I’m not playing defense for any particular perspective, I just try to understand all sides and get other people to see different perspectives before forming their own opinions.
There’s no good reason to hold strong principles vaguely except obfuscation.
As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.
your argument was cowardly
If you can’t argue your position without attacking a person’s character, you already lost the argument.
I think you missed the first part of my comment though.
Being “better” (which is subjective) doesn’t mean any other positions are automatically intolerant or “fascist.”
I think people are grossly misunderstanding his intent and framing it in the worst possible interpretation.
DHH never said he wanted anyone dead. He never said to shoot anyone. He never said anyone shouldn’t exist.
It’s natural to not want to become a minority yourself. We know how badly they are treated. People often have natural preferences for their own culture and people, and they can still want those things while also acknowledging other people can exist… but not everyone agrees on the most appropriate balance.
Mass immigration undeniably brings with it certain logistical, economical and cultural aspects to the table.
I have no problem with any specific people immigrating to my country, but that doesn’t mean I want all my local culture, friends and favorite restaurants to be replaced with everything else from another country. You need balance.
Even if someone faced with that same situation said something tone-deaf like “these <insert race> need to go home”… that doesn’t necessarily mean they want them dead or that they think they don’t have a right to exist, or even that they are racist. They might just not like change in general, or like I mentioned, they feel like part of their (local) culture is disappearing. They just might not have the best way of articulating that.
And similarly, I think we should not be so quick to judge their intent without actually talking to them about it.
Then why say it in that way if you don’t disagree? To me it sounds like you’re specifically trying to paint the company in a bad light.
Their priorities dont align with the staff.
Perhaps they simply disagree with the staff? Again that doesn’t make them wrong. It’s possible the staff are simply misinformed on the real intent of what he was trying to say.
Of course Brits don’t want to become a minority in their home country… who would? We all know how badly they are treated.
Just because someone can’t articulate their thoughts in the friendliest way, doesn’t mean they deserve to be hanged. And just like what Karimov said, no single person gets to be the arbiter of what everyone else’s priorities should be.
This is like saying only certain people should have free speech. My argument was not about any particular perspective.
The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It’s simply not interfering with people’s agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn’t entitle you to restrict others’ self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others’ agency is automatically not included in “tolerance.”
I want them banned from our communities
So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don’t like? The irony is downright wild.
To reiterate what Karimov said:
people have different personal opinions. You believe in your heart that DHH is evil, that you have the moral high ground, and that nothing will change your mind. However, not everyone believes that. It is not fair to claim a monopoly and ostracize team members who might disagree with you.
Just because it’s a for-profit operation doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though.
IMO Being open to the idea that multiple valid perspectives can exist simultaneously, is a much more reasoned and intelligent position than “I don’t give a shit what either of them said.”
I (don’t) like how this comment completely dismisses and bulldozes through everything Karimov said, which was brilliant by the way, and is a sentiment sorely missing from the majority of comments in all this drama.
Open source isn’t counterculture anymore, sorry but it has gotten too big to fit in your backpocket.
I understand you disagree with some of the people using and writing it now… but if that’s the case, perhaps communities using a different kind of license would be better suited for you if you cannot get along with them?
I feel like the author is trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy while also feeding into one themselves… if open source was supposed to be for everyone, well, that includes people you don’t like. And you’re not going to change their opinions any more than they can change yours.
At what point is it still open source, if it downloads without your permission a proprietary component that is used to run the software?
Runtime behavior has nothing to do with the license of the code. If all the code is available for you to see, then legally speaking the terms of the license are fulfilled, there’s nothing inherently illegal or infringing about downloading freely available software, even if it’s proprietary.
I would clone that repo across several different forges as well. For sites hosted in the US (like github), anyone can just email a fake (or real) DMCA 512(h) request to get it taken down immediately, because those are required by law to respond immediately by taking the content down well before there is ever any chance of appealing or fighting the request, fake/legal or not. This is a relatively new approach some very angry keyboard warriors have been using. It could take months for a fake request to finally get quashed through the court system properly. And fighting any of these takedown requests also forces you to legally doxx yourself in the process.
If they’re insecure then there is an easy way to exploit it to root/flash it with a better OS if that wasn’t already possible. Not everyone wants to drop $900 on a hunk of plastic.
the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles
source:
Conversely… if it’s so benign, why should it have a label?
The government is not treating any and all representations of “antifascism” as terrorism now, they are targeting this one single website because there is evidence that they knowingly provide services to some existing groups that were already deemed terrorists.
If there’s any debate about whether or not those groups should have been deemed terrorists in the first place, that’s a different issue altogether as far as enforcing the law is concerned.
So yeah, antifascism is now terrorism according to the US gov.
I think if you dig a little deeper you will find the issue is not quite so black-and-white.
I’m saying because of that I don’t think tor can be said to be “for true anonymity browsing”.
Will these still be considered “criminal phones” by the governments that already make that claim against GrapheneOS users?
there are many decent smartphones available for less money than pixels though, even from motorola
I was more complaining about the obviously-wrong title, because yes the article does explain how to uninstall it.
What in the name of AI insanity is all this unrelated code.