741–750 of 845 posts
Github profits from people going to their service because it makes them more popular. Complying to the request is encouraging them (even if it's the switch between retard and git).
I'd just have deleted the repo saying "We moved to * (ex. GitLab) with a screenshot of the email as a reason. If they don't want your content on their servers, fine, too bad for them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Really now. Many (most?) definitions of feminism are along the lines of "supporting equal rights for men and women" or "equality between the sexes". Feminism is an umbrella term for a group of ideologies, some of who do not agree with either of those definitions. In that sense my statement is not accurate. However it is still far more accurate that your attempt to use the latin root of the word to define its meanin…
> Feminism is an umbrella term for a group of ideologies, some of who do not agree with either of those definitions. In that sense my statement is not accurate. However it is still far more accurate that your attempt to use the latin root of the word to define its meaning while ignoring its use and history. In other words, you just keep moving the endposts so nothing is really "Feminism" unless you agree to it. Got i…
That is the opposite of what I did. What I did was to acknowledge that the term feminism is used to include ideologies that I disagree with.
> Repeat after me: The plural of Anecdote is not 'Data'
Right, 'Data' is the plural of 'Datum' and I provided you with two of them. I did not make a sufficiently statistical claim that requires a representative sample to validate.
Here is some more data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_feminism
Most relevantly: "While equality feminism was the dominant perspective of feminism during the 19th and 20th century, the 1980s and 1990s brought about a new focus in popular feminism on difference feminism, or the essential differences between men and women."
> Feminism only sees to female rights in reference to 'leveling the playing field'.
I'd ask to you cite that, but I understand the impossibility of proving non-existence (especially given that I have disproven that non-existence).
> If you support equal rights for men and women, that's egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is a different broader umbrella term with an even looser range definitions. I am amused that in defending your anti-PC rant you end up trying to control what language I use to define myself in a very PC fashion.
You are free to call yourself an egalitarian and not identify as a feminist.
I am personally proud to share the label 'feminist' with a large number people who have individually done more to promote equality in the world that you ever will. I don't mind also sharing it with a some assholes from the internet who do nothing to promote equality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how exactly did you manage to draw a connection between these outrageous facts and a use of an innocent derogatory language?
It's not "innocent derogatory language". "Cockroach" is just a word. Cockroach was used to dehumanise Tutsi in Rawanda. Use of that language was a small part of the genocide of Tutsi by Hutu majority. We see similar dehumanising language in other genocidal actions: it's present in Nazi Germany when they describe Jewish people as subhuman - the same word has been used against people with LD. Not just by the Nazis with…
Not to mention that now it seems to be a priviledge of the self-righteous SJWs to proclaim which words should be counted as offensive this week. It never comes from the minorities in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. --- Please, PLEASE try and tell me that definition is compatible with a discussion of "which words hurt people's feelings."
You don't have to agree with a criteria to be able to apply it objectively; it just has to be something that can be evaluated by anyone to come up with the same answer. You can't objectively evaluate whether art looks good; you can only get subjective answers and attempt to find consensus. You can objectively determine if a word is a noun, verb, adjective, etc (given context, as some words can fall in several categor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you don't have a son or daughter who is a git or a retard. You definitely wouldn't be writing this otherwise.
You did not get his point: what is offensive to one person may or may not be offensive to other people. Where do we draw the line?
All I'm trying to promote is understanding among people from both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"idiot" is not a synonym for the word in question here. This is similar to saying that "t *ny" and "transsexual" are synonyms. They're not. Let me give you an example of how referring to you in an insulting way can change your attitudes and discourage conversation. 1. Words have a lesser impact on you because you've [a lucky person] who doesn't live a life were they have been used to deny you opportunity and basic hu…
The fact that you are hurt by certain words doesn't actually grant you quite enough moral authority to call up a rage-mob and apply it to the face of every entity that acts as a medium to provide an open, public space in which some people say the words that hurt you. There is real harm in rendering public space hostage to the moral outrage of self-selected groups and individuals. It's nowhere near the harm caused by…
If you don't know how can you tell if it's a genocide or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Censorship is a fact of life and human experience. Calling for its eradication is to call for the erasure of a fundamental aspect of human cognition. So we're going to apply the principle sensibly. The simple truth no one here wants to admit while they argue slippery slopes and excluded middles about how the only harm worth noting is total genocide: there is no real communicative value for github in allowing slurs on…
>The simple truth no one here wants to admit while they argue slippery slopes and excluded middles about how the only harm worth noting is total genocide: there is no real communicative value for github in allowing slurs on the site. That's not actually the issue at hand. Github isn't actually supposed to communicate anything at all on their site, good or bad. They're supposed to act as a platform and a common carrie…
Here's the github term from their ToS that tells users to comply with local law.
Github doesn't think that Github is a dumb pipe. Github wants people in oppressive regimes to censor their projects.
https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/
> You may not use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. You must not, in the use of the Service, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws).
Github doesn't want you to insult your employer if you were working in UAE. Github doesn't want you to insult various ruling families if you live in eg Kuwait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People with learning disability have been the target of eugenics in various forms. They've been subjected to sterilisation sometimes without their knowledge and sometimes against their will. They've been interned in segregated care homes. They've been murdered - either directly killed because they have LD or allowed to die by doctors refusing to provide medical care or placing DNR notices without the patient's (or th…
Good. Let us have genocide, then, for people with learning disabilities, starting with you. This is not an isolated incident - A large portion of the population legitimately believes that allowing people with learning disabilities to live and breed will lead to negative outcomes for all involved, including the disabled. I do not want to kill, or even order mistreatment. I want everyone, regardless of their abilities…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "innocent derogatory language". "Cockroach" is just a word. Cockroach was used to dehumanise Tutsi in Rawanda. Use of that language was a small part of the genocide of Tutsi by Hutu majority. We see similar dehumanising language in other genocidal actions: it's present in Nazi Germany when they describe Jewish people as subhuman - the same word has been used against people with LD. Not just by the Nazis with…
Leanr a bit of logic. This is nowhere near a proof that a use of a certain language is a direct or indirect cause of a genocide and not just a symptom, and that censoring this language would have stopped the genocide. Not to mention that now it seems to be a priviledge of the self-righteous SJWs to proclaim which words should be counted as offensive this week. It never comes from the minorities in question.
You're wrong. Use of the word retard has been strongly rejected by people with a learning disability in the UK. The word disability has also been rejected, which is why I use LD for learning difficulties, or I use specific diagnoses for granularity. They have rejected these terms for many years. The change in language is something they have been driving.