Blocking me without comment for asking a legitimate question which is not in violation of the code of conduct is the act of a scumbag.
If you'd like to debate me on this point, please begin.
This is a common quip when somebody emotional about a topic wants to boil it down to formal argument (despite their own use of emotional rhetoric) - it's a declaration of the intention to use the guise of debate as an excuse to reject any part of the conversation that isn't 100% objective. It comes off as superior and hostile, and signals that you aren't open to discussion. Maybe none of this applies to you, but your wording is a huge red flag.
> Maybe none of this applies to you
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt :)
But yes, you're completely correct it doesn't read well (at all) to someone coming in with no context (ie likely the vast majority of us).
I'm trying to see behind the words as I'm reading about it, nonetheless. It raised very valid concerns about the state of the project; I may have some cleaning time ahead of me on my wife's PC as she recently installed it.
Maybe not as much as you'd think, but yeah.
>I'm trying to see behind the words as I'm reading about it, nonetheless.
Well thanks. It does seem that some people find me... let's go with "abrasive". I appreciate you taking the time to try to grok what's going on completely even if you were somewhat put off by the tone :)
In order to have a civil discussion about issues which can be emotive, one has to keep their feelings "in check" and put themselves in the other side's shoes. Even if you disagree, you don't need to resort to name calling.
That's an excellent point.
So, for example, in this vein, as a maintainer of a large FOSS project, it would seem to be prudent to not assume bad faith and block people without any comment when they ask a legitimate question.
I don't really understand the "Chinese government spyware" angle. Why would the Chinese government be interested in comparing what % of Linux users use the "reverb" function vs. Windows users?
Indeed. But that becomes difficult for me when I ask a legit question and am blocked for it. And then it gets much more difficult when I see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27905704
> Why would the Chinese government be interested in comparing what % of Linux users use the "reverb" function vs. Windows users?
Who knows? Personally I don't even really think it's about analysing the data, it's really just about having the data. Because "big data".
But from my perspective the philosophy isn't really about understanding why the data harvesters do what they do so much as protecting ourselves from the ridiculous number of possible misuses the data could have. It's the same principle that causes me to default to wearing a condom.
Sure, dude. This is a really constructive way to behave.
That's like arguing "which exact IQ value (with 2 decimal places) does somebody need to categorically exclude the term 'idiot'". It's a waste of time.
Look man, the goal of language is to communicate. If the way you communicate doesn't seem to land, then it's not time to argue "what logical arguments can I bring to make sure everyone knows I was right the first time around". It's time to ask yourself "how can I prevent these miscommunications."
You're not talking to compilers where you can look up the formal grammar and semantics and then say "well it says right here in the spec that I was right after all". Especially not when you want to argue the definition of subjective insults like "scumbag".
The term itself is used to communicate opinion and sentiment, not fact. So when someone takes issue with your use of it, they likely have issue with the tone or sentiment of a message, not with some objective fact about it.
Some morals are fairly universal. For instance, there aren't many people who would argue that (unprovoked) murder is ethical.
I believe that this is a pretty clear-cut example of behaviour which can factually and accurately be described as unethical.
I believe that that interpretation would be supported by most decent human beings who actually looked into the matter and made an objective judgement.
I'd love to and have repeatedly called to hear from anyone who has an alternate set of ethics or an explanation for how the described behaviour doesn't qualify as unethical (and thus qualify for the term "scumbag").
Nobody has taken me up on this and provided such a view. Which tends to reinforce my position that no such view exists.
>That's like arguing "which exact IQ value (with 2 decimal places) does somebody need to categorically exclude the term 'idiot'".
Uh... you know that "idiot" was originally a medical term which would have had a pretty clear definition right along the lines of "anybody below X IQ" (with two zeroes in your requisite decimal places, I expect), right?
It would seem you've undermined your own argument by your choice of example.
>"how can I prevent these miscommunications."
Oh I'm waaaaay ahead of you there. The discussion on my submission has indeed been interesting and enlightening. I was quite taken aback by the amount of people who assumed that my initial question was rhetorical. Particularly given that I had specifically addressed that in the issue i raised. Technically, this is a mass-violation of the HN rules, which say you should assume good faith. (Not that I'd bother to do anything about it, unlike the people who flagged a bunch of my comments).
But none of that that makes any difference to the facts of the matter or the unethical behaviour in question.
>You're not talking to compilers where you can look up the formal grammar and semantics and then say "well it says right here in the spec that I was right after all". Especially not when you want to argue the definition of subjective insults like "scumbag".
I disagree. Words have meaning. People should take the time to parse the sentences they're reading. And this seems pretty clear cut to me. Nobody has taken me up by providing anything like a justification for these actions which could be interpreted in any other way.
Scumbag: n. A person regarded as despicable.
Despicable: adj. Deserving of contempt or scorn; vile.
If nobody can give me a justification for why these actions don't deserve contempt, then the word "scumbag" is purely descriptive. It's not even an insult, just a fact.
>The term itself is used to communicate opinion and sentiment, not fact.
As I just mentioned, that's not how I was using it. I argue that it is a statement of fact, and I have (repeatedly) solicited and indeed welcome dissenting opinions. So far I see a grand total of zero such opinions.
>So when someone takes issue with your use of it, they likely have issue with the tone or sentiment of a message, not with some objective fact about it.
tbh I'm not really all that interested in what people think of my tone. Facts are infinitely more important. If someone has an issue with my tone, then I'd suggest not engaging in the discussion. Or meditation. Or mood stabilisers. Or a plugin to replace nasty words they don't like ("it", for example) with something else. Or disconnecting from the Internet. I've got better things to do with my time than trying to anticipate what words people I've never met will like or dislike. If you take offense at the tone of something I say, then frankly (and I do wish there was a nicer way of saying this, but:) that's your problem, not mine.
Yes, I do know that. That's not what people mean when they use it as a pejorative. They might reference it, but they don't use that word to convey that fact.
If someone calls you an idiot and you pull out an IQ test, they're just going to laugh at you.
> I disagree. Words have meaning.
I similarly think arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite. If you want, try to find a linguist to argue that with.
> Facts are infinitely more important.
If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. You did, therefore I think it's rightful for people to read your message with tone and emotion and try to parse that too. If you didn't want to convey those things, you should not have used that word.
>arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite
Then I'd suggest that in future you should avoid starting arguments about it.
>If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't accept it as an insult in this case. It is merely a fact, empirically correct. The audacity maintainers are scumbags (and to be clear, I mean all of them, not just the guy who blocked me, not just the muse employees: anybody who hasn't left the project, as they're all complicit in this behaviour).
Unless someone can give me the differing ethical viewpoint that I have repeatedly solicited to the point of tedium, you can't sensibly argue otherwise.