What do you think the link contains? What do you think this line means? "His idea was that there’s something biological about short people that predisposes them against operating escalators."
It means what it means, it is part of the story. The meaning of the story is, that someone had a theory, and then, instead of counter-argumenting it or antyhing, he just got fired.
Uh, there's more reasons to not support the police than being an ancap, but the fact that you think that's the only possibility says quite a lot
How? Who would enforce the law then?
sure im anarcho just not anarcho capitalist because frankly i believe in a thing called "age of consent"
Could you elaborate? I would like to learn about existence of some other anarcho society than anarchocapitalism. If there is no capitalism, how do you trade goods?
Do you think we should be tolerant of those that are intolerant? Because that is what the linked story seems to promote.
Should you be allowed, without consequence, to voice intolerant opinions, just because free speech?Because that seems to be the point of the linked story. Robert seems to be a proponent of allowing to voice the opinion that people can be seen as inferior due to their genetics. He seems to think that the only way you can counter this is by (continuously) providing opposing arguments.
Yes, because what is the alternative?
The alternative is, that once there is status quo, it can't be ever changed, because it is illegal to even discuss anything else. And we have way too many historical examples when the status quo was horribly wrong.
Maybe he cares more about ideas than people? (A common trait amongst programmers)
It doesn't look like Uncle Bob was brought up because kovarex likes him as a person. He was brought up because kovarex liked some of his ideas. He might not have been mentioned at all if he wasn't the "face" of "clean code" to the extent that he is.
Exactly. For example, I really dislike, when people bash specific politics when doing political debate, intsead of the principles the parties represent.
This game also has a huge amount of fans who are right wing, it's extremely popular in eastern europe, russia, etc.
Deal with it.
The just have players from countless of countries with all kinds of political views. That is kind of normal for a politically neutral game, isn't it?
Read moreThanks for your response. I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.
I genuinely wish I could not care. Like I've been called a faggot countless times, as have a lot of people online. But it hurts way, way more when you're queer, especially if they're saying it because you're queer. A couple weeks ago, a player searched my player name, found out I was trans, and spammed "tranny retard" in chat, telling me I'll never be a real woman, that I'm disgusting, etc.. Sometimes they can just tell from my voice.
I remember my mother explaining to me how my gay feelings were a sin back in seventh grade. I remember holding my breath every time conversion therapy was being voted on. I remember in church, the guest pastor (?) railing about how the degenerates and faggots like me are destroying the country, dropping the n bomb, etc.. These are deeply, deeply burned into my brain, and it is impossible for me to not think about them when I'm called that slur.
But this...
I honestly feel bad for what you had to go through.
There are primitive blunt people out there, and they will try to find all the stupid reasons to pick up on someone, they just search for a weak spot so they can feed on the misery of others. They need to do that because usually have some deeper problems of their own and this is their coping mechanism.
But please, don't go the way of searching hidden attacks in areas, that are unrelated.
Read moreThis game was almost a meme because of how many trans people loved it. Like, it's like the go-to game in a lot of queer discords I'm in for whatever reason, for years. It's kinda impossible to describe how out of the blue this is, and like everyone's trying to find the next game to play together. Like again, I know you don't care, but this game has done good for those communities, and could've continued to do good. I can't in good conscious ever recommend this game again knowing people like you profit from it.
As for why? A lot of trans people are programmers (one of a few jobs even possible with very little interaction with other people), and this game appeals to programmers. Maybe there's an overlap with autism with meticulously placing and designing everything, which is more common in queer people. It's a really good game to play without voice chat, which trans-peeps usually try to avoid. It's really easy to just kinda tune out the rest of the lgbt-phobic shitty world an...
What did Uncle Bob say against trans people, be specific please.What did I say or do against trans people?
Could we please be able to open topic like this without the need to immediatelly take sides and approach it as a war with extremes on both sides?
You are kidding right? What he's saying isn't civil. "Oh, he's saying we should eat babies but, you know, his tone is fine so it's not a big deal." I really hope you look at your life and realize it's gone wrong somewhere and reflect/reevaluate. This should be a massive learning moment, please use it as such.
Are you talkoing about me? What did I say? I'm completely confused, please be more specific.
Kovarex explaining how someone isn't a bigot because they don't believe women should be senior engineers is not "keeping things civil". It's "adding heat to the flames" and making it "harder to discuss difficult topics". He should be banned. But I've edited my post.
First of all, send me a link to someone, saying that for starters.
Read moreI'm not defending that women shouldn't be senior software engeneers, but if someone would defend that, it doesn't make him a bigot just because he proposes that and have some arguments
That's the literal definition of bigotry. This is so disgusting.
only if those arguments were debunked and the person wouldn't be willing to change his mind, then yes, it sounds like a bigot
What if that person had their arguments debunked, whined about being censored and how the woke mob was coming after them, refused to change their mind, then continually double downed on the original stance? Just because someone believes their justified for being a bigot doesn't mean they're not a bigot. You can't get away from it - to decide if someone's being a bigot, you have to decide if what they're saying is bigoted. You really, really, really don't wanna have that conversation, because you lose.
Saying women sho...
I find it weird, that you find the someone with joy in debate disgusting. I'm used to debate people with different political opinions most of my life. I had political debates with my grandma when I was 6. Our views were very different, but I would never ever call her a sh*tty person for that.
And yes, obviously, I'm not defending that women shouldn't be senior engeneers, I doubt that Uncle Bob said anything like that as well. This is just a rethorical question, it doesn't really matter what kind of controversional opinion you pick as the example.
i dont think the consequences will be gone by tomorrow, actually, it will persist but those who dont care will have "moved on" by tomorrow morning, but factorio's trans community has been basically betrayed by what kovarex has been saying for the past several hours
I have no idea how anything I said has anything to do with trans. Could you please explain the throught process to me?
Hey kovarex, I know you mean no harm to anyone, but I think you should be more careful about the way you communicate. People mistake your disdain of cancel culture for you defending what is being canceled. Two things to consider:
Saying bigoted things has to have consequences. Otherwise bigotism spreads. The most efficient way for an average Joe to do something about it is to warn others. /u/d40b did not "cancel" the valuable information Uncle Bob has to offer, he simply asked in a nice way to add a disclaimer that Bob is not the nicest person.
Hating on cancel culture is something that's prevalent in right wing circles, mostly because they're upset they can't just say whatever they want without consequences. If you're not careful people will assume you're part of that group.
Obviously I don't mean harm to anyone, thanks for acknowledging that.
I just strongly not believe with your axiom 1. Bad ideas don't spread by just having space to be said. Illegal ideas are not stopped by oppression. As I stated before, we had history of both nazi and russion occupation in our state, and any bad opinion about the occupants was illegal. Did it make people love the occupants? Not really. When it doesn't work in such an extreme case, it won't work here.
Look at flat earthers for example. It is obviously mostly just trollers making fun, but few people take it seriously. Should we make it illegal to say that earth is flat, or should we just debunk it, and ignore the few people that will never accept any arguments?
and about 2) If people project this, it is really their problem. I would really love if we could discuss different topics without coupling them with the political garbage glued to them.
youre putting this into a very cohesive paragraph just for kovarex, but i dont think he'll ever understand it outside of his bubble of "people are being deplatformed for having different opinions"
its becoming clearer and clearer the longer and longer he continues to go on, that he sees this as nothing more than an irrational reaction to another person having what he thinks is a differing opinion, he will NOT acknowledge bipoc or lgbt people being affected by these "differing opinions", he will NOT acknowledge that supporting the american police is an act of bigotry, its very clear he wont change his mind about it, its very ingrained into his thought process
If you don't support the police, you are anarchocapitalist. Which is great, we might have a lot to talk about. But most people are not able to imagine that.
Anyway, what is your opinion on NAP (Not aggression principle) when it comes to ecology, I find it kind of hard to solve in anarchocapitalism.
Let's be clear:
Anyone defending American police right now is defending an epidemic of murders against people of color and other minority communities. Putting yourself out there to defend police is directly putting yourself in opposition to the cause "attacking" the police: an effort for accountability and a stop to the violence.
That's why people think it makes him a bad person.
No, you got it wrong. You just assume he is defending murders against people. This is your projection of his thought process, which is most probably wrong. People are not this one dimensional in vast majority of cases.
I personally am trying to argue for minimsation of the state for more than a decade, and I know quite well, that I'm in absolute miniscule minority with my views. Vast vast majority of people are etatist, and supporting the police is part of it. I could go on, and say that almost all people are evil, or I could just assume, that they don't know better, or maybe I'm wrong. But I won't sh*t on them.
In this blog post Uncle Bob argues that thinking women are genetically inferior coders is something people should be allowed to say without consequence. http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2017/08/09/ThoughtPolice.html
I think that you got your link mixed up, it doesn't contain anything that you describe it contains.
Read moreThere is no reasoning for these beliefs because every piece of reasoning has already been debunked. Name an argument that Uncle Bob has made in defense of his beliefs and I'll provide you as many links as you'd like debunking the argument. Every argument in defense of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc has already been debunked because none of them are exactly new.
A common argument in favor of not making a woman president is "women have periods so they can't always make objective decisions." Super easy argument to debunk: humans factor emotions into their decisions constantly, so there isn't a single president in history who hasn't made subjective decisions.
Arguments for not making a woman SSE range anywhere from "because they're dumb" (there's no evidence suggesting women have naturally lower intelligence) to "what if she needs maternity leave" (which is just a shit stance in the first place because studies show babies are more healthy when connected to all parents...
>Eevery piece of reasoning has already been debunked.
Is this even possible? Isn't there infinite ways you can reason? How can you debunk infinite things?
Ah yes these mystical people with their ability to "deplatform" anyone they disagree with at will. Uncle Bob has 160 thousand followers on Twitter. He manages to be heard by many despite being a shitty person. But he's being deplatformed, right?
Cancel culture does not exist. It has no meaningful impact on people who are already in privileged positions.
First of all, why is he a sh*tty person? I opened one link, and he defended police. This doesn't align with my views that much as well, but the reaction is, that I would like to have debate with him about that and see what are his arguments, not just short-circuit into hatret and calling him a sh*tty person.
I'm not really talking about the specific situation with Uncle Bob, I'm talking about what happens if the deplatform technique becomes the norm. I'm trying to show how dangerous and bad implications it could have.
Let's imagine those two groups of people.
Group A says "I hate gay people".
Group B says "I hate people who hate gay people".
These groups are not equivalent. Group A is bigoted.
This example is simple but it is almost never that simple in real life.
Group A: I don't want to see any more gay movies, I'v seen enough.
GroupB: So you hate gays, you bigot? You should be deplatformed.
Group A: What? This is not what I meant. (not read by anyone, as they are deplatformed already)
Read more... i think i understand your semi-coherent statement?
if you have people with beliefes A and B, people from A call Bs bigots because they are attached to B and vice versa
I'm going to assume this was supposed to be "if you have people with beliefs A and B, people from A call Bs bigots because Bs are attached to a belief that is intolerant of A and vice versa"
You are half-correct. There's an inherent difference between being intolerant of what people are vs what people believe. You yourself were talking about how it'd be dangerous to link to Stalin because he believes in Communism, which is inherently violent (I'm going to respect rule 3 here and not try and prove why you're wrong about that). From this statement, you admitted that you believe certain beliefs are dangerous and you would prefer that fewer people held those beliefs because they result in loss of life. This is not covered by the definition of "bigot...
I'm not defending that women shouldn't be senior software engeneers, but if someone would defend that, it doesn't make him a bigot just because he proposes that and have some arguments, only if those arguments were debunked and the person wouldn't be willing to change his mind, then yes, it sounds like a bigot. But my feeling is, that this step is completely ignored in most of the cases. People are called bigots without any attempts at understanding the reasoning, it is the easy way.
devtrackers.gg