Could we try to be less orwellian? Are we really banning people who say things we don't like on YouTube?
I feel like we’re on track to having to sign a sworn affidavit that you’re not a Republican, and don’t support any Republicans, to get a job, renew your driver’s license, rent an apartment, get a checking account… it sounds ridiculous, but did where we are now just a few years ago.
I don't think it is served by trolling peoples internet history to discover if they ever committed any thought crime. Our country will be better off the more MAGAers either age into the grave or get off the stupid train. Keep in mind that many of them are already decent citizens in the way they comport themselves in their lives, in the way they treat the people they interact with. They have just bought into a moronic ideology and will vote to enable further stupidity that will hurt their fellows in a way they would never due if given that straight choice between good and evil directly.
Isolating that person instead of communicating with them is a missed opportunity that serves only to signal our virtue to our fellows. It is a choice to enhance our social status instead of our society. It's positively trumpian and it plays right into his hands by making that person more isolated and thus more vulnerable.
Doing the right thing is hard. Do it anyway.
That's tone policing and a CoC violation. Marginalized groups have the right to be incivil.
Your ideology is constructed in order to grant 'incivility' (the moral permission to commit violence) to people based on whatever parameters are useful at the moment.
It's a horrendously incoherent worldview, and will shake itself to pieces.
"The “Linux®” Trademark
For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy."
It's clear the Linux Foundation has been given too much power. Whenever a group of people get too much power or money, someone in the group, almost by definition an asshole, will abuse it.
I'm not sure why this is a hard distinction to grasp.
Being banned from a private venue is an expression of the right of free association. It is not a violation of anyone's rights, because one does not have a right to attend a private venue. It is not a form of political oppression or censorship, because one does not require attendance at a private venue to express one's political beliefs.
Therefore, because the rights of banned attendees have not been violated, nor their speech suppressed, nor has any violence been imposed against the banned attendees, or critics of the code of conduct, said code of conduct is not equivalent to the policies of the Chinese government or a social credit system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/business/secret-consumer-...
1. People should be able to control their own business 2. If they reject a group of people for a given reason, they can 3. Businesses that done reject this group will gain more business. (Both from the newly released group, and from patrons who are not rejected but are against the discrimination) 4. The rejected people could start their own business as a competitor 5. Discriminatory people/businesses are immediately identified.
It seems like it could just work itself out, but in Patrice I'm not sure.
> how can ... If they cannot trust
Bravery?
If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees.
If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees.
To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.
* Yes, everyone agrees
* Almost everyone agrees on this one
* Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned.
I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.
I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me.
People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points.
What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.
But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot.
I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
Would you still be ok listening to “a quality presentation by Hitler” if you were Jewish and your grandparents died in the Holocaust?
(Yes to the Hitler question too.)
Hitler would have to be presenting something really outstanding to make it worth my while. Hitler and Pol Pot are extreme examples of mass murderers, of course. I'm resorting to such hyperbole to make a point: I'm not going to deny myself access to helpful information just because I can't stand the person offering it, nor do I believe it is reasonable to ask others to do so.
Operation Paperclip is a good example of this principle in practice involving actual Nazis.
More importantly in America it can't be a moral crime to vote for the wrong side else we can't continue as a republic. Our country requires the ability to have regularly scheduled revolutions without being torn asunder.
The Republic is dead, there is no credible path forward that's going to continue it, in part because one side has stopped accepting the results of our "regularly scheduled revolutions" if they don't win. Which perhaps not counting G. H. W. Bush has been steadily more clear with each Republican Presidential election victory starting with Nixon before Watergate.
So my position is that organizations and individuals should, generally, be free to speak, and free to organize as they see fit (including hiring, or not, someone). Because it's the best way to minimize conflict.
What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.
> If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees.
Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.
Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.