So, equal opportunity does not mean equal opportunity?
Let's see:
In other words, you can't simply remove the starting point from the debate when discussing opportunity, as the starting point is what defines the opportunity, and equal opportunity must then include efforts to equalize people's starting points. A road with no roadblocks is not an equal opportunity to two people if one has a Ferrari and the other has only one leg.
But the question is: why would they do this? Has anyone threatened anyone with consequences due to violating the CoC, where this violation was trumped-up or overblown? If not, they have nothing to fear, particularly if they're mature enough to admit fault, apologize for any missteps, and move on.
A lot of bad comes from uninformed people listening to extremists and populists. Case in point: Trump, the current rise of hate speech and related violence in the US, and the extremely polarized political climate you have. Far more important to listening to anyone who will speak is ensuring easy and plentiful access to informed analysis and aid in processing complex issues where a certain level of expertise (which can't necessarily be expected of the general population) is required to fully understand the issue. The extreme commercialization of news reporting in the US (and generally in the Western world, though to varying degrees) is almost entirely to blame for this. If news outlets didn't have to fight for viewers and ad revenue, they'd be far more free to present reasonable and nuanced views of the news, rather than the sensationalist stuff we get today.
What about the Tea Party? Don't they qualify as a far-right extremist group? While they might not be violent, their ideology is indisputably extremist, and while they don't have a membership roster, their supporters number in the millions.
"Warrior", especially in a metaphorical sense such as this, is accounted for by "fighting for" in the part you quoted. Your understanding ("warrior = extremist") implies that
anyone you term an SJW is unwilling to compromise (otherwise, they wouldn't be extremists, would they?). Isn't that quite a dramatic overreach? Either your definition limits the term SJW to only the few extremists unwilling to compromise or enter into productive dialogue, or it covers anyone and everyone fighting for social justice (which definitely is the colloquial use of the term). You can't have it both ways.
I never said they weren't extremists, just that they don't seem to be possible to classify as
left-wing extremists. It is entirely possible for a single-cause organization to exist outside of/across a wide swath of the left-right political axis.
Please stop trying to move the goal posts in the middle of the discussion. Either these are extremist fringe groups (which I largely don't contest, outside of your rather ludicrous inclusion of the slur 'SJW' in this context), or they're mass movements - to call them both, you'd actually need some evidence to that fact. You're even admitting that they
are fringe groups, which entirely undermines your initial point.
There have been investigations into the lack of police intervention in Charlottesville showing significant far-right sympathies in the police force there, which goes some way in explaining why they refused to intervene - in right-wing propaganda, either they'd be the strong and valorous victors if they won the fight, or the valiant victims of violent far-left extremists. Not all that surprising. Also, no left-wing extremists ran their car at full speed into a crowd of non-violent protesters. Just saying.
If you look at large, well-organized groups, you're likely right. On the other hand, there's quite the amount of "lone-wolf" or small-group terrorism perpetrated by far-right (and in particular, extremist misogynist) extremists in recent years. Here's a small selection.
Elliot Rodger's murder spree (2014), the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (2016), the Bundy standoff (2014), the 2014 Las Vegas shootings, Overland Park community centre shootings (also 2014), the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting (2012) .... the list goes on. While I'm not saying that these are (by far!) the only terrorist attacks on US soil in the last decade, nor that only right-wing extremists commit acts of terror (the spread is rather wide, though if you (rightly) include Islamist extremists on the right (ideologically, there is no doubt that they are), the right has a near-monopoly on terrorism), the point you're tying to make here is flat-out false.
There's no doubt that Antifa is a violent group - responding to violent right-wing rhetoric and ideology with physical violence, to force them off the streets, is one of their core tenets. As
@R-T-B stated somewhere above, I don't (at all!) condone or agree with their methods (I think I said it somewhere before in this thread, but it bears repeating: I think violence of any kind in almost any situation is abhorrent, wrong and a bad thing), but I applaud their goal. The only thing they hate is other people's hatred, unlike the people they fight.
Exactly. Making public a list like this would be like creating a version of The Yellow Pages for disgruntled people looking for a violent extremist group to join. Not a good idea. Nor is it a good idea to let these groups know they're under surveillance or investigation either.
There's a strong correlation there, yes, but causation isn't proven (at least not yet), and as far as I can tell from the linked article (had to use a VPN to read it
) they haven't corrected for changes in poverty levels/socioeconomic inequality or other relevant factors. I don't doubt there's something there, but claiming this to be a 1:1 relationship would seem a bit far-fetched. Still, it makes a solid argument for government oversight and regulation when it comes to pollution, chemicals and environmental damage, at least.
Yet over time, laws (when implemented and enforced intelligently) lead to changed social norms, which leads to changed behaviour. The gay rights movement and the extreme difference in levels of homophobia in today's young when compared to people a generation or so older is a good example of this.
That's the problem. How do you gather court-level evidence of workplace harassment? Videotaping every social interaction you have at work? Disregarding how deeply problematic that is, it would also be illegal most places, not to mention likely grounds for firing at quite a few companies. Also, in most criminal cases even, witness or victim testimony is accepted as evidence. Why shouldn't it be when it comes to harassment?
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong (I'm really not a fan of overprotective parenting), but I think you're attributing too much to this, and making too strong a link between these elements. Again: correlation does not imply causation. There's likely to be
some link, but the increased acceptance for and possibility of speaking out against harassment and mistreatment is far more likely to be a cause of these movements (both those that go to far, and the majority who do not). Still, (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) you come off as arguing that kids should "toughen up" and "stop whining", neither of which are productive approaches. Children do need to learn to overcome obstacles, yes, but the important part is that they learn this in a safe and constructive manner. There's plenty of psychological research showing that exposing young people to bad situations mainly leads to mental illness and suppression of feelings, which is extremely harmful to both the people involved and society in general. Children need to be raised in a safe environment where they're given the means to process and deal with the obstacles they need and express their feelings about this in constructive ways. Again, I might be attributing things to you that you're not actually expressing (mainly due to your rhetoric and where I'm used to seeing that type of rhetoric), so again, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Trump never had an actual plan to "fix" Obamacare (seriously, all he ever said was to the effect of "Oh, we'll come up with something"), and everything he had expressed in detail was a desire to shrink and deconstruct it, not deal with its shortcomings. The amendment to it was shot down as it would destroy it in all but name.
The US doesn't really have a political left. Again, this is logical, due to the immense federal campaigns and persecution against left-leaning politicians and thinkers in the post-WWII period. The Democratic Party is ideologically to the right of our Conservative Party here in Norway, as an example. Most Democrats are neoliberals, just as most (moderate) republicans. It's a matter of degree, and the US political spectrum is frighteningly narrow and right-leaning. The current resurgence of the (actual!) political left in the US is still in its infancy, and it's rather naive to expect it to somehow have anything to do with mainstream Democrats. Also, while pointing out hypocrisy among politicians is always important, I'd say Trump stuffing his cabinet with cherry-picked foxes for all the relevant hen-houses is ... well, at the very least not "draining the swamp." He's put the alligators in charge. And yes, I'm mixing metaphors. It's hard to avoid when discussing Trump.
As for why the Democrats shun Trump, it's rather easily attributable to his racism (seriously, the Obama birther campaign? That was his baby, and it's old-school racism to the core) and his fundamental untrustworthiness. Who would want to go across the aisle to reach a compromise with someone who you can't then trust to actually follow through on it? Trump (intentionally, IMO) gives off an image as an impulsive and temperamental president. That does
not invite cooperation. Quite the opposite.
All I could really see in those posts were a bunch of serious adults addressing various issues in serious ways. As for calling a theoretical discussion of how the "succession" of Torvalds ought to happen a "coup", that's ... quite absurd. He can't lead them forever, and it's understandable that they're worried about his leadership if he seems to actively avoid taking part in it. This isn't a coup, it's a reasonable response to an unknown and unforeseen situation that still hasn't occurred, but which would have very serious consequences if it did.
Maybe they're realizing that banning politics is impossible, seeing how there's no such thing as an apolitical discussion? Or maybe they just realized that they can't avoid coming off as woefully hypocritical if they allow the posting of an editorial like this, and then disallow discussion of it afterwards? Who knows.
Maintainer basically wanted to BSOD whenever a problem happened and that's ridiculous.
But in that case, I'm better off with Windows.