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.
Me: "Please use words in ways that relate to their accepted meaning, so that we can understand each other."
You: "You have no critical thinking."
Not that this should require saying, but questioning the meaning or common understanding of a word is not the same as coming up with your own private definition for it, which seems to be your modus operandi. If you're doing this, the very least that is expected of you is that you explain how you've changed it and why, which you refuse to do. As such, you have nobody but yourself to blame for people not understanding you, as you're essentially creating your own private language and expecting people to automatically understand it.
As for you being held "to a higher standard" here in terms of expectation of references and citations: no. You are presenting the most divergent claims here, and as such there is an onus in you to actually substantiate those claims, or at least demonstrate how they're relevant to the discussion. You refuse to present arguments for your case (seeming to see your views as absolute truths which should be accepted as such simply from being stated), and thus you've been asked for references to stand in for your arguments. You refuse that too, beyond vague mumblings of "Ayn Rand said so". How, then, are we to actually understand what you're saying, let alone communicate with you in a meaningful way?
Also, can you please substantiate the claim that people fighting for social justice have "zero accomplishments"? That is quite the claim, as that grouping would encompass quite a few million people across the globe, so it does require some sort of evidence to back it up. Also, you're arguing that Trump somehow exemplifies great accomplishments, despite the well-documented fact that his enterprises have failed as much as they've succeeded. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with this - failure is a risk inherent in any activity - but using him as a counterpoint to "people with zero accomplishments" is a bit weird, as he is definitely not a gleaming example of unquestionable success, and there are plenty of examples one could refer to as more accomplished and more generally successful.
By the way, you can't "divulge in [my] generalities", seeing how "divulge" means "make known". Did you mean "engage"? And what does informed debate have to do with popularity? You seem to be referring to the logical fallacy that all people fighting for a more just society are doing so to somehow become popular, which is so silly an "argument" that I'm tempted to just laugh it off. It's a diversion tactic, nothing more, and one that should be put to sleep by a simple statement: I'm not interested in popularity, I'm interested in making the world a better place. If you refuse to believe me in saying this, then this discussion lacks any sort of workable foundation, as you're stating that you believe I'm dishonest about my motivations and thus by extension dishonest in every argument I present to this end. If you can't trust what the people you're discussing with is what they actually mean, no debate is possible. I trust that you're honest in your intentions and that you're speaking from an honest starting point, no matter how much I disagree with your thinking or how nonsensical your writing can be. If you can't trust your opponents, you'll never be able to communicate, and should really look into why you have such trouble trusting people.
As for zero-sum games, the only ones promoting attitudes and beliefs like that are the people
opposed to these changes, as one of their key arguments is that "if we have to be nice, it will harm productivity" (or to use your terms: ("if you win, we lose"). Society is not a zero-sum game, and it is entirely possible to treat people respectfully and still be productive. In fact, there's a substantial body of research showing that mutual (and explicit) respect within a working group
enhances productivity. Not to mention a supporting body of evidence that "meta-work" (i.e. work establishing social norms and shared understandings of group dynamics, goals, desires and intentions) also
enhances productivity despite being time spent not actually directly progressing towards whatever the group's goal may be.
You're right that vengeance is not justice; justice entails reasonable consequences for actions. If harassment from your boss causes you to burn out, then yes, the boss being fired is a reasonable consequence for those actions. This isn't vengeance, it's attributing blame for a situation to the person responsible for it in the first place. What you're doing is either a) individualizing blame for systemic social dynamics, or b) victim-blaming by implying that people should be able to ignore the reality they live in and "rising above it".
Still, this post is the most coherent I've seen you in this thread so far, so I suppose that deserves recognition, even if you set the bar pretty low.
Learn?
The poor state of critical thinking in developed countries, if anything, is due to consumerism as Einstein said it best.
Look at my country: we are soon to follow Venezuela, but if we can at least create a cancer vaccine as did Cuba, I'll at least starve contently.
Learn from what? You're certainly not creating any conditions that might make learning a possibility.
If I understand you correctly, you're now arguing that social dynamics are governed by quantum physics? Again: this is such a far-fetched claim that you really need to present some argument or evidence to support it.
It was Node.js ..Developer "Rod Vagg". Simply because he linked to a "Wrongthink" article on Twitter:
The Neurodiversity Case for Free Spreech. Basically argued that Isaac Newton couldn't survive today's academic climate. This was against the CoC the project had in place apparently, even though it didn't have anything to do with interacting with anyone on a project related discussion (it's even a more weak case than Linus' behavior.. where he's directly mean to people on Linux related things).
Almost got voted out, but managed to survive
Twitter wasn't happy (calling him a "known hostile")
That sounds like an overblown reaction to the sharing of an article, no doubt about that. Then again, he wasn't actually kicked out, so is there actually any harm done? Also, from reading the initial paragraphs of the article (no time to finish it right now), it seems to hew dangerously close to someone pushing neurodiverse people ahead of themselves to further an agenda. It should be entirely possible (and not even that challenging, really) to create a code of conduct and system for enforcing it that's capable of a sufficient amount of flexibility and discretion to allow neurodiverse people to operate within it, and not be discriminated against. I suppose some people would call that a double standard ("Why is someone with Asperger's syndrome allowed to yell expletives at others when I'm not?"), but that would be a bit silly, no? It's entirely possible to be more lenient towards those who have actual valid reasons to struggle to adapt to these rules.
On the other hand, quite a few neurodiverse people are entirely capable of functioning within accepted social norms; as such it's rather problematic for someone (especially some who isn't one of them) to use them as an excuse for the abolition of official rules/codes of conduct. That is, of course, without going into how absurd the initial alt-history hypothetical of Isaac Newton in modern academia is (given that, no matter his neurological makeup, his views would necessarily be different in various ways had he grown up in today's society than when he did, yet his views are the reasoning presented as an argument here). It's presented as if it's a blatantly obvious example of how unreasonable these types of rules are, yet the argument itself entirely fails to account for the actual context in which the beliefs and behaviours in question were formed.
Haven't had time to read through this entire thread and if already mentioned, then I missed it but......
Had a thought occur to me this morning after watching the news and just crap in general and this topic came to mind - Why, I dunno but it did.
May sound crazy I'll admit BUT what if this is some sneaky "Thing" being done (Silently) by MS for the purpose of eliminating Linux as a viable alternative to Windows?
Not saying MS themselves came up with it but the potential result of Linus pulling the plug if provoked to makes me wonder.
They do have an incentive to do so if they really wanted to, many incentives in fact.
One of the biggest would be to "Unofficially" back the SJW in some way and let them egg things on to the point Linus has enough and does the deed, this achieving an end goal of eliminating Linux as an Windows alternative in the near future onward.
I mean it's no secret MS has no love for Linux in general or at all really - It's competition at the end of the day for Windows.
It's also no secret MS has done some really dirty, underhanded things in the past too.
Yeah, it's a conspiracy kind of thing I'll admit BUT if potental profits, users being made to remain with or come back to Windows..... You guys know what I'm getting at.
Certainly possible.
This (conspiracy) theory has been presented before. It is
possible, but highly unlikely, given the immense amount of variables and uncertainties involved in actually succeeding with something like this. Occam's razor tells us there are far better alternatives for explaining this (such as, you know, people actually wanting to work in a productive and harassment-free environment).
Also, given the wildly divergent target markets for Windows and Linux, I seriously doubt this is something MS would bother to try, given that they'd essentially need to create a whole new version of Windows to fit this market.
