8 ms·

Sure, sharing information, so other people can make their decisions as they please... Is this the cancle culture apocalypse the right is talking about? Weren'

Sure, sharing information, so other people can make their decisions as they please... Is this the cancle culture apocalypse the right is talking about? Weren't consumer decisions once held differently? Or is it because there is no money spend, it's not ethics anymore?

japanoise 6y ago
Best not to engage. Terfs have a vested interest in appearing to be civil, but shrinking into the background when pushed, since the facts refute their position.
rglullis 6y ago
Let's share some more information, then. Alex is also an atheist and the kind of annoying vegan advocate. I am a Christian Orthodox and I roll my eyes every time I see him talking about any of his soybean-dirt-based meals or the typical shallow sophomore religion-bashing post. Should I just interact with those that are exactly like me? > Is this the cancel culture apocalypse the right is talking about? Asking people to not separate the product from the person, and think that the guy does not deserve any praise for his work because of some association with people that disagree with you? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about. Trying to label everyone that holds an opposing view as "hateful" without absolutely no room for dialog? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about. > it's not ethics anymore? Does Soapbox come with some kind of clause that says you need to share their views to use their code? Is the product itself exclusionary in any way? Then no, ethics have nothing to do with it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- orwin 6y ago
  > Asking people to not separate the product from the person Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person? I'm not boycotting lactalys because their product are bad, they are quite good in fact, but he way the brand owner used to treat his employees, and the way they still treat milk producers irks me. I don't want to contribute to a person fortune if i don't like him or his way of treating people. Should i buy some Nestlé product for convenience when i know that people gaining the most of the deal are not even apologetic about the contaminated water scandals? When they knew about African water and still sold mothers powder milk? I quite like some of their other product, i just don't want to give them my money. It is the same for this soapbox product, no? I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? Also there is room for dialog, i've talk quite extensively with a sodastream ambassador. Still won't ever buy their products, but we did talk.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > It is the same for this soapbox product, no? Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees? > I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator. If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
      - rglullis 6y ago
        (This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
        throwanem 6y ago
        I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
- drcongo 6y ago
  So, Alex is allowed to do and say whatever, but @488643689 isn't?
- sascha_sl 6y ago
  An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it? (If that's what TERFs ~actually~ want I don't have the time or nerve to debate, but wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief)
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it? It is this constant mis-representation of opposing views that make these kind of discussions so unbearable. I've wasted already, what?, an hour and a half arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. No wonder things are so polarized. Instead of trying to reach for common ground, the default behavior is to distort the argument, dehumanize the other and to try to "beat" the opponent into submission. > wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief You only mentioned the part about being Vegan, but I trust that you are smart enough to look at the part where I mentioned religious differences and figure out where I would draw the line? Hint: atheists can deny my beliefs all they want; what they think of me or my religion makes absolutely zero difference in my life.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
488643689 6y ago
How ironic, me stating some simple public facts got "cancelled" here. Guess, this whole free speech thing is not meant for everyone. Pretty sad, HN...

japanoise 6y ago

Best not to engage. Terfs have a vested interest in appearing to be civil, but shrinking into the background when pushed, since the facts refute their position.

rglullis 6y ago

Let's share some more information, then. Alex is also an atheist and the kind of annoying vegan advocate. I am a Christian Orthodox and I roll my eyes every time I see him talking about any of his soybean-dirt-based meals or the typical shallow sophomore religion-bashing post. Should I just interact with those that are exactly like me? > Is this the cancel culture apocalypse the right is talking about? Asking people to not separate the product from the person, and think that the guy does not deserve any praise for his work because of some association with people that disagree with you? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about. Trying to label everyone that holds an opposing view as "hateful" without absolutely no room for dialog? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about. > it's not ethics anymore? Does Soapbox come with some kind of clause that says you need to share their views to use their code? Is the product itself exclusionary in any way? Then no, ethics have nothing to do with it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
orwin 6y ago
> Asking people to not separate the product from the person Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person? I'm not boycotting lactalys because their product are bad, they are quite good in fact, but he way the brand owner used to treat his employees, and the way they still treat milk producers irks me. I don't want to contribute to a person fortune if i don't like him or his way of treating people. Should i buy some Nestlé product for convenience when i know that people gaining the most of the deal are not even apologetic about the contaminated water scandals? When they knew about African water and still sold mothers powder milk? I quite like some of their other product, i just don't want to give them my money. It is the same for this soapbox product, no? I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? Also there is room for dialog, i've talk quite extensively with a sodastream ambassador. Still won't ever buy their products, but we did talk.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > It is the same for this soapbox product, no? Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees? > I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator. If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
    - rglullis 6y ago
      (This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer) I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        I also use Emacs, and I also harbor a profound distaste for Stallman's opinions on pretty much everything, some of which disagreement he and I have hashed out loudly in public before now. But I'm not uncomfortable with using, or unwilling to use, Emacs in the way that I would be Pleroma with the Soapbox frontend. I think that's because Stallman's views don't have the same import that Alex Gleason's do. Stallman's apologia for pedophilia, for example, which you cite, is abhorrent - but it's not something that anyone takes seriously. Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead, likewise repel me - but, again, outside clapping at his talks and the very occasional hardliner, no one really cares enough about those opinions to act on them. There is no movement around those views of Stallman's. Not even the movement he helped originate seems much to heed him any longer. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Alex Gleason. He's part of a concerted effort to deny young trans people access to gender-affirming, and in many cases thus actually lifesaving, therapies, ultimately in support of a paternalistic belief that the people with these opinions, rather than trans people themselves, get to decide what it means to be trans, and gatekeep access to medical and psychological support on that basis. They're not above such underhanded means as inventing official-sounding medical terminology ("rapid-onset gender dysphoria"), or attempting by manipulation of public opinion and legal systems to defund trans charities and aid organizations (Mermaids UK), to advance that cause. And while they have less support now than they might have four or five years ago, their movement remains very active, and still quite able to inflict harm. So, I don't think the cases are really all that similar. In the abstract realm of pure ideas, sure, we could look at them as parallel examples of contrarianism. But the abstract realm of pure ideas isn't where we actually live. Here in reality, ideas exist in the context of the actions they motivate among people who believe in them. Stallman's weird gross ideas motivate nothing in particular, beyond maybe a little yelling and the occasional incoming F-bomb, among anyone of whom I'm aware. Gleason's weird gross ideas, by contrast, move people in ways that cause other people real harm. Maybe you're willing to overlook that. It's definitely a choice you can make. It's not one with which I'd be comfortable, but we all have our own concepts of morality and ethics, and judge one another and the world in which we live accordingly.
drcongo 6y ago
So, Alex is allowed to do and say whatever, but @488643689 isn't?
sascha_sl 6y ago
An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it? (If that's what TERFs ~actually~ want I don't have the time or nerve to debate, but wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief)
- rglullis 6y ago
  > An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it? It is this constant mis-representation of opposing views that make these kind of discussions so unbearable. I've wasted already, what?, an hour and a half arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. No wonder things are so polarized. Instead of trying to reach for common ground, the default behavior is to distort the argument, dehumanize the other and to try to "beat" the opponent into submission. > wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief You only mentioned the part about being Vegan, but I trust that you are smart enough to look at the part where I mentioned religious differences and figure out where I would draw the line? Hint: atheists can deny my beliefs all they want; what they think of me or my religion makes absolutely zero difference in my life.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

488643689 6y ago

How ironic, me stating some simple public facts got "cancelled" here. Guess, this whole free speech thing is not meant for everyone. Pretty sad, HN...