You’re defending him—intentionally or not—because you’re giving legitimacy to the idea that, somehow, the party that kicked him out is in the wrong.
Yeah, I am tired of this shit. My entire comment repeatedly spells out that criticizing one party does not mean supporting the other. Both FDO and Vaxry can be in the wrong. If you can’t even comprehend that, there is nothing else to talk about.
First off, I don’t know anything about Vaxry or the Hyperland community, so I am definitely not defending him or implying it is not bad or anything of the sorts. I am saying the public reasoning for the ban is manufactured BS, and I am pretty sure that is because it is hard to call yourself “free” anything if you want to police peoples behavior unrelated to your project.
If you think projects should do such policing, that’s fine. It even makes sense, if you ignore the potential for misuse. But they certainly shouldn’t advertise themselves as free. It’s the hypocrisy of trying to do both by manufacturing an excuse I am calling out.
As for the rest of what you write, I feel it all comes to the same unhinged idea that because someone is a bad person, everything they touch, create or any person engaging with them is also bad.
I dislike Brave, and it’s founder. Doesn’t mean everything Brave does is bad or can’t be promoted by me as good. If you choose to not do it for your personal beliefs, that is fine. But the idea that I am not allowed to praise Brave browser features or other actions because of something unrelated its founder did or said is ridiculous.
EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes. I criticize parts of DEI or stupid anti-Trump arguments. That’s the whole point. Stupid arguments are stupid even if a good person is making them and good arguments are good, even if evil person like Trump makes them. Parts of DEI can be bad, even though discrimination is also bad. The world is not black and white.
EDIT2: Here is my post on DEI if anyone wants to read it and decide for themselves whether it is reasonable criticism or not.
So it’s not just the PR, it is also him interacting with “the wrong people”. Because it is so unthinkable to post about another browser developer while developing a browser regardless of politics. Idk anything about Andreas Kling, maybe he is a bad person, but the reasoning in your comment seems unhinged to me.
PS: Maybe off topic, but FDO reasoning for banning Vaxry is also wild. FDO admits he never broke the CoC on their platforms, then the CoC enforcement sends him a threatening email demanding he moderates his community differently and when he pushes back and says he will ignore this person sending unsolicited threatening emails, that is a reason to ban him. Because somehow this unsolicited threatening email is somehow considered part of FDO. Literally manufacturing a cause…
No offense, but I seriously doubt you’ve done any of such analysis.
Well, if you don’t believe me, go do the analysis for yourself then. Unless you would rather live in a fairytale than look at your beliefs critically.
Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly.
Yeah, why not show complete ignorance of history. Not as if USSR literally left people in Chernobyl to be irradiated in order to avoid admitting what they caused until western media exposed them. But it is capitalism that keeps things secret, that is why you know about those things from news and internet.
You wrote you’re supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism
No I didn’t. I wrote that until someone shows me a version of socialism that works, I will support capitalism.
So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape…
You ever heard of the concept of lesser evil? That is what I consider capitalistic social democracy. If you find an even less evil system that does not just run on hopes and dreams, I will switch my support to that one. But right now, every system I have heard of or thought of would end up being even worse in practice.
Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,
I literally wrote that I would support some form of socialism. That is not sarcasm. I am not talking about one example, I am talking about economic and game theory principles.
If you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism. The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.
Comparing all capitalism to the US is the same as comparing all socialism to the Soviet Union.
There are plenty social democracies in Europe. I advocate for spreading those and making incremental improvements to them where appropriate.
Yeah, blame the Russians. As if the Russian revolutionaries were not fighting for the same ideals you believe in. Just by not realizing that eliminating capitalists concentrated all the power in the government and handed power to Stalin on a silver platter.
Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group, you have my support. Until then, I will keep the safe assumption that socialists have zero idea what they are talking about and would lead us to doom if we gave them the chance.
I don’t own much capital, but I live in a post communist country and I sure as hell don’t want to experience the shit our country already went through once.
Then go ahead and start one :D Good luck finding a bank that gives you an unsecured loan to start a business.
Then it is not equally owned as the title says.
I also want to receive stuff for free.
Who doesn’t want to join a co-op and receive shares of the company for free. Almost no one wants to start a co-op, financing it, taking risks and responsibilities only to give shares away for free and gain nothing in exchange.
I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t with default settings. Beware of enabling any setting that stores data next to the media like nfo metadata storage, as those could maybe cause conflicts.
My bad, I thought it was about payments in general (including other programs) but it says social security database. Sorry.
Another accusation Elon made was that payments are going to people missing SSNs.
A much simpler answer is that not all Americans actually have an SSN. The Amish for example have religious objections towards insurance, so they were allowed to opt out from social security and therefore don’t get an SSN.
I agree first point is evil and third should really be a non issue. But you may want to avoid using this strategy:
Your second two points just aren’t happening at any sort of scale
Since you probably want voters to care about trans issues, despite them not having anywhere the scale many other voter issues have. Comes across a bit hypocritical to say we should not care how these points affect a different small group of people.
does the US generally let firms have such leeway and lack of paperwork with hiring?
I don’t know for sure. With their at will employment, I would be surprised if they had such requirements in most states. In Czechia, we have no such requirements. We brainstormed interview questions in the office hours before the interview.
UK job applications have the requirements, essential and ideal, written out beforehand
Writing them ahead of time does not really change my point much. Write many requirements if you prefer hiring “on merit” or as few as possible if you want to give preference to diverse candidates.
Thank you for the time, effort, and thought out replies.
Thank you as well, it is so refreshing to be able to genuinely discuss and find common ground about topics like this these days.
On the main point, I agree that there is often a perception/“PR” problem for these policies.
I think calling it perception/PR problem is misleading, because it implies it is just misunderstood. If that was the case, it would just be a question of how to inform people. The issue is informed people dislike these policies as well, because they genuinely are unfair towards individuals and people are rarely willing to to be treated unfairly for the good of the society. People are also extra sensitive to governments and other people in positions of power treating people unfairly, arguably for a good reason.
But then, in the UK where the policy was just “when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, choose the under represented one” still got done in the right wing media as “law mandating hiring on unqualified individuals”, so I don’t think that adjusting would do a huge amount of work.
Yeah, obviously political parties fear mongering about the policies to get votes is a very big issue on it’s own. But even if the criticism is way over exaggerated, can you rationally defend even that policy? Two simple points:
And again, I don’t see how you could defend it other than insisting it makes things more fair overall even if it is unfair to individuals.
If the hiring process has an interview stage, how to make it identity-blind? How to deal with the perception of people, especially women, in a management position?
Yeah, it is a really difficult issue that probably does not have a single answer that can be applied everywhere. There probably have to be individualised solutions for various scenarios. There even may be situations where it can’t be fixed at all until peoples perceptions improve and biases erode. Hopefully, showing people their biases are incorrect in different situations will be enough to do that. I really think normalizing diversity through means people perceive as fair could do that.
I do agree that the main thing is hitting the underlying perception issues, but how to do that without creating a world where they’re visibly untrue is trickier. But if it was an easy problem there’d probably be less division on how to tackle it.
Yeah, unfortunately, it is one of the most difficult issues our society faces. :(
I feel like instead of trying to implement one solution right now, we maybe should try to encourage workplaces to experiment with various policies and collect data back. Try to find working solutions by iterating and continuously improving policies like we do in engineering. Hopefully, it can help find decent enough solutions to chip at peoples biases.
First, maybe this will help fill in as a starter on the French situation.
So they picked extremely stupid ones, got it.
Secondly, I do agree that targets and statistics inevitably distort and pervert any goals. So it will tend towards failure, but that’s government. It never really works, and since I assume we’re talking about the system we’re in rather than a new one I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker.
Depends on how much they get “perverted and distorted”. It absolutely is a deal breaker if it makes things worse than before.
Thirdly, and most pertinently: due to systemic racism/prejudices there is a barrier to various arbitrary socially constructed groups that other arbitrary socially constructed groups do not need to deal with.
By ignoring that there is a barrier to some in the form of systemic prejudice you don’t actually help those more discriminated against groups. You just help the arbitrary groups that are less discriminated against. Maybe you have less inequality overall because the discriminated against group is a minority, but I don’t think either of us think that that makes it “better”.
I don’t think we understand each other. I am not saying we should do nothing. We should try to create policies that enforce color blind hiring, rewarding, etc. E.g. have people evaluate work before knowing whose work it is where possible. I am not saying there can’t be any color/gender-aware policies anywhere. I am certainly not saying we should stop collecting statistics and put our heads into the sand. But we shouldn’t hire/promote/reward people based on their race/gender in either direction.
How would such a policy even work? You measure by how much is each minority disadvantaged on average and give them advantage by that amount via whatever mechanism? So the individuals that were already treated fairly now have an advantage even compared to the majority, those that were disadvantaged most are still disadvantaged, but a bit less and some random people from the majority are disadvantaged, because hiring is a zero sum game. You arguably did not make the system any more fair. The only good part is that it probably reduces by how much the most disadvantaged people are disadvantaged by.
More importantly, you do nothing to fix the impression people have, that minorities are doing less/worse work, yet show everyone they are treated preferentially. This will cause people from the majority to wonder with every failure, whether it is because of the unfair advantage minorities are given. You can’t even try to disprove it, because it is true in some cases. Rare cases perhaps, but very few people would care.
Then act surprised when this creates conscious racists and the majority tells you to fuck off and elects a candidate that cancels DEI initiatives entirely. See the issue?
In a democracy, you will never be able to enact policies that fix subconscious racism without fixing peoples perceptions. You will get voted out. That’s why the policies have to be color-blind, even if they are less effective (take longer to work).
And if we are lucky and do the policies well, we may even fix plenty of other biases unrelated to race and gender and eventually have much better results than color-aware.
PS: If you know how to say color-aware and color-blind in a way that includes gender and other minorities, can you let me know? I think you understand what I mean but it still bothers me I am using the wrong word.
Look, I don’t know what exactly France did, maybe colorblind measures are not very effective. Maybe France picked stupid ones and implemented them badly. Let’s not pretend there is only one way to do colorblind hiring.
But my counter question is this. You say it did not help in France. How do you measure that? If one black person has it much easier while another was not helped at all, is that success? That is what I have issue with. Color-aware policies are extremely likely to just fake the statistics about groups, while if you actually compare random person to random person, it is just as (if not more) unfair as before. I believe it does not create real equity, it just fools statistics.
You should not measure inequity between arbitrary groups. You should measure inequity between individuals to get a reliable metric.
Except cluster bombs are not against the Geneva conventions. Though any weapon can break the Geneva conventions if intentionally aimed at civilians or some other situations.