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

[Ferrum Master]

How about our generations in former communist country's ??? You people are complaining, have you ever stood in queues like our parents did to buy rations of bread, milk or meat ? are the shelves empty in your stores ? did the power go down at random so that the State would save money ? did you get snitched on by your neighbors for saying your mind ?
FFS how can you people slowly turn to what we were 30 years ago ?

I have mate. It is really hard to imagine for other people. Dont blame them. Because of that problems like these look alien to us.

 

[Valantar]

How about our generations in former communist country's ??? You people are complaining, have you ever stood in queues like our parents did to buy rations of bread, milk or meat ? are the shelves empty in your stores ? did the electrical power go down at random so that the State would save money ? was the gasoline/petrol rationed to 40 liters a month ? did you get snitched on by your neighbors for saying your mind ?
FFS how can you people slowly turn to what we were 30 years ago ?

You have a point, except that no country or government in the world has ever actually been socialist or communist for any significant amount of time (though Scandinavian social democracy does come close) - they've all fallen into oligarchy, fascism, dictatorship, robber-baron rule, or some mix of the above within a short time, and after that only paid superficial lip service to the ideals and ideologies they claimed to represent. If you look at the policies and actions of governments in former Soviet Union and East Asian countries, and compare them to the ideological tenets of communism and socialism, it's blatantly obvious that they have near nothing in common.

Dont confuse people asking for a government that cares abouts its citizens with asking for oppressive fascism.

 

[StrayKAT]

All i have to say is, that even if i get payed four or five times less than any of you, doing the same job, at least i don't have to deal with HR or watch what i say to my colleagues like the fucking STASI is spying us.


How about our generations in former communist country's ??? You people are complaining, have you ever stood in queues like our parents did to buy rations of bread, milk or meat ? are the shelves empty in your stores ? did the electrical power go down at random so that the State would save money ? was the gasoline/petrol rationed to 40 liters a month ? did you get snitched on by your neighbors for saying your mind ?
FFS how can you people slowly turn to what we were 30 years ago ?

I haven't lived that way, but I love to learn about history. So I don't see much value in repeating it.

 

[trparky]

How about our generations in former communist country's ??? You people are complaining, have you ever stood in queues like our parents did to buy rations of bread, milk or meat ? are the shelves empty in your stores ? did the electrical power go down at random so that the State would save money ? was the gasoline/petrol rationed to 40 liters a month ? did you get snitched on by your neighbors for saying your mind ?
FFS how can you people slowly turn to what we were 30 years ago ?

I am in no way discounting those issues, I feel for those people who lived through that. Hell, some of the poorest people in the United States practically live like kings according to some other countries. That's not to say the the US doesn't have issues.

Look at how much CEOs are paid when compared to that of the people on the bottom. Look no further than Amazon, the CEO is one of the richest people in the world yet the people on the bottom who actually are the lifeblood of the company and that without them the company would not run are paid shit. We're talking the people who answer the phones, resolve customer complaints and get swore at on a daily basis, pack boxes, etc. These are the people that if they didn't exist the company wouldn't function, the lifeblood of the company. Yet those people are paid shit when compared to that of the CEO. You can't sit there and tell me that something isn't messed up here.

 

[R-T-B]

Things like this already broke whatever "rules" that were meant to check it.

I'm not sure that's true. They simply rewrote the rules to fit their situation using existing due process, meaning the rules in the first place weren't strong enough. We need these rules institutionalized at a level at which removal simply is not possible.

 

[StrayKAT]

I am in no way discounting those issues, I feel for those people who lived through that. Hell, some of the poorest people in the United States practically live like kings according to some other countries. That's not to say the the US doesn't have issues.

Look at how much CEOs are paid when compared to that of the people on the bottom. Look no further than Amazon, the CEO is one of the richest people in the world yet the people on the bottom who actually are the lifeblood of the company and that without them the company would not run are paid shit. We're talking the people who answer the phones, resolve customer complaints and get swore at on a daily basis, pack boxes, etc. These are the people that if they didn't exist the company wouldn't function, the lifeblood of the company. Yet those people are paid shit when compared to that of the CEO. You can't sit there and tell me that something isn't messed up here.

What I find more sad is that everyone eats up Bezos' words (he owns the Washington Post), or think it's a good thing that the media is run by a handful of giant corporations owned by similar guys like him. These guys are not only towering above the rest of people - but they've managed to weaponize those very people away from them.

 

[droopyRO]

Look at how much CEOs are paid when compared to that of the people on the bottom.

I only know rumours, but if they are half true, my CEO is earning in a month about what i make in 3-4 years , i imagine it is the same allover the civilized world and even more so in third world countries

Because of that problems like these look alien to us.

That is why it is so frustrating to see it happen, it is like they wish to be told what to think or say. There are limits of course, but those are common sense, like not slapping a woman's ass or beating someone with your fists, stealing and/or sleeping on the job.

 

[R-T-B]

I think this says a lot about human stupidity. so, it's better to be inclusive than giving the job to someone that is the best at it. the cancer is real.
View attachment 107467

If you define that as "cancer" sure. I for one value inclusion above merit but that does not mean they are mutually exclusive. All that poll shows is how divided we are, to be frank, not that either side is "right" or "cancerous."

You only ever had one defense: The Constitution. When even that no longer provides a proper check to power, then nothing will. What are you going to do? Advocate for new rules.. that the Constitution already gave.. and they didn't care about in the first place

That's a problem with the governments implementation, not the idea itself. Ideally, you'd answer this at the voting booth. Barring that, there are other means, but none of them are pretty.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm not sure that's true. They simply rewrote the rules to fit their situation, meaning the rules in the first place weren't strong enough.

They're strong as long as citizens themselves are strong. The Constitution merely acknowledges your existence. They are natural (God given rights). Not things you were given, but born with. Don't want to claim them and speak up? It's only our fault.

Cheney didn't merely rewrite rules to fit a situation. He said he was going to the "dark side". lol. I suggest you take him at his word, instead of treating him with kid gloves.

 

[trparky]

I only know rumours, but if they are half true, my CEO is earning in a month about what i make in 3-4 years , i imagine it is the same allover the civilized world and even more so in third world countries

Yeah, and something's very much wrong with that. And you wonder why the younger people are so pissed off. They've been dealt a very bad hand in life.

 

[mtcn77]

I agree this is a good case of failing to meet the expectations of concern trolls when signing the CoC petition was the compromise they sought and unfortunately, got away with. Indeed, it will only serve to yield further character concessions - just as Ayn Rand predicted - which will make it all the more obvious it is only a plot to make the capable subject to the weak at the price of sympathy being the only remuneration. It is a bank heist really, only a more digital adaptation.
This is why people ask why Ayn Rand is trending and rather not fading out already because compromises cannot take you forward in any discussion. This is why democracy is not working, as it didn't in ancient Greece, and also why you cannot moderate "π" into an integer number. Facts are constants, privacy is invaluable and so many people that haven't read 'Atlas Shrugged'. So funny.

 

[Steevo]

Can you please explain how demanding equal treatment and respect compared to one's peers (and demanding systems with inherent bias to be reconfigured to remove this) is somehow forcing you to fall in step with their political beliefs? Isn't constructing and maintaining a biased system - such as one that gives straight white men preferential treatment (which there exists more than sufficient data to say exists in a plethora of fields) - also then forcing your political beliefs on others? Or are you claiming that our current social reality is somehow apolitical or politically neutral?


Ah, the classic "poverty is the fault of the poor people" argument. It's so convenient, as it entirely absolves everyone else of any responsibility to make society a better place. It's just too bad that there are overwhelming amounts of evidence to this being entirely untrue.

In the US if you are born poor, but make good decisions with money and work you will be out of poverty by the time you are 25.

If all people used to be poor, how did some of them become rich? The lottery? They saved it, or made good business choices... Nah... Everyone got together and gave them all their money...


What are the statistics for people who win millions in the lottery, how about pro athletes, how long do they keep their millions?

Some people are poor as they are stupid, and giving them more money doesn't fix their stupidity, it just makes the people who will sell them something they want richer when they buy stupid shit.

I'm sitting in a truck not a few hundred feet from some drunk native Americans who get money for nothing (Per Cap) , and spend it on getting drunk, cars they treat like shit, or other stupid things.

 

[Valantar]

Yeah, and something's very much wrong with that. And you wonder why the younger people are so pissed off. They've been dealt a very bad hand in life.

We young people today (anyone below 35-40, really) are the first generation (and a half?) in quite a while to have a worse outlook than their parents in terms of job availability, job stability, prospects of income, legal protections from abusive employers, and so on and so forth. Unions in the US are nearly dead, and Europe is still moving in the same direction. Fiscal and tax policy in pretty much all Western countries has moved in this direction since the sixties, but it's only recently reached critical mass, since economic growth has started to approach its inevitable ceiling. So: we have lower taxes (albeit with quite a few caveats attached) but the biggest difference by far is for high income groups and those with a lot of capital (not income), and in return we make less money, are forced to lead insecure lives where we're at the mercy of our employers, and have to pay out of pocket for an ever-increasing amount of what ought to be public services. Somehow that doesn't strike me as fair, no.

In the US if you are born poor, but make good decisions with money and work you will be out of poverty by the time you are 25.

If all people used to be poor, how did some of them become rich? The lottery? They saved it, or made good business choices... Nah... Everyone got together and gave them all their money...


What are the statistics for people who win millions in the lottery, how about pro athletes, how long do they keep their millions?

Some people are poor as they are stupid, and giving them more money doesn't fix their stupidity, it just makes the people who will sell them something they want richer when they buy stupid shit.

I'm sitting in a truck not a few hundred feet from some drunk native Americans who get money for nothing (Per Cap) , and spend it on getting drunk, cars they treat like shit, or other stupid things.

Ah, yes. All people have the same opportunity and ability to rise above their circumstances, regardless of what those circumstances are. Sure, keep dreaming. That is one of the most glaring logical fallacies of conservative/libertarian ideology. The thing is, poverty creates an environment where good long-term decision-making is a near impossibility, as the stress of short-term survival is so great as to render long-term planning near impossible. There are always exceptions, but that is exactly what they are - exceptions. If you have to struggle to feed yourself and your family, if you're working two or three jobs just to make ends meet - which is the reality for a lot of the working poor in the US - you don't have the luxury of taking a step back to plan ahead. This is what your argument entirely fails to address. The conditions for "mak[ing] good decisions with money and work[ing]" are simply not present, and as such expecting that is entirely unreasonable.

The same goes for people growing up in a society with deeply ingrained trauma, such as Native Americans. You're lambasting them for not making rational choices when they're dealing with living under a system of government that hasn't even apologized for committing genocide against them, stealing their land, and stripping them of their rights for centuries. I'd say that under those conditions, it's quite reasonable to not want to be a "good" or "productive" citizen of that society.

 

[trparky]

Somehow that doesn't strike me as fair, no.

You get no argument from me on that one. It's not fair. Oh sure, some people will say that no one said that life was going to be fair. I understand that, but what we're not getting is a chance. Every time it seems that society is going to take some steps forward to make things better either the government or corporations screw things up and then society takes two steps back.

I understand why the SJWs have the beef that they have, the SJW segment is comprised of the very same people that you @Valantar mentioned (namely anyone below 35-40) and those same very people have realized that unless they speak up they're going to continue being railroaded like they have been for years. As a person in that age bracket I can sympathize with these people. Do I necessarily think that what they are doing is right all the time? No. The SJWs can certainly bring about their agenda a whole lot better and more intelligently than they have been as of late. Lately the SJW crowd have been acting like assholes and acting like assholes certainly doesn't garner my respect.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

If you define that as "cancer" sure. I for one value inclusion above merit but that does not mean they are mutually exclusive. All that poll shows is how divided we are, to be frank, not that either side is "right" or "cancerous."



That's a problem with the governments implementation, not the idea itself. Ideally, you'd answer this at the voting booth. Barring that, there are other means, but none of them are pretty.

the pol was about which one people "prioritized", it never said they are mutually exclusive and neither did i. that is the cancer, when one prioritizes what is essentially id politics over objective facts. and yes i do understand your pov but i also understand what happens when one prioritizes id politics over facts and the consequences of the second are much worse. merit does not give 2 fucks about skin color, gender or whatever else. merit is actually the most inclusive and objective way of dealing with people.

 

[trparky]

All people have the same opportunity and ability to rise above their circumstances, regardless of what those circumstances are. Sure, keep dreaming. That is one of the most glaring logical fallacies of conservative/libertarian ideology.

Yep, completely in agreement here. Oh sure, you can go to college, get a degree, and then end up is debt past your eyeballs with no way out. It used to be that bankruptcy laws allowed for student debt to be forgiven but thanks to our oh-so-lovely banking industry the bankruptcy laws have been changed so that student debt isn't wiped out. Instead it haunts you until the day you die. I saw a news report that in my state there's a shortage of doctors and nurses and the number one reason why is because people say they can't afford to go to school to get those jobs.

The thing is, poverty creates an environment where good long-term decision-making is a near impossibility, as the stress of short-term survival is so great as to render long-term planning near impossible.

Yeah, when you're living paycheck to paycheck and you're just barely scraping by as it is, how the hell are you supposed to be able to make yourself better than what you already are? That's right, it's damn near impossible to do so.

So yeah, the deck is very much stacked against the young people. Is it any wonder why the young people are speaking out the way they are? Nope. We've been told to go to college, get a degree, and then you'll get a good job. Except that's a damn lie. More jobs are going to be lost over the next twenty years. Even the professional jobs aren't safe. Lawyers? Doctors? Safe? Nope, not at all. Even those so-called "safe" jobs are going to be made obsolete in the coming years due to advancements in computer and AI technology.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

technology will be the no 1 job killer and sjw's solution is id politics. yeah.. our generation is retarded. the far left morons are blaming everything on white cis males and the far right morons think that nationalism is the solution in a totally global economy... both base their reality on feelings and pointless oversimplifications because their stupid little head would explode if they could grasp the complexity of relations and factors in the global level. we are still trapped in the tribalistic way of thinking because we as a species have never been so many while having such a tremendous amount of knowledge available so our instinct is to run into the closet and hide. that's what we are watching, scared little children that haven't got the slightest clue on how to deal with reality.

 

[trparky]

So what's the damn answer @$ReaPeR$? What's your plan to fix all of society's ills? I certainly wish I knew the answer because society would be a lot better off. People talk about socialism being bad and even I don't like the concept of socialism (even speaking the word makes me gag) but I have to wonder if that's the only solution in a society in which nearly all jobs will eventually be made obsolete due to technological advancements and innovations.

 

[StrayKAT]

technology will be the no 1 job killer and sjw's solution is id politics. yeah.. our generation is retarded. the far left morons are blaming everything on white cis males and the far right morons think that nationalism is the solution in a totally global economy... both base their reality on feelings and pointless oversimplifications because their stupid little head would explode if they could grasp the complexity of relations and factors in the global level. we are still trapped in the tribalistic way of thinking because we as a species have never been so many while having such a tremendous amount of knowledge available so our instinct is to run into the closet and hide. that's what we are watching, scared little children that haven't got the slightest clue on how to deal with reality.

Nationalism is a solution to address one problem: The Reagan-Thatcher era (and Neo-Liberals everywhere) smashed a lot of unions and local industry (for the sake of globalism) and shifted their economies to focus on service. Nationalism brings some of that manufacuring and production back home (or at least, retains some of the things that were danger). Not all.. but some.

Regulating banks again would also help. Funnily, I'll bring up that media weaponization I mentioned earlier. Hillary Clinton was apparently the hero of the Left, but she was never going to do this. Bill Clinton himself is the one who destroyed Glass-Steagall and made the banks what they are today. He and Tony Blair both did things that Reagan and Thatcher only dreamed about. No one talks about this enough, but Trump actually wants Glass-Steagall back.. no different than Bernie or Elizabeth Warren (but they go a step further and want socialism... then stutter when you challenge where all of that money is going to come from). I really wish they all could work together, but it seems pretty much forbidden to even work with Trump. He's an evil guy who must be impeached and all that. edit: I mean, I don't understand how they don't at least "use" him. How could you hate someone so much to not even work towards some goal beneficial to your side... or rather Americans' side? I personally think there's bigger powers here that drive that wedge between them and stoke the fire. And people fall right into the trap and play their assigned roles.




edit: Vulkan now using a CoC. My conspiracy about MS is seeming more true.

 

[Valantar]

the pol was about which one people "prioritized", it never said they are mutually exclusive and neither did i. that is the cancer, when one prioritizes what is essentially id politics over objective facts. and yes i do understand your pov but i also understand what happens when one prioritizes id politics over facts and the consequences of the second are much worse. merit does not give 2 fucks about skin color, gender or whatever else. merit is actually the most inclusive and objective way of dealing with people.

I suppose in a perfect world you might have a point, but the part I emphasized in your quote shows where your understanding of society falters. "Merit" is not a concept that exists outside of social reality, and as such it is defined (and policed) within the norms and hierarchies of that society. What constitutes merit is defined by the field or culture that the merit is supposed to exist in. The concept of merit is as such not at all impervious to bias. There have been plenty of real-world studies that have unequivocally showed how women, people of color, non-heterosexuals and other minorities are systematically judged more harshly than their straight, white, male peers for equivalent (or even identical!) work. This is fact. It's not universal, but it's systemic - meaning that on average, it exists everywhere in our societies. Similarly, though somewhat more subtly, people's personalities are also judged unequally - aggressive, assertive women being seen as "bossy" or "bitchy" while men who act I'm exactly the same manner are rewarded for being "hungry" and "ambitious" is the most classic, obvious example. This has real-world consequences, where women like this are passed over for promotions or not given new assignments as their seen as "not management material" while men who act the exact same way have the career red carpet rolled out for them. As such, "merit" is quite often dependent on who you are, not what you do, and investigating and adjusting exactly how "merit" is judged is an essential function of any meritocracy.

 

[StrayKAT]

I suppose in a perfect world you might have a point, but the part I emphasized in your quote shows where your understanding of society falters. "Merit" is not a concept that exists outside of social reality, and as such it is defined (and policed) within the norms and hierarchies of that society.

Uh...merit is kind of the foundation of evolution itself. It doesn't care about social reality. Nature has a way of simply rewarding adaptation and raw skill, and what gets from from point A to B in fewer steps. Regardless of any social construct. Merit isn't exactly used in scientific terms, but that is essentially what it is.

I don't advocate for Darwinianism myself.. don't get me wrong. I would, in fact, include "social reality" to thwart it a bit. It isn't society that creates merit.. it's what stops it. We are not machines.

 

[trparky]

@Valantar, you make some very good points. If you ask me, I think a lot of the issues stem from the "old guard". Past generations of people have always been more (and I hate using this word) "racist" than the newer generation. Why? Because when you grow up with something you tend to not have the prejudices that your parents had, you've had your childhood to grow up with a new idea whereas with your parents it was a "new thing" being shoved upon them. Humans, by their nature, do not like new things. They like the status quo. This is how we've always done things, it's... tradition. It doesn't matter if the new idea is better, we will keep doing this "thing" because it's tradition.

 

[Valantar]

Nationalism is a solution to address one problem: The Reagan-Thatcher era (and Neo-Liberals everywhere) smashed a lot of unions and local industry (for the sake of globalism) and shifted their economies to focus on service. Nationalism brings some of that manufacuring and production back home (or at least, retains some of the things that were danger). Not all.. but some.

Regulating banks again would also help. Funnily, I'll bring up that media weaponization I mentioned earlier. Hillary Clinton was apparently the hero of the Left, but she was never going to do this. Bill Clinton himself is the one who destroyed Glass-Steagall and made the banks what they are today. He and Tony Blair both did things that Reagan and Thatcher only dreamed about. No one talks about this enough, but Trump actually wants Glass-Steagall back.. no different than Bernie or Elizabeth Warren (but they go a step further and want socialism... then stutter when you challenge where all of that money is going to come from). I really wish they all could work together, but it seems pretty much forbidden to even work with Trump. He's an evil guy who must be impeached and all that. edit: I mean, I don't understand how they don't at least "use" him. How could you hate someone so much to not even work towards some goal beneficial to your side... or rather Americans' side? I personally think there's bigger powers here that drive that wedge between them and stoke the fire. And people fall right into the trap and play their assigned roles.




edit: Vulkan now using a CoC. My conspiracy about MS is seeming more true.

I'm about to go to bed, so I'll try to keep this short:

• Hillary is mainly a women's icon, which is highly deserved for reaching positions no women have before.
• Hillary has been thoroughly and soundly criticized for her neoliberalist leanings, ties to the financial industry, and soft stance on regulation of banks.
• Hillary has still been subjected to treatment no male politician in her position has been subjected to, and most of it highly gendered ("doesn't have the temperament for government" and all that)
• The stuff you mention about Bill Clinton in the 90s (and Hillary's continuation of this) is a large part of why a lot of left-leaning Americans are now offended if you call them "liberals", as that invokes the neoliberalist policies of deregulation and union-busting of this era.
• Trump is an authoritarian, racist, quasi-fascist, anti-scientific, unpredictable narcissist who systematically lies outright to the public and governs seemingly by whim rather than informed decisions. Having a few sensible policies doesn't change that - especially when they stand to serve him and his businesses.
• It's no secret that raising taxes is a necessity for implementing the policies suggested by Sanders and Warren. Bringing taxes back to the levels of, say, the Reagan era would be a good start. Or perhaps where they were under Nixon? Historically, we can tell that higher tax levels make for a more stable and well-functioning society and government. In particular, raising taxes on the wealthy will make up for a lot of this. And it won't hurt anyone, seeing how trickle-down economics is a complete and utter lie, disproven time and again.

Edit: damn autocorrect.

 

[mtcn77]

I suppose in a perfect world you might have a point, but the part I emphasized in your quote shows where your understanding of society falters. "Merit" is not a concept that exists outside of social reality, and as such it is defined (and policed) within the norms and hierarchies of that society. What constitutes merit is defined by the field or culture that the merit is supposed to exist in. The concept of merit is as such not at all impervious to bias. There have been plenty of real-world studies that have unequivocally showed how women, people of color, non-heterosexuals and other minorities are systematically judged more harshly than their straight, white, male peers for equivalent (or even identical!) work. This is fact. It's not universal, but it's systemic - meaning that on average, it exists everywhere in our societies. Similarly, though somewhat more subtly, people's personalities are also judged unequally - aggressive, assertive women being seen as "bossy" or "bitchy" while men who act I'm exactly the same manner are rewarded for being "hungry" and "ambitious" is the most classic, obvious example. This has real-world consequences, where women like this are passed over for promotions or not given new assignments as their seen as "not management material" while men who act the exact same way have the career red carpet rolled out for them. As such, "merit" is quite often dependent on who you are, not what you do, and investigating and adjusting exactly how "merit" is judged is an essential function of any meritocracy.

Needy people cannot police their own merit, as such cannot possibly reach Hank Rearden in his 'just' ideals at overtaking the Philedelphian iron mines. Ordinary people would sell it for scraps whereas he exploited it for the creation of Rearden Metal. It is poetic, though not convenient to a loftier's agendas.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm about to go to bed, so I'll try to keep this short:

• Hillary is mainly a women's icon, which is highly deserved for reaching positions no women have before.
• Hillary has been thoroughly and soundly criticized for her neoliberalist leanings, ties to the financial industry, and soft stance on regulation of banks.
• Hillary has still been subjected to treatment no male politician in her position has been subjected to, and most of it highly gendered ("doesn't have the temperament for government" and all that)
• The stuff you mention about Bill Clinton in the 90s (and Hillary's continuation of this) is a large part of why a lot of left-leaning Americans are now offended if you call them "liberals", as that invokes the neoliberalist policies of deregulation and union-busting of this era.
• Trump is an authoritarian, racist, quasi-fascist, anti-scientific, unpredictable narcissist who systematically lies outright to the public and governs seemingly by whom rather than informed decisions. Having a few sensible policies doesn't change that - especially when they stand to serve him and his businesses.
• It's no secret that raising taxes is a necessity for implementing the policies suggested by Sanders and Warren. Bringing taxes back to the levels of, say, the Reagan era would be a good start. Or perhaps where they were under Nixon? Historically, we can tell that higher tax levels make for a more stable and well-functioning society and government. In particular, raising taxes on the wealthy will make up for a lot of this. And it won't hurt anyone, seeing how trickle-down economics is a complete and utter lie, disproven time and again.

I agree he's anti-scientific and narcissistic. I still don't understand why he's seen as racist.. let alone a fascist.

I respect the Left that sees Hillary for what she is. But that is a small group. Tucked into the tiny corners of the net at this point. Like... Jimmy Dore and Susan Sarandon fans. Anyone who basically avoids CNN and MSNBC...who coopted what the "left" is in mainstream minds.