Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
People in FOSS community (including users) nitpick way too much about eachother’s ethics and are mostly dictators so they expect everybody’s views to align with themselves and each sub-community/individual see themselves as the source of moral balance.
“oh no one of project XYZ maintainers doesn’t like trans people we should boycott the project and fork it into LibreLGBTQXYZ”
be professional ffs. See the project as the software and it’s technicality, art, science and engineering. we can’t be too picky about individual people’s beliefs and ethics especially in current situations.
“I will happily promote the project of a person who openly says people like me should be shot. What’s the problem?”
I probably disagree with 90% of Linus torvald’s beliefs and ideologies. Do I promote him as a person? No. Do I promote Linux as a great project and operating system? Hell yes. Same goes with Stallman or probably 90% of other people. Because that’show we are. Most of us share nothing in common and oppose eachother’s beliefs but we can still work together as professionals.
Linus doesn’t want you and your kind fave down in a gutter. Stop pretending this is about a mere disagreement in harmless beliefs.
You lost me here. It’s not “unprofessional” to want people to not be transphobic.
You can ask the person, not the software project. The project is just a project. We can tear eachotger to pieces as individuals and then sit at a table trying to solve problems as professionals.
If someone wanted to take your rights away, maybe even didn’t believe you should be allowed to be alive, would you be unprofessional for not wanting to use software they make? Would you be unprofessional for making your own version of that if the project refused to remove them as the lead? No. You wouldn’t. A way to solve that problem as a professional is to fork the project. What’s not professional is calling people doing that unprofessional.
Transphobia is now what antisemitism was during the Holocaust.
This framing of trans rights being pulverized as an edge-case moral purity signaling is low-key genocide enabler discourse.
It is only a matter to be careful to set boundaries to the centrism so that it doesn’t bleed over to the nazi side.
That being said, weaponized purity in online politics, and online software politics specifically might be a problem, sometimes. Minimal gain and huge inconvenience to the resistance, but I won’t go into it right now.
Is it really a genocide? Like I’m trans and being pushed towards losing my life, and that’s bad, but it feels weird calling that a genocide when you compare it to the actual Holocaust or Palestine or the Sudanese civil war. For it to qualify I think I’d have to be arrested and executed for being trans, not just driven to suicide because I don’t have any friends and no employers will hire me.
Yes. Trans or not, you must be not listening to your own words, thinking that the Holocaust started in 1941, not in the vilification and anti-Jewish legislation during the Nazi dictatorship. And this is a successful strategy for current genociders, having an outrageous, colossal example of industrialized terror to terminate thought.
Your argument is like, “can you really call anything murder when Dahmer ate so many people? Just killing somebody can’t be murder in comparison”. No, it is not a relative quantity, is a yes or no question, based on specific international criteria.
The answer to which is “Yes”. Having numbers of people drawn to suicide because you banned their health care on religious fundamentalist grounds is textbook genocide. The only debate between experts is because trans people are not immediately recognized as an ethnic or religious group. (But, well, the reasoning of a hate crime is a burden of the perpetrator, isn’t it? They’re killing us for religious reasons, so in my opinion this is not even a debate.)
BTW, it is the same state-actors pushing both genocides, so your whataboutism comes home to bite you. You are either able to see through the lying teeth of genocide criminals, or you believe what other people want you to think.
Here are some experts to school you:
https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice
https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/experts-warn-u-s-in-early-stages-of-genocide-against-trans-americans
https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert---anti-trans-genocide-in-the-usa---%233
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide
Banning the healthcare of a minority group, systemically refusing to recognize their existence, treating them as a group with less rights, banning them from certain spaces, making them face horrific conditions when incarcerated, supporting hatred against them that leads to killings…
Okay, yeah, that does make sense.
It’s the beginning stages of one that will continue to get worse if it isn’t stopped (fortunately, I think it is very likely to be stopped)
I’m not so sure, like once the 2027 financial crisis is declared they probably will start lynching us like a sacrifice to the economy gods to bring rain.
The AI industry and the political right will take essentially all of the flak for the coming economic crisis because the Trump regime/MAGA was running all 3 branches of government and the AI industry is increasingly hated by more and more people (and likely to be what triggers the crisis). I think it’d be extremely difficult to redirect that hatred against trans people or any other minority group that the Trump regime has been going after, especially since they’ve already spent most of their political capital/credibility before the crisis has even properly started.
Transphobia is unprofessional.
So is any other kind of bigotry.
An individual’s personal beliefs has nothing with their profession. Unless they leak it into their profession. Now the profession has that ideology and we can address that. The person, and especially as long as it’s just words and tweets etc, is separate from the work.
Anyway, this is my unpopular opinion.
Bigotry isn’t a “personal opinion”.
It’s a pattern of behavior- discrimination based on irrelevant and usually fucked up things, like race, religion and yes, gender identity.
It is inherently unprofessional to make business decisions based on non-professional qualities a person may have.
I think we’re saying the same thing.
I also believe one should not make professional decisions based on these things. But if the person just keeps these messed up things to themselve in their free time and doesn’t mix it with the project/profession I can mostly tolerate that.
If we would tolerate intolerant people, we would expose segregate people to even more segregation. However, ban their communities and using their code is not the same thing. If pirating video game make by shitty person is okay, why not looting FOSS production ?
Free software is more than just using code, it’s involves contributing issues, pull requests, staying around. Being around hateful people isn’t fun, best to actively support a competing community.
yep, I do agree. But their is some example of it’s just using code or exe and people refuse to do so because dev are shit
So we become intolerant to intolerance? This is the perfect never ending loop!
No it’s not. Becoming tolerant to intolerance is intolerance and cowardly. It’s called Paradox of tolerance
Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.
From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)
The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
background: book promotes intellectual freedom
The quote comes from a footnote in the book The Open Society and Its Enemies, whose thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism. They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength
and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.
Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage. Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine
They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.
They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.
Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.
So much disdain, and yet so little argument. Did I say we should mute and not argue with intolerant people ? No, I was precise, and you did not :
“Freedom of speech”, “intolerant”, “rationality”, … you are repeating terms that mean nothing without concrete situation. Segregated people are muted by their oppressor; so long for the freedom of speech, and the rationality. If people wants to speak to nazis and de-radicalized them, good luck to them. The point was to not make others have to be around those nazi because a WASP want to de-radicalized them; doing so will just make a community more nazi, and less queer or racialized.
Ideas are not disembodied, their are link to people; without a social diversity, their is no diversity of opinion. Again, the post was about communities.
For professional stuff I expect to get paid. What’s professional about spending my free time in the company of abusers that I’m not even getting any money for?