Editorial Linux Community Hit by the Blight of Social Justice Warfare, A Great Purge is Coming

[StrayKAT]

You can learn, though, fortunately.

As for the little counterpart tale, you'll have to take my word for it.
Belaying justice to a felony of this epic proportion will have the 'former' story repeat itself as the rebellious will be up and armed. Why wait? All SJW's have committed treason to their principle. It is what rebelling means, it is transitive and against acception of truth.

I'm a Christian myself, and know a bit about Byzantine history. I just don't know what it has to do with Linux.... or SJWs.

In fact, I've touched on some conspiracies, and I think the SJWs are just shock troops. The people who benefit the most are the corporations on the Linux Foundation. With Linus out of the way, they've got free rein. And no way in hell are they going to let some random purple haired, self loathing agitator take over everything. Not when they finally got rid of Linus.. who was their biggest obstacle.

 

[mtcn77]

I'm a Christian myself, and know a bit about Byzantine history. I just don't know what it has to do with Linux.... or SJWs.

In fact, I've touched on some conspiracies, and I think the SJWs are just shock troops. The people who benefit the most are the corporations on the Linux Foundation. With Linus out of the way, they've got free rein. And no way in hell are they going to let some random purple haired, self loathing agitator take over everything. Not when they finally got rid of Linus.. who was their biggest obstacle.

Again, this is about tools being used to make inoperable the most stable systems tested and approved. I have trust in Trump, as I said, since I don't have to 'share his view', only to share his outlook. The SJW's are on the opposite spectrum, they field similarities all the while cutthroat roid rage behind the curtains. It would help a lot if you just spent the effort. The book is a tome.

 

[StrayKAT]

Again, this is about tools being used to make inoperable the most stable systems tested and approved. I have trust in Trump, as I said, since I don't have to 'share his view', only to share his outlook. The SJW's are on the opposite spectrum, they field similarities all the while cutthroat roid rage behind the curtains. It would help a lot if you just spent the effort. The book is a tome.

Out of curiosity, you said you were in Turkey? Are you a Linux user... are there are a lot of Linux users there?

 

[mtcn77]

Out of curiosity, you said you were in Turkey? Are you a Linux user... are there are a lot of Linux users there?

I'm a very practical Android user(Nexus 2013), would I qualify?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

At all costs, amirite?

Any system can only handle so much instability before everything goes to shit. Push a body too far, organs start failing. Push a mind too far, a mental breakdown. Push the environment too far, that's basically "global warming." Push a machine too far, it will break (e.g. unprimed transfer water pumps will blow themselves out because there's not enough resistance). Push a governing body too far in terms of social policy then the people are expected to uphold "truths" that aren't their own--the governing body loses legitimacy.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm a very practical Android user(Nexus 2013), would I qualify?

Sure, I guess. I suppose I'm a Linux user too then.

 

[Caring1]

All laws are enacted to cater for the lowest common denominator, by mob mentality.
To quote a line from the movie Hot Fuzz: "For the greater good"

 

[Valantar]

Case in point.

Thanks for your insightful and meaningful contribution to this discussion.

Now, I have to ask: is the "book" you're talking about Atlas Shrugged? And if so, can you please explain how it's relevant? And which "quotes" from it you're claiming that I'm somehow dodging?

@FordGT90Concept Frankly, I'm quite disappointed that you'd stoop so low as to like that post instead of engage in actual debate. I expected more from you, even if we rarely seem to agree on anything.

I'm sure Trump will start the great purge of these lunatics who are a hazard to the industrious since they know nothing of productive value - paradoxically that they are proud of - which is their fundamental contribution to these sciences. Props to me for typing this till the end without laughing.
Trump is a republican, Ayn Rand is a republican, though unadmittedly, and I happen to be a fellow Republican of Turkiye, so I know what these words stand for.
One example, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian didn't execute his 'Armenian' Treasurer when the famous Hippodrome Revolt was started by his bribery. Tally: 25000 lives lost. Our Selim the 1st, swiftly served the deserved justice to his Vizier when he was inciting Janissaries to a coup ahead of the Egyptian campaign.
The point is, you may act the slow witted, but you cannot play the contributor while acting the impostor.
If you are a neo-liberalist fool, you make things inoperable, create strife and pick favourites... Why? Because it is a very 'Christian' thing to do!
Hopefully, hopefully the Intel board hired Jim Keller and not one of these flagrantly incapacitated decoys. It is the one thing common in our two Abrahamic views to appoint the best to the office.


See? One who so nonchalantly state his lack of understanding. If I were to be inclusive, he would have understood... Let's ban me! "Leave no one behind!" ...Obama still in office?

...if you're attempting to refer to the "no child left behind" school policy, that was a Bush-era policy. Also, since when is it bad to "nonchalantly" admit to not being an expert in a field that one isn't one in? Are you actually arguing that it's better to pretend you know everything, rather than admit ignorance? I thought your recent anti-scientific rambling was the most shocking you could go in that direction, but apparently I was wrong. I also made it abundantly clear why me not having a university degree in physics, chemistry or another natural science wasn't even remotely problematic for critiquing your post (what I do have is a degree and work experience far more relevant to the subject matter than any amount of study of thermodynamics). And no, I wouldn't have understood if you "were more inclusive" (whatever that would mean in this case), I might though have understood if you constructed your sentences using actual sentence structure and formulated your arguments clearly and concisely. I get that English isn't your first language, but this seems to be less about vocabulary and more about how you choose to express your thoughts - in this case, incoherently and with no real discernible structure.

Also, I'm quite sure Ayn Rand would have smacked you if she was alive to hear you call her a Republican, even seeing how the Republican party has evolved over the past decade. Also, 'Republican' in the US means a member or supporter of the (US) Republican party (and by extension its representatives and policies), while 'Republican' most other places means something quite different. There might be parties named "The Republican Party" (though not likely in English) other places too, but there's no real reason for them to be aligned politically, as the political foundation of the word 'republican' (believing in/fighting for the nation in question to become/stay a republic) is ... well, common to both Republicans and Democrats in the US, and quite a few parties in quite a few countries.

Also: did you call me a neoliberal somewhere above here? If so, you should really, really look up what neoliberalism means.

 

[R-T-B]

All SJW's have committed treason to their principle.

No, given I have certainly not, I don't think that's true at all. But most absolutes can be debated like that. It's thus, silly to take such extreme positions in general.

 

[mtcn77]

Valantar, if Ayn Rand would have seen you changing your stance every moment whether it be posthumous witnessing on her behalf, or the Republican Party, it would be you who would have heard that democracy means rule of the many, a.k.a. people's states.

No, given I have certainly not, I don't think that's true at all. But most absolutes can be debated like that. It's thus, silly to take such extreme positions in general.

You just assume everything is relative, even command. I have bad news for you: her testimony.

 

[R-T-B]

You just assume everything is relative, even command. I have bad news for you: her testimony.

Who is her and why do you speak like Ayn Rand is god?

Sorry, everything is relative buddy. Take an absolute example and you'll find a counter example. Socrates figured this out long before Ayn Rand was even a thing.

democracy means rule of the many

Too bad America is not a democracy, but a Republic. And that's fortunate in my eyes. The only thing majority rule promises is that the minority groups will get wrecked, essentially.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Too bad America is not a democracy, but a Republic

I don’t see enough of this. Most in our country don’t know this little distinction.

 

[mtcn77]

Who is her and why do you speak like Ayn Rand is god?

Sorry, everything is relative buddy. Take an absolute example and you'll find a counter example. Socrates figured this out long before Ayn Rand was even a thing.



Too bad America is not a democracy, but a Republic. And that's fortunate in my eyes. The only thing majority rule promises is that the minority groups will get wrecked, essentially.

You don't understand logic. Inferring data about something without prior knowledge of it is one of the fallacies quoted by Ayn Rand.
Socrates didn't die on arbitrary terms, his dying words to his spouse were, "Would it be better I were actually penalized for wrong doing?".
You speak like these exacting philosophers were the kind they fought against.

 

[R-T-B]

You don't understand logic.

I'm afraid I do.

Inferring data about something without prior knowledge of it is one of the fallacies quoted by Ayn Rand.

Only I didn't do that? Ayn Rand is not exactly a respected philosopher, either, so I don't know why you keep quoting that or why it's even relevant, for that matter. I'd argue it's more economic in nature than anything and unless you can actually establish otherwise, of literal practical relevance here.

At any rate, I'm guessing your saying I can't comment on something you have failed to define. Sorry, doesn't work like that. I can comment on how illbacked it is. And why not? if you mean you can't infer something that is not backed at all is probably best ignored, then I say BS, that would bring down the logical foudnations of our universe, as all kinds of bullshit would suddenly gain magical credibility.

Please clarify, quit trolling, or both.

Socrates didn't die on arbitrary terms

You act like I didn't know about the poison Hemlock juice. Or his option of Exile. Stop acting like you're smarter than everyone.

I don’t see enough of this. Most in our country don’t know this little distinction.

Kinda sad, isn't it?

 

[Valantar]

Valantar, if Ayn Rand would have seen you changing your stance every moment whether it be posthumous witnessing on her behalf, or the Republican Party, it would be you who would have heard that democracy means rule of the many, a.k.a. people's states.

You just assume everything is relative, even command. I have bad news for you: her testimony.

Have I changed my stance here? Where? When? Please, show me an example of this, if you can.

Also, whose testimony are you talking about? And what did I say about democracy? I was talking about the word 'republican' and its general definition vs. the specific US definition.

At any rate, I'm guessing your saying I can't comment on something you have failed to define. Sorry, doesn't work like that. I can comment on how illbacked it is. And why not? if you mean you can't infer something that is not backed at all is probably best ignored, then I say BS, that would bring down the logical foudnations of our universe, as all kinds of bullshit would suddenly gain magical credibility.

This. So many times this. Failing to define what you're talking about doesn't insulate you from counterarguments or criticism.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No, given I have certainly not, I don't think that's true at all. But most absolutes can be debated like that. It's thus, silly to take such extreme positions in general.

I have to agree with this also.

@mtcn77
Are you actually trying to make a point? It still seems like you're trolling.

 

[R-T-B]

Also, whose testimony are you talking about? And what did I say about democracy?

As best I can guess (which is all we can do) it's probably something to do with the proposed Supreme Court justice that's being accused of sexual assault.

It might surprise him to hear I don't even know what to think of that. I'm waiting for more facts. I think everyone should. And I'm ideologically opposed to the guy...

It's also completely irrelevant. I feel scatterbrained just trying to follow his logic trail, honestly.

 

[mtcn77]

I'm afraid I do.



Only I didn't do that? Ayn Rand is not exactly a respected philosopher, either, so I don't know why you keep quoting that or why it's even relevant, for that matter. I'd argue it's more economic in nature than anything and unless you can actually establish otherwise, of literal practical relevance here.

At any rate, I'm guessing your saying I can't comment on something you have failed to define. Sorry, doesn't work like that. I can comment on how illbacked it is. And why not? if you mean you can't infer something that is not backed at all is probably best ignored, then I say BS, that would bring down the logical foudnations of our universe, as all kinds of bullshit would suddenly gain magical credibility.

Please clarify, quit trolling, or both.



You act like I didn't know about the poison Hemlock juice. Or his option of Exile. Stop acting like you're smarter than everyone.



Kinda sad, isn't it?

Not what I've failed, the onus is on you. It is called illicit double by the way.
Not that I have to spoonfeed everything, Ayn Rand classifies an unusual
reply to trolls in general: "the silent treatment."
All SJW's, being neo-liberal democrats, rallied against Trump. Ayn Rand was the campaign slogan for Trump. Like Ayn Rand, Trump exemplifies the entrepreneur, the executing initiative mindset. Stupid democrats are just in a rebellious state that they need a subject to blame for. Trump and Rand execute the same principle: disregard the mindless.

 

[INSTG8R]

This whole thread basically personifies the reason a code of conduct should exist. The amount of toxicity generated here pretty much proves there needs to be some rules in place be it in the industry or right here.

 

[StrayKAT]

This whole thread basically personifies the reason a code of conduct should exist. The amount of toxicity generated here pretty much proves there needs to be some rules in place be it in the industry or right here.

I see some heated back and forth, but not toxicity. What did you have in mind? I haven't read every page tbh.

 

[Valantar]

All SJW's, being neo-liberal democrats, rallied against Trump.

I hate to have to throw Wikipedia at you, but:

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[12][13]

This has nothing to do whatsoever with however you define 'SJW' (and, frankly, is an ideology diametrically opposed to social justice, at least as a goal for any government). Please accept that words have meanings. Also: except for his stance on free trade, Trump is a classic extremist neoliberalist.

I see some heated back and forth, but not toxicity. What did you have in mind? I haven't read every page tbh.

I would agree with you up until @mtcn77 came in here and started doing whatever it is that is being done (I frankly can't tell at this point whether it's trolling, an attempt at actual debate, or if the forum has some sort of lingual poltergeist), but which at the very least includes actively refusing to present actual arguments, refusing to address criticism, and continuously using ad hominems rather than engaging in actual debate, in particular when being challenged. There hasn't been anything said that's particularly bad (even though I do take offense to being called a neoliberal!), but the attitude is toxic in itself as it entirely precludes productive debate, and serves no purpose besides creating chaos and discontent. I don't mind heated debate if it gets us somewhere and the content avoids personal attacks. Currently, this thread is like watching YouTube videos of logging trucks stuck in mud, just less even messier, the mud is random words, and the experience is less meaningful.

 

[INSTG8R]

I see some heated back and forth, but not toxicity. What did you have in mind? I haven't read every page tbh.

Basically the entire push back on the idea of a proper code of conduct because “F you SJW” and all the related angles to that effect. It just amazes me that this is such a huge argument in today’s environment. We need proper checks and balances in this industry as much as we do everywhere else in society, the fact that there so much push back against it is disappointing

 

[Valantar]

Not what I've failed, the onus is on you.

What onus?

It is called illicit double by the way.

What is called that?

Ayn Rand was the campaign slogan for Trump.

No. Trump's campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again."

Like Ayn Rand, Trump exemplifies the entrepreneur, the executing initiative mindset.

Ayn Rand was an entrepreneur? She was a failed writer (at the time, at least) who lived on welfare for parts of her life (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) despite promoting an ideology that smears people in need of help (and even the concept of government assistance) as lazy and bad.

Stupid democrats are just in a rebellious state that they need a subject to blame for.

Why would they need to blame someone for feeling rebellious? Feeling rebellious is generally a good feeling, no something you blame on someone else.

Trump and Rand execute the same principle: disregard the mindless.

Trump exemplifies mindlessness.

 

[mtcn77]

I hate to have to throw Wikipedia at you, but:

This has nothing to do whatsoever with however you define 'SJW' (and, frankly, is an ideology diametrically opposed to social justice, at least as a goal for any government). Please accept that words have meanings. Also: except for his stance on free trade, Trump is a classic extremist neoliberalist.


I would agree with you up until @mtcn77 came in here and started doing whatever it is that is being done (I frankly can't tell at this point whether it's trolling, an attempt at actual debate, or if the forum has some sort of lingual poltergeist), but which at the very least includes actively refusing to present actual arguments, refusing to address criticism, and continuously using ad hominems rather than engaging in actual debate, in particular when being challenged. There hasn't been anything said that's particularly bad (even though I do take offense to being called a neoliberal!), but the attitude is toxic in itself as it entirely precludes productive debate, and serves no purpose besides creating chaos and discontent. I don't mind heated debate if it gets us somewhere and the content avoids personal attacks. Currently, this thread is like watching YouTube videos of logging trucks stuck in mud, just less even messier, the mud is random words, and the experience is less meaningful.

You kind of act like you have no critical thinking. Things don't stand still. Just because the label says one thing, the following actions may not follow suit; like you standing up for anything, or the liberal party actually representing the initiated.
I won't divulge in your generalities. I'm not looking to be popular.
This whole free-pass 'cry-foul' card just cannot be used to carry forward any so called liberalist to fast forward career steps in a domino effect zero-sum game "your loss, my gain" kind of attitude without the necessitated validation of actual industriousness. All that people seem to be disgruntled about is those that have burnt out and want 'their boss be fired as a severence package' a.k.a. vengeance - vengeance is not justice.
What is being displayed is a very Randian dystopia. Growth requires action, not reactionary attitudes. We don't need hitmen with zero accomplishments holding office, inasmuchas we need Trump's 'make great' slogan.

 

[R-T-B]

Not what I've failed, the onus is on you.

Why?

It is called illicit double by the way.

What is?

Not going to break this down further because as far as I can tell, your thought process at this point is one of the following:

a.) Insane / Illogical and beyond rational comprehension without the use of some very specific drugs

b.) Incomprehensible due to a language barrier (honestly I hope this is it).

or

c.) So convinced that he is right that he doesn't even need to explain it, effectively a dillusion of being a perfect, god-like being. In which case seriously, get mental help.

What is being displayed is a very Randian dystopia.

You do realize that wasn't uh, real? You may as well cite bioshock as a reason not to pick up random sea slugs.

a.) or c.) are sadly garnering evidence.