HereIGoAgain

3 ay öncediscuss

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 ay öncediscuss

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 ay öncediscuss

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 ay öncediscuss

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

12 ay öncediscuss

Cool

HereIGoAgain

geçen yıldiscuss

Don' let the door hit you on the way out i guess. I mean it sounds mean but the scene can do with less toxic types like this, who try to bully people who know better, in order to get their way. Even worse in this case since he actually tried to create a social media shit-storm against those he disagreed with.

He even has defenders calling for yet more CoCs in order to better "deal with" people who "get in the way." It doesn't get much more toxic than that.

HereIGoAgain

geçen yıldiscuss

All the extrajudicial stuff is pure political and ideological wank by a subset of ideological extremists. Pay no attention to any of it. It's an attempt to redefine the term for narrative creation purposes.

HereIGoAgain

geçen yıldiscuss

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 yıl öncediscuss

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 yıl öncediscuss

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