5 ms·

Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous a

Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous admins? hypocrisy x10 I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
The creator of Ansible's thoughts on this situation: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874
- rlt 7y ago
  This seems like poor form coming from a competitor.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    He could've told people to switch to Ansible, but he didn't. In fact, he's explicitly telling people not to switch and suggesting they fork Chef instead: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792
    - cyanmide 7y ago
      Michael hasn’t had anything to do with Ansible for the last few years.
- turk73 7y ago
  Virtue signal much? How does RedHat's parent company, IBM, feel about all this?
Jonnax 7y ago
It's interesting how sincerely using the phrase "fake news" says so much about a person. What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
- sarcasmatwork 7y ago
  It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for. What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - knd775 7y ago
    In regards to anonymous sources, what do you want them to do? Most sources need to stay unnamed, or they cease to be sources (and no future sources come forward). Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
etchalon 7y ago
Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
  - human20190310 7y ago
    If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
    - koolba 7y ago
      > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
      - etchalon 7y ago
        There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
anon9001 7y ago
You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy: In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date. I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing? Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans. Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy. Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common. If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way. If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well. In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect. That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware. Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration. edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.

aaronbrethorst 7y ago

The creator of Ansible's thoughts on this situation: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1176145869072207874

rlt 7y ago
This seems like poor form coming from a competitor.
- amyjess 7y ago
  He could've told people to switch to Ansible, but he didn't. In fact, he's explicitly telling people not to switch and suggesting they fork Chef instead: https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792 https://twitter.com/laserllama/status/1175780701020577792
  - cyanmide 7y ago
    Michael hasn’t had anything to do with Ansible for the last few years.
turk73 7y ago
Virtue signal much? How does RedHat's parent company, IBM, feel about all this?

Jonnax 7y ago

It's interesting how sincerely using the phrase "fake news" says so much about a person. What does this have at all to do with made up stories?

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for. What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- knd775 7y ago
  In regards to anonymous sources, what do you want them to do? Most sources need to stay unnamed, or they cease to be sources (and no future sources come forward). Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.

etchalon 7y ago

Another way to say this would be "Listened to employees and customers." As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.

dmitrygr 7y ago
Previous adm deported more people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-immigrants-than-obama-11564824601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep... https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbers-continue-to-lag-behind-obamas-despite-strong-rhetoric/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-2020-1411691 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
- human20190310 7y ago
  If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
  - koolba 7y ago
    > If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time. If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
    - etchalon 7y ago
      There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there. These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.

anon9001 7y ago

You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy: In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date. I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing? Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans. Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy. Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common. If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way. If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well. In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect. That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware. Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration. edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.