Gnome Foundation Welcomes Holly Million as Executive Director

Post by r-w » Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

lproven wrote: post #50

josteink wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lack of qualifications is not a valid criticism. On the contrary I would consider that the absolutely most justified, objective criticism one could find. But then I’m one of those guys who thinks DEI (as preached by today’s social activists) is horseshit, and I think meritocracy is a good thing. I’m not sure how those things are seen from within, by people more left leaning than me.

> I think meritocracy is a good thing. The term "meritocracy" was coined as a satirical parody of effective governance. https://www.routledge.com/The-Rise-of-the-Meritocracy/Young/... It was meant to be a negative, and is used as a pejorative: as a very bad idea that became effectively a swearword. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41427674 Be careful what you wish for.

Post by FireBeyond » Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 6:40 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #48

FireBeyond wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am having a hard time digesting that section too: > "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct. That in itself is a little 'wow'. > Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination w…

The idea is that racist remarks against, say, black people carry an implicit threat of harm, whereas racist remarks against whites do not because white people hold the reins of power. Hence, verbal racism against black people threatens their safety whereas verbal racism against white people only threatens their comfort. Implicit in this is the notion that maybe white people should feel uncomfortable, as their comfort…