HereIGoAgain

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

You mostly jest here i think but that seems to be the actual strategy and logic of progressive activist types so often. I mean all side tend to stick with their groups but progressives seemed to have created an argument that demands disassociation and disengagement with people they deem transgressive to the approved opinions and positions on so many issues.

HereIGoAgain

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

That's circular nonsense. It makes you someone who doesn't want others to have speech. It's not self defeating, it's the entire point of defending universal rights, especially speech.

You throw around terms like "Dehumanization" while referencing people you specifically disagree with using names like "tyrants".. without even hint of irony.

Fallacies, like the paradox of tolerance specifically, is a paradox expressly because it makes the invoker guilty of the very thing they justify their actions on. Even as a flawed and useless concept (in a free society at least) it was only ever meant to be used theoretically as a last ditch emergency response. And certainly not simply as means to control unfavorable or illiberal thought.

Worse yet, it's all predicated on the claims that "they would have totally did it to me if i didn't do it first" Which brings up the other flawed aspect of the concept.. It becomes a race to silence the other side first.. Of course that's assuming it was the intent of both to begin with. Not used merely as a tool of political oppression.

HereIGoAgain

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

Well if you look at board you see that more than one member served in the Obama admin or directly worked for it at some point.

https://www.eff.org/about/board

HereIGoAgain

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

Yeah, the idea that this is simply, mostly or even partly about engagement/eyes is bunk on it's face. I'd even argue it a bad faith position to defend.

HereIGoAgain

11 bulan yang laludiscuss

Cool

HereIGoAgain

tahun laludiscuss

The short of his rant is that he wants a "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC, in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."

Yikes, this is EXACTLY what Linus was talking about except an order of magnitude worse!

HereIGoAgain

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

You mean the very thing, the very same people are desperately and obsessively trying to keep them from being able to do?

You seem to be under the delusion that this is about anything other than the ability of a handful of well connected perverts to effectively silence opinions, information and people they don't like, off of the net. It's pretty humorous for you to argue the need for proof.

Also don't forget the the person being talked about has been obsessively stalking and harassing the site owner in question. And yes, that's an objective statement since even the media openly report on his activities against the site.

HereIGoAgain

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Well here we are.. It's time to come up with the next argument (excuse) because now building your own site and net is clearly not good enough. ISP networks, protected by governments, are censoring the net.

comments