561–570 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's demanding too much from minorities IMO. OK, you should tolerate a racist colleague, what about a racist boss? Like, you know he'd like to see fewer people like you, and also gets to decide about your promotion or layoff.
Why and how do you know they are a racist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why and how do you know they are a racist?
Cause he decided to let the world know
Furthermore, by codifying and enforcing whatever your personal viewpoints are in a code of conduct, you've summarily decided for everyone else as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cause he decided to let the world know
Again, why are you stalking these people - just ignore it? Furthermore, by codifying and enforcing whatever your personal viewpoints are in a code of conduct, you've summarily decided for everyone else as well.
Also not sure what code of conduct you have in mind, but most specify that you should treat others with respect regardless of . That's not a viewpoint, that's a necessary condition for collaboration. If you feel an uncontrollable hate towards people of some nationalities or gender identities, it would be wise too keep it a private matter indeed, and not make this hate known to everyone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the tiny corporate version of a teenage girl posting a long content free rant about being betrayed by friends. All I see is bickering children and I like both less as a result. I don't really care who is more right.
>betrayed This is the big deal. Don't think of it as petty. From nations to individuals, betrayal destroys built trust and changes the landscape. Even Kissinger admits that Trust can maintain an anarchic/international order until the trust is broken. This is why I'm am a realist, power is more important than Trust, and when you need Trust, use verification mechanisms. This idea is technically an 'Information Hazard'…
You might be right that it seems like world politics but only in the way that world politics are very often driven by people with the emotional development, ego, and maturity of 12 year olds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adafruit is basically the best but their whole reside-in-NYC philosophy makes zero sense. The contention that they can hire better people in NYC holds no water because over 50% of what they pay their employees goes to 3 layers of governments with no meaningful benefit AND their people pay NYC rents. They could literally halve their prices or double their pay if they moved to Jacksonville or similar. And their employe…
not everyone who works at adafruit works in our industry city, brooklyn factory. we've been doing remote before it was a thing, you can check out our shows or ask before assuming the worst, but whatevers, you made up your mind and want us to move to florida.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, why are you stalking these people - just ignore it? Furthermore, by codifying and enforcing whatever your personal viewpoints are in a code of conduct, you've summarily decided for everyone else as well.
Reading what someone has written under their own name for everyone to read is not stalking. Also not sure what code of conduct you have in mind, but most specify that you should treat others with respect regardless of . That's not a viewpoint, that's a necessary condition for collaboration. If you feel an uncontrollable hate towards people of some nationalities or gender identities, it would be wise too keep it a pri…
"Treat with respect" is a dog whistle - easily coopted for whatever nefarious reason.
"If you do not agree with me, you will not participate in any space where I can drum up enough sympathy (headache) to have you excluded from."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mate, thats just rules. rules you don't agree with.
Often these "rules" extend to conduct far outside of the purview of a project - typically crossing into identity politics. "If you espouse views I don't like on your personal Twitter, you can't contribute to this entirely unrelated software project."
So rules you don't agree with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a bone in this race, but if someone has deliberately hidden their identity online, knowingly disclosing that is malicious, regardless of any other morality involved. Consider people who have their public persona very deliberately obfuscated, like Banksy, or Chuck Tingle - it's very intentional that both of them do not disclose that, and if you found out either of their legal names, and disclosed it publi…
> if someone has deliberately hidden their identity online, knowingly disclosing that is malicious That argument breaks down if the person hiding their identity is doing malicious things. If you hide behind anonymity and you're harassing people and sending threatening or hateful messages, disclosing their real identity is a public service. Or could I set up an anonymous account, doxx people all day long for the lulz,…
If you deliberately go find someone's secret that they hid after you think they hurt you, and disclose it, it's because you're trying to hurt them, justifiable or not.