351–360 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They don't call themselves that, they don't organise under that label Why would they? Much of our current mythology is based around slaughtering fascists in WW2. Why would anyone identify with that? > their views aren't particularly similar to historical fascism Hence the appellation of neofascism. There is a direct thread of political genealogy from the alt-right to the OG fascists, through the European Nouvelle D…
Quoted post unavailable.
Before I got to talk with Richard, I found many things online about his Christian values and public domain license and how odd it was. And I thought this was THE fascinating thing about Richard that led to the database and other things. But then I talked to him. He's a great engineer but a regular guy running a business around a thing he built. He gets to be a bit whimsical because he can. He can use his own source c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several things on that list that I would not regard as “fair to any reasonable mind”.
Such as?
1. First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. 10. Deny oneself in order to follow Christ. 21. Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ. 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. 34. Be not proud. 41. Put your hope in God. 44. Fear the Day of Judgment. 45. Be in dread of hell. 49. Know for certain that God sees you everywhere. 50. When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately. 56. Listen willingly to holy reading. 57. Devote yourself frequently to prayer. 58. Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future. 60. Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." 62. Fulfill God's commandments daily in your deeds. 70. Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, “We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,” I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective." - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot. https://www.thefire.org/obamas-abc-news-interview-transcript...
> - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot. If you a actually read the article you quoted, the main argument he’s making is essentially “well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”. That may or may not be true on a college campus (and at a public college the argument is likely immaterial because a government run institution is, and should be, bound by f…
In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to modern sensibilities like equality for women, prohibition of slavery, trial by a jury of peers, medicine based on evidence, etc.
Christians and their faith lead the slavery prohibition movement. I don't know the history of the other things you mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot. If you a actually read the article you quoted, the main argument he’s making is essentially “well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”. That may or may not be true on a college campus (and at a public college the argument is likely immaterial because a government run institution is, and should be, bound by f…
I have read it many times. I really like it, which is why I quoted it. I also think moderating communities is a hard problem and I don't think private forums should be open to all forms of speech. In fact I only read forums which are heavily moderated. What I disagree with is your statement that "...when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a…
The crux of my experience is that when the thing people disagree with you on _isn’t_ racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc. then they tend to directly name and openly discuss the subject of their disagreement. The general and innocuous sounding term “diversity of thought” tends to get brought out when the opinions themselves are one of those opinions that people don’t want to admit to so openly.
If people are going to disagree about a choice of software license, or technical architecture, or copyright assignment, or even about moderation standards and free speech, they tend to just directly name the thing they are disagreeing about (as we are now).
I’ll give some ground here and say that in some cases “diversity of thought” isn’t raised because the particular person raising the thought wants to say bigoted things, but at the very least it tends to get trotted out to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what gave us Linux? An unwelcoming culture of mockery and derision?! If so I'd argue Linux succeeded in spite of Linus's prickly personality. Certainly not because of it.
There are a dozen open source kernels yet only one succeeded. It was absolutely Linus's no bullshit policy that made it a success and a target.
Even Linus has said his past behavior has been a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m not talking about silencing people I disagree with in terms of opinion. I’m talking about fascists disagreeing that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups should be alive or allowed to thrive, or have certain rights. If you think holding views like that is OK, you walk, talk and quack like a fascist. That's a nice motte-and-bailey lumping together "should be alive" and "have certain rights". The former is a very s…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even when not accepting outside contributions, to fulfill their long term support commitment through 2050, they might have to make changes to their current core team.
If they do, then they will have to find people who embrace Christian spiritualism. That's going to be a lot easier than finding Lisp devs. Similarly, Christian institutions seek Christian employees and they fire those who cannot abide. Can't a software project be like a Christian church?
How common are those views in question tough? I’d say about 9/10 Christians I know from Europe and Latin America would find several of these points too extreme. But yes, that leaves probably still more people than lisp devs …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such as?
These are the most ridiculous ones from my own very quick glance. Rest of the list is questionable at best as well. 1. First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. 10. Deny oneself in order to follow Christ. 21. Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ. 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. 34. Be not proud. 41. Put your hope in God. 44. Fear the Day…
Or do you consider they may be fair to a reasonable mind informed by Christian faith but unreasonable to non-Christians?