41–50 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Some people just don't seem to understand that 1. Everything is political To "understand" this, it would have to be correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on using "folks" instead of "people"? I'm unfamiliar with the difference as english is not my first language. For reference, to my knowledge these words are pretty much interchangeable with "folks" being less formal I guess.
> For reference, to my knowledge these words are pretty much interchangeable with "folks" being less formal I guess. "folks" is indeed less formal, but there are other words in this category, such as "guys". The preference for "folks" is common among people who hold that "guys" is inherently sexist, and thus eventually becomes a signal of a particular perception of what kinds of sexism exist in the world and how sexi…
This is uh... well, seems a bit of a stretch to me. Not once in all my years saying "ya'll" have I ever even remotely put it in this framing, nor have I ever heard of anything like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk, “there’s a group of people in charge and we elect them” seems like a pretty basic starting point for any community, not an over-complication!
Except the moderators are not elected but are self-appointing, and they were in place before the steering committee was created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people just don't seem to understand that 1. Everything is political To "understand" this, it would have to be correct.
The organization of the government and its actions touch literally your entire life. From childhood nutrition to your job prospects and life expectancy.
Explanation of the NixOS Steering Committee and NixOS Moderation Team ( https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1nrsu9c/nixos_modera... ): > The Nix Steering Committee (SC) ( https://nixos.org/community/teams/steering-committee/ ) is the elected community leadership body. It was established as part of the Nix governance constitution ( https://github.com/NixOS/org/blob/main/doc/constitution.md ) last year, after which…
This feels like a lot of political baggage for an open source project and a recipe for drama. Is any of this overhead really needed? What does it accomplish? (Serious question, maybe I’m just too dim to get it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I don't really buy into these arguments. If open source communities stuck to technical matters, there would be little to no need for moderators to pass judgment on political or social views. Their primary role would be in conflict resolution over technical matters . Unfortunately, people being people, political and social views will emerge. Also, people being people, any attempt by moderators to check…
Lol these kids are like the HOA. Oh no you're resigning? Good riddance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For reference, to my knowledge these words are pretty much interchangeable with "folks" being less formal I guess. "folks" is indeed less formal, but there are other words in this category, such as "guys". The preference for "folks" is common among people who hold that "guys" is inherently sexist, and thus eventually becomes a signal of a particular perception of what kinds of sexism exist in the world and how sexi…
> Also notably, you will find people with similar beliefs using expressions like "y'all" and other Southern US regionalisms, even if they're white Northerners. From my observations this seems to be intended as an act of solidarity. "Folks" arguably also belongs in this category. This is uh... well, seems a bit of a stretch to me. Not once in all my years saying "ya'll" have I ever even remotely put it in this framing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Some people just don't seem to understand that 1. Everything is political To "understand" this, it would have to be correct.
Then I read a comment on here a while ago, something along the lines of "children have political opinions too". It was so utterly absurd, it broke something in me. One thing lead to another, and now I no longer reject the claim vehemently. I reject it trivially.
It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0].
But that means all we have is experiences and opinions about those experiences. Mix this with politics just being a group's opinion, and the fact that there's more than two people alive - what you get is that every opinion can be now considered a political opinion, and since all we have is opinions, "everything" is a political opinion, so "everything" is political [1].
I then find this stupid because it hard-misses the point of the colloquial usage of the word. By being overly universal, it functions either as just a useless segmentation, or as a pointless exercise in pedantry, a rhetorical sleight of hand. It also deals in a good amount of mind-reading, where those considering something a political opinion, rather than just a personal opinion, pretty much implicitly accuse the other person of groupthink, which is a really quite cheap accusation to make with no real argumentational benefit.
But maybe this is one of those rare cases where this definition does have its utility. Let's see.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
[1] Except of course the matters of mathematical logic, which by virtue of being inherently axiomatic systems, once again walk away unscathed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get the feeling like their insistence on things like CoCs is ultimately just used as a false flag to censor "wrong" opinions based on colorful interpretations of subjective terminology used in the policy. I don't think the term "false flag" works that way, but it 110% is exactly that. Consider how they frame the proposal to add other mods: > intially phrased as a suggestion, with a stated goal of adding “diversit…
> Which is to say, they think it's inherently wrong to put people on the mod team who disagree with their political views, when they don't even moderate a space that's about politics. My reading of that is they think it's inherently wrong to add people to the mod team because they disagree with their political views. Which seems reasonable to me.
Surely the SC had other criteria in mind as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is to say, they think it's inherently wrong to put people on the mod team who disagree with their political views, when they don't even moderate a space that's about politics. My reading of that is they think it's inherently wrong to add people to the mod team because they disagree with their political views. Which seems reasonable to me.
> Which seems reasonable to me. Surely the SC had other criteria in mind as well.
> despite the specific candidate being rejected as unsuitable by the moderation team, and agreement from SC that at least some of the reasons discussed were disqualifying