4 ms·

> Asking people to not separate the product from the person Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person? I'm not boycotting lactalys because

by orwin 6y ago

> Asking people to not separate the product from the person Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person? I'm not boycotting lactalys because their product are bad, they are quite good in fact, but he way the brand owner used to treat his employees, and the way they still treat milk producers irks me. I don't want to contribute to a person fortune if i don't like him or his way of treating people. Should i buy some Nestlé product for convenience when i know that people gaining the most of the deal are not even apologetic about the contaminated water scandals? When they knew about African water and still sold mothers powder milk? I quite like some of their other product, i just don't want to give them my money. It is the same for this soapbox product, no? I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? Also there is room for dialog, i've talk quite extensively with a sodastream ambassador. Still won't ever buy their products, but we did talk.

rglullis 6y ago
> It is the same for this soapbox product, no? Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees? > I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator. If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
  - rglullis 6y ago
    (This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Invoking the ghost of Martin Niemoller to complain about people not wanting to do business with somebody who publicly espouses views they find abhorrent is a hell of a swerve.
- orwin 6y ago
  > First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Thank you for this. I understand your view better like this. This is my point of view: I use my money and my time however i want. No one should feel entitled enough tell me if i am allowed to boycott a product. This is why i don't think it is cancelling and that you are doing the term a disservice: Neither i nor 488643689 did say "don't use and/or participate with this product, he is transphobe". 488643689 just informed me, and others, of the product owner views on trans people, and that he cofounded spinster.xyz (which is a TERF platform). Our society and economy is build on the myth of homo economicus. That people will take the best decision for them with the right informations. Having this information without haviong to dig in makes everyone stronger and able to make better decision. Preventing someone to do business with perfectly informed economic actor is totalitarism. But informing people about the personnal deed of a product owner, not shaming them if they still engage with him, is something you should absolutely do if you believe in liberal capitalism.
qubex 6y ago
I’m going to be downvoted to oblivion, but I couldn’t care less. From my point of view (Western Europe) this whole “cancel culture” thing is demented and stupid, and I’m probably as liberal as they come. Why? Well, let me provide an illustration: what was Carl Benz’s opinion on, oh I don’t know... homosexuality or transexuality? I’m guessing blindly that it was probably very restrictive and ‘unenlightened’ by our own “modern standards”. He’s the inventor of the internal combustion engine... how many people are willing to give up their cars because their inventor’s views were ideologically impure? Louis Pasteur was probably also a bigot by modern standards too: are we going to wipe the slate of hygiene theory clean because of this? People are imperfect. In the eyes of those who will come later we too will be imperfect. Let’s be charitable towards those who despite different political views and values nonetheless collaborate in this great technological and cultural enterprise that is the sum total of human knowledge and capabilities. None of us have are the golden standard. Koan-like, those who might think they are the final word in morality aren’t, because they lack humility and also empathy with the circumstances that inform others’ views. Alright, fire away.
- orwin 6y ago
  This really have nothing to do with this. My father is boycotting products since the 80s (being born in jerusalem in 68 and having links with orphanage sisters living the Israeli/palestine war from the "poor" side probably have something to do with it). In his case not about cancelling israel, its about not engaging with them economically. But this is not only that. This is a generation thing. You (and i say "you" as in: older generations) told us that if we don't agree, we have to vote with our wallet. Not happy about climate change? Vote with your wallet then, are you still using cars and planes hypocrites? You're not happy about how we treat pigs and cows? How about you stop eating meat and vote with your wallet? (this one was delightful. Never heard this again since 2010). Younger people probably had it harder than i did, and i did start to boycott things early in my life when the inconvenience was not to high. Just to piss you off. I did never coordinate though or ask people to boycott something with me. I'm not the social kind of guy. But i understand why people my generation would do that. You told us to vote with our wallet, that this is the only power we have. Don't be astonished when we use it.

by orwin 6y ago

rglullis 6y ago

> It is the same for this soapbox product, no? Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees? > I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.

Miner49er 6y ago
An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator. If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
- rglullis 6y ago
  (This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
throwanem 6y ago
Invoking the ghost of Martin Niemoller to complain about people not wanting to do business with somebody who publicly espouses views they find abhorrent is a hell of a swerve.
orwin 6y ago
> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Thank you for this. I understand your view better like this. This is my point of view: I use my money and my time however i want. No one should feel entitled enough tell me if i am allowed to boycott a product. This is why i don't think it is cancelling and that you are doing the term a disservice: Neither i nor 488643689 did say "don't use and/or participate with this product, he is transphobe". 488643689 just informed me, and others, of the product owner views on trans people, and that he cofounded spinster.xyz (which is a TERF platform). Our society and economy is build on the myth of homo economicus. That people will take the best decision for them with the right informations. Having this information without haviong to dig in makes everyone stronger and able to make better decision. Preventing someone to do business with perfectly informed economic actor is totalitarism. But informing people about the personnal deed of a product owner, not shaming them if they still engage with him, is something you should absolutely do if you believe in liberal capitalism.

qubex 6y ago

I’m going to be downvoted to oblivion, but I couldn’t care less. From my point of view (Western Europe) this whole “cancel culture” thing is demented and stupid, and I’m probably as liberal as they come. Why? Well, let me provide an illustration: what was Carl Benz’s opinion on, oh I don’t know... homosexuality or transexuality? I’m guessing blindly that it was probably very restrictive and ‘unenlightened’ by our own “modern standards”. He’s the inventor of the internal combustion engine... how many people are willing to give up their cars because their inventor’s views were ideologically impure? Louis Pasteur was probably also a bigot by modern standards too: are we going to wipe the slate of hygiene theory clean because of this? People are imperfect. In the eyes of those who will come later we too will be imperfect. Let’s be charitable towards those who despite different political views and values nonetheless collaborate in this great technological and cultural enterprise that is the sum total of human knowledge and capabilities. None of us have are the golden standard. Koan-like, those who might think they are the final word in morality aren’t, because they lack humility and also empathy with the circumstances that inform others’ views. Alright, fire away.

orwin 6y ago
This really have nothing to do with this. My father is boycotting products since the 80s (being born in jerusalem in 68 and having links with orphanage sisters living the Israeli/palestine war from the "poor" side probably have something to do with it). In his case not about cancelling israel, its about not engaging with them economically. But this is not only that. This is a generation thing. You (and i say "you" as in: older generations) told us that if we don't agree, we have to vote with our wallet. Not happy about climate change? Vote with your wallet then, are you still using cars and planes hypocrites? You're not happy about how we treat pigs and cows? How about you stop eating meat and vote with your wallet? (this one was delightful. Never heard this again since 2010). Younger people probably had it harder than i did, and i did start to boycott things early in my life when the inconvenience was not to high. Just to piss you off. I did never coordinate though or ask people to boycott something with me. I'm not the social kind of guy. But i understand why people my generation would do that. You told us to vote with our wallet, that this is the only power we have. Don't be astonished when we use it.