It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.
One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs.
The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of their friends or family.
Neither of these groups matches OPs description.
Either way, talking about a group should not get you fired, period.
Does anyone actually disagree that the police have a presumption of justification for lethal force? Because literally every time I’ve seen this conversation, for longer than I’ve been online, the argument from those opposed to the protesters of the moment and in favour of the police response has been that they should have that presumption not if they have that presumption.
Does anyone disagree that the protestors face the prospect of injury or loss of life? Despite, to use one of far too many salient examples from this year alone, the video of a pensioner being knocked to the ground by one cop and bleeding from the head as the rest just walked around him without even attempting to offer first aid?
As for what ought to be acceptable grounds for firing… how many states are “at-will” or whatever the correct term is? In those places, anything goes.
You should probably live here before you pass judgement.
Listening to the echo chamber here and the mainstream news that comes out of America is not the full picture.
One of the places I visited was UC Davis. The incident there has its own Wikipedia page.
In Newark, I got to see things which don’t make it into international media, like an African-American outdoor market with banners pleading the readers to treat the humans with, at a minimum, the same respect as is shown for these people’s cultural contributions to the USA.
All of this is because my ex is actually an American citizen. Heck, because of her, I’ve met Jill Stein twice.
Now, can you actually provide me with a reason to change my mind?
lolwut? Surely you jest? 2.5 of 3 branches of our government are led by regressive, obstructionist conservatives (Trump in the WH, McConnel and the GOP in the Senate, and a 5/4 majority of SCOTUS).
Additionally, 26 of 50 state governors are conservatives. And 29 of 50 state legislatures are conservative.
There is no "liberal domination" of anything in the US.
Europe has seen a surge in anti-EU, anti-globalist sentiment since 2015. We've seen Britain leave with the support of a Conservative landslide in the last election. The V4 group emerge with its own agenda. Other countries postulating about whether being in the EU is the right direction for themselves, and more.
European leaders should be very careful, and I believe they will be, about letting Marxist sentiment like we're seeing in the US go unchecked there.
Now is a great time for Europeans to take a close look at US "society" and "culture" and decide for themselves how much more of it they're willing to tolerate being imported.
Isn't that expressing free speech? Or do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? I'm dubious that's the case, and I doubt it'll affect the frameworks future success whether they post one or not.
https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267893460423462912
https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057
Not taking any sides here.
Yes, he is from react team.
> Second example the top comments are rebuking his insistence
There are quite few agreeing too though.
I just remember this example because brandon got fired over this since both people worked for facebook. I disagree that there is no pressure to add a BLM banner but that's it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23599419
> "For (and mark well our words!) you, Sir, half priest and the other half demagogue, wearing the surplice and wielding also the secular arm of power, have been for a long time preaching a crusade against the rights of property--have taught men every where, that to deprive their neighbors of property valued at millions and millions of dollars, instead of being an infraction of the Divine Law and therefore criminal in the sight of God, on the contrary would entitle them to receive praise and honor in the present life, and insure to them in the life to come rewards imperishable. And upon what pretense, forsooth? Because your neighbors, as you claim, can possess no rights of property in men and women--in human flesh, and brawn, and blood, and brains, to use your own vernacular of cant. And so in truth they ought not in foro conscientioe, without making an equivalent return, either in the nature of protection, food, shelter, attention in sickness and the like; the most of which the Southern slaveholders are constrained by law to grant in return for the service exacted of their bondmen. But, you clamor, they do not return an exact and equal account--they charge too much for their kind superintendence and benevolent regard! Ah! Sir, it is just here that you have trodden upon an adder, which will in time turn and sting your Reverence. For, truly, the poisoned darts you have so resolutely hurled against the South will, rebounding, yet find a mark the archer little meant, and one close to your own hearthstone.
> Unconsciously to yourself, you have been advocating all this time only a new species of agrarianism. Unconsciously you have been sowing the wind, and sooner or later will surely reap the whirlwind for your pains. Already your laborers, your operatives, your journeymen mechanics and others, secretly moot the question: How it happens they remain so poor, while their employers are constantly growing richer and richer; build their marble palaces, educate their children in idleness and dissipation, and besides spend half their own days tuft-hunting and toad-eating upon the continent of Europe. Already, we repeat, this terrible question is being mooted in secret conclave; and should the time ever come when it shall be mooted openly--when loudmouthed and earnest men, fresh from the people, shall bestride Faneuil Hall, bawling for an equal and exact distribution to every mechanic of whatever craft, to every operative of whatever mills, to every laborer of whatever grade--bawling, we say, for an equal and exact distribution to the workmen of the net proceeds of their combined labor; and denouncing in the same breath pampered capitalists, as so many lordlings growing rich on the earnings of the moiling and toiling poor, reaping where they have not sown, and gathering where they have not scattered; upon what plausible pretext will you, Sir, then seek to gainsay them? You will have none. Dumb and quaking with fear you would be constrained to acquiesce in their logic; for they would only use in their own behalf the identical arguments you have assiduously tried to impress upon their minds for ten years and more, in order to persuade them to interfere in the affairs of their neighbors."
They must've had a bit more time to write rants in the nineteenth century. With the benefit of hindsight, we can also see the naïveté of times which apparently expected consistency as a measure in political arguments.
As the British version of the Miranda warning says, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
Sure it's free speech but it is also a mob mentality and a mob speak. What is the relevance for a javascript framework used world-wide to spam a specific american politics?
Seriously, most european countries have a very small minority that is black and basically very little racism. No police brutality against any group etc. What is the relevance for us?
What is the relevance for let's say an african programmer who live in a place where there basically aren't any whites?
What is the relevance for an Chinese person living in a smaller city in which basically never meets any other race than asians?
This kind of thinking that's coming from american movements is that the entire world depends on what the situation is in america. I don't really know what it's like to be either black or white in america and I don't really care either. I'm just getting pissed off by the virtue signaling bullshit and the agenda to make every country like america.
I have ended every subscription service that panders to BLM, I stopped using Vue because of it. American politics rarely should impact technologies in my opinion, only when it is about said technology.
Everybody knows there are no black people in Europe! Problem solved!
The reason why everyone, everywhere is saying BLM is important is because we live in a globally connected world now, and ignoring people due to borders and distance is no longer reasonable. We are all citizens of the world.
People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired.
I suspect if this were true this letter would not have been needed. http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/06/on-the-college-and-sil...
> People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired.
Black Lives Matter, as a movement generally, is riddled with Marxists. I have seen signs from the Marxist wing at every protest in the city, calling for the end of capitalism, free subway rides, and the immediate removal of Donald Trump without recourse to an election.
Marxists sent my family to Siberian labor camps, and I have a beef with them. I expect free NYC subways would be economically inefficient. There are many other parts of BLM to which I object. I object to the charge that silence is violence. I object to the destruction of property, and to the statement that destruction of property is not violence. I object to those who have pulled down certain statues, like Grant and Washington. I object to the march slogan, which I have heard at half a dozen protests: "No cops! No KKK, No Racist USA"; the KKK are more than abstract bogeymen, but are real, and sometimes dangerous, and I have family who have been targeted by persons who I reasonably suspect to be bona fide members, as one of their other objects of hate: Roman Catholics. Perhaps this chant would be powerful in the American south, but I respectfully doubt that the half-white protest crowds of New York City are qualified to know the first thing about such matters. I further object to those who, in the name of BLM, head on to Twitter to solicit allegations of racism and names of people to doxx, harass, and get fired.
All of these have taken place under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Perhaps some of them shouldn't have. Perhaps the brand should be more protected; in what I have witnessed, it's not.
I have not previously raised these matters in any venue whatsoever, because I do not wish to undermine the reform of police impunity underway. My objections are typically not a matter of general interest, and I would not impose on people to subject them to such things. But for the purpose of this conversation right here, that I may rebuke you vigorously, I will freely admit to you: I am opposed to Black Lives Matter. I am opposed to them as a specific reification of needed reforms. I wish to be outside the group of BLM supporters. I have not blackened my profile picture, I have not used the hashtag anywhere in particular.
You suggest this is sufficient to merit firing — or at least, your suggestion of what merits firing is not structured so that I might infer that my position ought to be safe.
How dare you? How dare you presume that you or anyone like you are entitled to pass any judgment on my employment whatsoever? What right have you lot to threaten me, or to threaten anyone, like this? How fortunate for the world that your dreams of ideological tyranny should be thwarted! How fortunate are those of us still sufficiently blessed by liberty with the privilege to ignore those of like persuasion, to dismiss your empty screed, to cast you all down off the high horse of self-righteousness and be rid of your moralizing. Let all people strive to keep you from power. Let us never mistake loyalty for righteousness. Let us work instead to extend such blessings to all the world. (I hear, for instance, that black people often experience barriers which keep them from such blessings. Let us reach out to them in brotherhood.)
I will further add that my CEO is African-American. I am proud of him. He's spoken out about racism in America, giving interviews to major news outlets, penning articles for high-profile publications. I dare not say that I speak for him, yet I would guess that if it you asked him to fire me, showed him what I have written here, that he would rebuke you: for I know he has passed through the fires of ideological scrutiny firsthand, and I think he has experienced personally these forces which your lot aspires to channel — seen how little they care for mercy, or even decency.