291–300 of 1001 posts
Someone at GitLab just made a suggestion to change the wording of the policy that I merged https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...
Human rights aren't politics, they're non-negotiable.
If you're employed at a desk job, you've traded much of your human right to be wherever the heck you want between the hours of 9 and 5, Monday through Friday, in exchange for a salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where we seem to find ourselves today is in a position where if you have very progressive politics, you can say whatever you like - no matter how radical - whereas if you have conservative politics you can't even admit that without any specifics without being thought of as evil. This is how we can get away with saying it's "encouraged" while really making sure any meaningful counter-argument is "forbidden" at the sam…
I work at an oil company in Houston and if I expressed a shred of progressive thought I would be run out of town. Maybe this place is more your speed?
Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?
To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.
Strange times.
Someone at GitLab just made a suggestion to change the wording of the policy that I merged https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...
That merge appears to change the policy in ways that render this discussion largely irrelevant (given the current subject line). It used to say: We do not currently exclude anyone from being a customer based on moral/value grounds. followed by a list of reasons why not. It now says: In some circumstances, we may opt to not work with particular organizations, but we assess those on a case-by-case basis. Some reasons w…
But violence against non-protected groups is ok, I guess.
There is an issue opened to revert this: > [...] I understand the motivations behind the > policy change but they are misguided: GitLab, > please show that the concerns of your community and > staff are our first priority by reverting > this change. See: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/5579
I think this sounds very reasonable for the kind of tool that is being produced. Joel Spolsky has a great article on Big Macs vs Naked Chef https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/01/18/big-macs-vs-the-na... In there, he talks about bespoke development vs mass market products, using McDonald's Big Macs vs a chef. I think this provides a reasonable framework for approaching the present controversy. For example, if McDonal…
I think that the point is McDonalds doesn't empower $villain to do $badstuff (that is, unless he is literally starving - in which case it would be inhumane to not give him food). However, technology empowers us to do things that would not be possible without it. Sometimes, a company can not choose who uses their tools - e.g. if it is open source, you can hardly prevent $villain from using it. This is similar to a ham…
The interesting spot is where you're selling off-the-shelf goods/ services that nobody else can provide. I would say that it's morally wrong to provide those services in that case since it's directly attributable to you that $villain did $bad_thing because of your offering, even though you had little personal involvement in the interaction.
Did I miss something? Is there a reason why you have to qualify that you're not advocating for Joe Rogan? Did he get "cancelled"?
To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.
Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…
But we're getting wall-to-wall coverage of basically those exact issues, all the time, with only one point of view endorsed. It's uninclusive to anybody who thinks differently in terms of methods or priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? The health of the democracy is far more important than your company's profit margin. And besides, enforcing silence is still a political move that strongly favours th…
The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. What GitHub is doing is giving individuals rooms to breathe, think, and live. It's preventing the rule of the intolerant minority, the forced homogenization of thought and suppression of dissent. We banned…
If a majority want to discuss politics and political change, isn't this just an intolerant majority enforcing their politics on everyone?
Unless someone is the type of person who would never advocate for any change no matter what happened to them, from being made King to being made a slave, then they aren't actually apolitical. Everyone who doesn't want to discuss politics or thinks they aren't political are just saying that the current political status quo fits their views.