that it’s ok to be a jerk just because you’re telling people to do the right thing. I’m just tired of this line people like to pull out of, it’s not my fault I’m hurting the vulnerable, those SJW jerks made me do it.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoThe thing is, on most political or religious topics, people leave that stuff at home and don't bring it to work. The SJW people are bringing it to work and right into everybody's face. I'm not saying "guess what, then, I'm the opposite, let's go be racist". I'm saying "could you please get that out of my face".
- beaconstudios 8y ago> I'm not turning around and saying "guess what, then, I'm the opposite, let's go be racist". incidentally, the people who did decide to do this became the alt-right.
- Sharlin 8y agoThe alt-right as a movement is pretty clearly a counterreaction to the social justice movement, but I’m not sure if it’s so much reasonable people getting radicalized than an already rather unpleasant subset of the population finding a platform – and an echo chamber – for their unpleasantness.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 8y agoMany of them blame the left for pushing them away. It’s probably not true, but it makes a convenient excuse for people.
- AllegedAlec 8y agoAlt-right was a term used by grass-roots movements and libertarians long before the term was ever co-opted by other groups. If you mean neo-nazis, just say neo-nazis.
- beaconstudios 8y agoI mean neo-nazis, neoreactionaries, neo-fascists, all those types. Basically the subset of /pol/ and stormfront users who genuinely believe what they espouse. At least that's my interpretation of the term.
- AllegedAlec 8y agoFair enough, that is the interpretation that seems to be pushed a lot these days. I just annoys the hell out of me, since alt-right at some point meant exactly that: someone who was right-wing, but in a way which does not align with any of the standard right wing parties.
- beaconstudios 8y agoI'm aware of the origin, but the meaning of a word is not derived from it's coining but common knowledge in some form similar to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)). It's the same process that caused "hacker" to change its meaning from basically tinkerer to computer security expert (either white hat or black hat).
- mikeash 8y agoYou said this stuff “pushes me away from it.” It should push you away from the troublesome people, and nothing more. When you say most people leave this stuff at home, that seems to imply that the status quo is neutral. It isn’t. Continuing to treat people the way you always have is just as much of a statement as saying you should treat people differently. It’s just easier to find agreement.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoI'm a different person than the original poster, but hey I'm pushed away too, so let's go with it. SJWs do not have a monopoly on thought, on how to deal with societal problems, or any of that. This isn't a 'tolerance of intolerance' thing, it's a 'tolerance of those outside your very narrow camp' thing. Most of the individuals I've encountered couldn't tell you who their congressman is, and they'd never go door to door canvassing voters. But they want to make up an ever-escalating list of things that are offensive and enforce it on me at work. Are we trying to break down barriers or are we trying to erect them?
- ilikehurdles 8y agoWhat offensive rules have you faced?
- yourbandsucks 8y agoPeople going after antirez recently. Dude's italian. Stop projecting your American racial baggage on him. Now, some people have gone after the terms 'whitelist' and 'blacklist'. Also extremely silly. Nobody confuses black people for literal chromatic black. "Wait, you're actually a shade of brown! That guy too!". And, sure, maybe I should just be reasonable and go along with this stuff. It's not hurting anyone, right? But how come the loudest and dumbest get to dominate the discourse? We all must obey them, or else we're racist or at best unreasonable?
- mikeash 8y agoBy talking about how problematic these people are, you miss and reinforce my point. I’m not saying anything about how they behave or whether it’s acceptable or helpful. I’m saying that how you behave should not be determined by them. If you’ve decided not to encourage people to do the right thing (or, worse, stop doing the right thing yourself) because some other people are jerks, you’re just making excuses for behaving badly. There is a useful discussion to be had about persuasion. Phrases like “it pushes people away” are perfectly fine of that’s what happens. But when it becomes “it pushes me away,” well, take some responsibility for your own beliefs and actions.
- deelowe 8y agoAre we still talking about the LKML here? I don't feel "SJW" has much of anything to do with this outside of a few very isolated incidents. Personal attacks and disrespectfulness has been a staple in that community for decades at this point and definitely predates the somewhat modern hatefulness surrounding bias and privilege.
- adrianN 8y agoI haven't been following the LKML too closely but I can't recall personal attacks. I can recall people's code and ideas being called shit.
- DFHippie 8y agoOff-topic and a minor thing, but "predate" is what predators do to prey. "Pre-date" is what one moment can do to another. At least according to my wife, for whom this matter looms large (she is an editor).
- ambicapter 8y agoThis seems like a preference. Merriam Webster agrees with your wife, Cambridge English and Oxford do not.
- SolaceQuantum 8y agoI currently work and no, people don’t leave their politics at work. You’ll hear about people’s partners and they’ll expect to hear the same form you, which is now a political matter because some states let you get fired for being gay (sexuality is now political). People will talk about current events, the latest and greatest hit tweets from the POTUS, so on and so forth. Hell I can hardly have lunch with co workers without them telling me how they feel about younger people , talking ethnicity and immigration... The problem is a lot of “sjw” stuff is basic identity that is considered political. Wanting to be seen as a woman is political to a lot of people, but it’s not seen as political to ignore someone’s requested pronouns. Being gay can be a firable offense with no repercussions in many states, but it’s not considered political to talk about your hetereosexual marriage at work. The definition of “bringing politics to work” is inconsistent except to consistently inform minorities that trying to achieve equal treatment is political, but continuing to contribute to systematic erasure of minorities is not.
- eeZah7Ux 8y agoThe idea of "leaving politics outside of work" is, in itself, extremely political. How many social and political movements, and even revolutions came out from workplaces and worker communities? The 8-hours revolution, Fascism in Italy, Bolshevism in Russia, and the list goes on.
- ethbro 8y agoCivility is the bedrock on which justice is built. That's why Gandhi, King, and Mandela effected change. And so many passionate others did not.
- mikeash 8y agoIt’s also why Washington and Lincoln were able to effect change. Wait a minute.... In any case, you’re missing the point. The point is that if you use someone’s incivility as an excuse to behave badly, you’re not doing it right. It’s fine if you don’t like them, it’s fine if you want them do change their approach, but if they push you away from treating people well, that’s on you, not them.
- ethbro 8y agoI'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities. So yes, both took a non-violent path until it could not be avoided. Furthermore, both had substantial popular support, larger political apparatus backing them (the Continental Congress and remaining US Congress respectively), and almost lost. I could care less about me. I care about the masses out there who are swayed by civility -- if you show me a pattern of disagreements that have been won by a minority alienating a majority, then I'll concede the point.
- mikeash 8y agoMy comment is all about “me”, specifically people who say they are pushed away from good behavior because advocates are jerks. If you don’t do that then I don’t think this is the right comment thread for you.
- munin 8y ago> I'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities Why did Lincoln resupply Fort Sumter? If he did not want to initiate hostilities, he could have evacuated it.
- gowld 8y agoThat's extremely selective memory. Mandela was a member of a terrorist organization. Apartheid didn't end because Mandela sat in prison politely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing King railed against people who spoke like you to quiet the people fighting for justice: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.... "I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare."
- rovek 8y agoPaying attention to what other people think is vital for converging on an agreed "right thing to do" as the social challenges become less obvious and more complex. This exercise requires proponents of ideas to engage in civil conversation, something which those given the most air time or who shout loudest seem completely incapable of. The natural response to this level of aggression is disengagement in the interest of self-preservation or spending one's time wisely.