Deleted: essentially debunks moronic "Liberals made them do it" meme among more stupid conservatives
OK, but in that case what about economic anxiety? Could they have voted for Trump because they were economically anxious which is totally not the same thing as racist so shut up stop saying that?
The year is 2038. After 18 months living and working on the surface of Mars, a crew of six explorers boards a deep-space transport rocket and...
...all of a sudden the computers black out. The screens are full of kernel and daemon error messages. All about somehow the time being wrong. The chief engineer scratches his head, before realizing what has happened. He runs over to the array of analog satellite dishes back at the base, and calls Houston. 30 minutes later, the reply comes through.
"Uh, yeah, this is Houston. We are confirming that we did use 32 bit processors for all the computing infrastructure up there with you... older designs means we know the bugs, why are you asking? And what is a... "thirty two bit time underscore t type"?
After 30 minutes of waiting, the engineer listened, resigned to the answer, already knowing what he was being told. "I'll get right back to you, out" he grumbled, and left his chair, thumping the wall, and walking back to the rocket.
Accusing someone of whataboutism is tantamount to accepting their accusations of hypocrisy.
No, it's not. It's pointing out that the original statement has gone uncriticized, and therefore is both true and the implications of it are true. Whataboutism rarely actually raises hypocrisy, it usually merely claims that someone else did something that kinda sorta looks vaguely similar to the act being criticized. It rarely suggests that the person it's addressed to did that thing.
"Oh, so you're saying Trump eats babies? Well I saw you eat a baby!" is addressing hypocrisy. "Oh, so you're saying Trump eats babies? Well, I saw Clinton eat a chicken and I didn't see LIEberals complain!" is whataboutism. In both cases, the poster is admitting Trump eats babies. But in the first case, the poster is correctly raising a case of hypocrisy, while in the second the poster is merely trying to deflect.
There is no anchor baby clause in the 14th Ammendment. The clause says this.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Key part being... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... if illegals are subject to the jurisdiction, then that means that local jurisdictions have powers of establishing immigration
Stop right there. The constitution doesn't say "local jurisdictions", it says the jurisdiction of the United States and the State wherein they reside. It's also not saying that US or State jurisdictions can contain laws telling you if you're a citizen, it's saying that if you are under their control, that is, if it's possible for the police to arrest you and bring you to court for a US or State crime, and it's possible for them to force you to pay taxes, and so on, then, congrats, if you were born here, you're a citizen.
Also, FWIW, calling someone born here an "illegal" (which is already an absurd term) inherently contradicts the above constitutional statement.
The funny part is that there's a kinda sorta loophole I could see that would work, except for one thing. It could be argued that someone who is born here but immediately leaves is not under US jurisdiction.
...except they are. The US has weird income tax rules which means if you're a citizen you're obliged to pay US taxes except in a small number of circumstances. So to treat people who are born here and immediately leave as non-citizens then, at the very least, you'd have to reform the tax code. Good luck with that.
They do, just indirectly. What we get is an operating system, sometimes directly (Fedora), sometimes more or less directly (CentOS), sometimes indirectly (Amazon Linux, which more or less is CentOS), that we can use for whatever we want, and don't have to pay for. We don't get direct support for any of these, but we indirectly benefit from those who do.
And we make money using those operating systems as part of the platforms to implement solutions for our employers.
Open source contributors? In most cases, they're sharing something with the rest of the community, including RedHat, that solved a problem for themselves or their employers. Often they're getting help with that project by sharing it.
And in many other cases, they're paid by RedHat - projects like GNOME, Linux, and so on, get funding from both RedHat and the company buying RedHat.
So... while on some level the headline is true, in practice it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how OSS works, and who benefits from it. Nobody goes into open source and says "I'm going to work on an accounting package I have no intention of using and I'm going to donate it to RedHat who'll never mention me again." To read the headline, that's kinda what you'd think goes on.
People get the full value of what they contribute and then some.
The money RedHat is getting reflects how its employees and shareholders worked together as a company. They deserve every cent. Linus Torvalds doesn't, believe me, he's more than adequately compensated.
OK, you're wrong, Nobody has ever criticized you for having a job, or for having "the correct color skin" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, but when your former president (Carter) said I was a racist for not liking the ACA
I have no idea what this refers to, it sounds like a ridiculous interpretation of something, and that feeling is helped by the below:
your last candidate telling me I'm deplorable
I assume this is a reference to when Clinton said that 50% of Trump's then supporters (this was the primaries, and he had around 30% of the Republican vote, so 15% of registered Republicans) were neo-nazis and misogynists and specifically referred to that 15%, AND ONLY THAT 15%, as "Deplorables". Here's the quote:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobicâ"you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. (...) [the other half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters] feel that the government has let them down [and are]desperate for change. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Now, please, tell me what is specifically wrong with any of that? Because I don't see it. It's 100% accurate, and it neatly distinguishes between Trump's fascist supporters and his supposed good faith but misguided supporters. One thing that's impossible to do is to assume that it's a reference to YOU unless you're saying you're "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic (or) Islamaphobic" in which case I'm struggling to see why you'd think liberal push back would be right.
Auntie Maxine telling people to harass me when I go out to eat
Are you saying you work for the Trump administration and you're directly involved in policy such as Family Separations? Because if not, then "Auntie Maxine" said nothing of the sort. She was never referring to people who didn't work for the regime.
I could go on but I won't. The reality is it doesn't matter what liberals say, you'll find a way to invent a meaning for it that turns it into an attack on you personally. So stop it, listen to what we say, and, hey, if you still disagree then that's fine, but for fuck's sake nobody is saying those things about you.
Then again, a few years ago when I brought my iMac in the third time for crashes, they returned it with my bank of aftermarket memory in a bag--with the offending stick labeled . . .
Which they probably wouldn't have done if it was Apple's memory and that had failed... given third party alternatives fail from time to time, it's incredibly easy to pretend you have much higher standards by highlighting third party components when they fail, and just ignore the issue when it's your own.
...we screw it up. We get rid of harmless Dodos. We don't get rid of rattlesnakes or mosquitoes. If humanity is going to have this kind of affect on the planet, can't we at least do it in a positive way?
A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association
No, that's not quite it, it's more:
A true libertarian believes that all rich people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association. People who aren't rich should try to find a way to be rich, which will be hard because of the lack of those rights, or else suck it up and do whatever the rich people tell them to.
The problem is that that pesky government is necessary if you really want people to have freedom of choice and voluntary association (not to mention liberty and life) for everyone, no matter how poor. And libertarians generally find it very, very, hard to wrap their minds around that. If libertarians generally supported state supported healthcare (right to life), employee rights (choice, association), etc, then I'd agree with you, but they tend not to.
If a community wants to ban porn, they can just as easily ban private ISPs from allowing it as they can a local community run ISP from allowing it.
The reality is that it'd be hard for them to do either, but private ISPs can unilaterally decide to censor whatever they want, whereas government own ISPs are beholden to the first amendment.
If "Someone who's left of Lenin" implements an any-kind-of-speech filter on a government run communications service", then they'll be running foul of the first amendment and you'll be able to take legal action against them.
If someone who is more like Trump implements an any-kind-of-speech filter on their privately owned monopoly communications service, then you're fucked.
So you just basically came up with a very good reason to support municipal broadband over private monopoly operators. Well done.
Probably not. The thing is that a year or two ago, as I understand it (at least, from reading the Tweets of many prominent conservatives as well as Slashdotters), Twitter banned all conservatives from Twitter just for being conservative. Yes, all of them. No, not one or two, and if it had been one or two it certainly wasn't for violating the ToS, they banned them just for being conservatives that was it so stop saying that.
Before they implemented the ban, of course, they "shadowbanned" a bunch of conservatives. This meant that sometimes if you clicked on a thread their posts wouldn't show up, which is totally because they're conservatives and not because Twitter is a shitty web platform that's held together with glue, twigs, snot, and PHP with the same bug affecting everyone even today even liberals so stop saying that.
So as a result there just isn't any conservative content on Twitter. It's just LIEberals now who are latte-sipping snowflakes who eat quinoa and also who are super violent Antifa thugs who we need to protect ourselves from by buying AR-15s.
Based upon that, nobody could possibly be using the Like button to like conservative content, because there isn't any.
You can get some surprisingly good phones for $60 if you look around (Blu R1 HD I got three years ago was excellent at the time); $200-250 seems to be the going rate for a 5" phone with decent performance and enough storage that an SD card isn't necessary.
My rule for Android phones is that the more you spend, the shittier the phone is likely to be. Phones in the $150-250 range will generally come with headphone jacks, expandable storage, often with dedicated buttons on the bezel (no more guessing where you have to swipe from to get the buttons to appear on a full screen app), dual SIMs, battery lives longer than a day etc. As the phone gets more expensive, the headphone jacks and storage starts to disappear and the battery life gets shorter.
They sell because people are gullible and think pricier=better.
You are aware that Tweets often include URLs, right? Or have threads? (Also the comment is a simplification - most of us Favorite, or now "Like", Tweets we want to keep track of.)
BTW this is Twitter in a nutshell. Replace a useful feature with a half-witted re-interpretation of it, then remove, rather than undo, the feature when they realize nobody uses it for that reason and on the odd occasion they do it's a bad thing.
No, that really would be conservatives. Here's a pretty typical exchange these days:
Liberal: The problem with Twitter is that there are too many Racists and Nazis.
Conservative: Oh so you're saying Twitter should ban conservatives?
Liberal: Uh, no, just Nazis, you know White Supremacists/Nationalists, people who describe themselves as such or even as Nazis, and often even include swastikas and stuff in their profiles.
Conservatives: Oh so you think conservatives are Nazis? Well I'll have you know that Nazis only applies to members of the German National Socialist Party between 1922 and 1946, so you ARE talking about banning conservatives.
Liberal: *headdesk*
A sizable number of conservatives have basically decided that Racists and Nazis are just ordinary conservatives. And the Nazis themselves have capitalized on it, with things like the "Unite the RIght" rally which wasn't a rally where people listened intently to speeches by Marco Rubio and Charles Krauthammer, and discussed the merits of flat taxes and deregulation, but, you know, involved flaming torches, chants against immigrants, blacks, and jews, and one flat out murder of a woman who had earlier in the day protested against neo-nazism.
And how many conservatives complained about "Unite the Right" and made it clear this bunch of lunatics had nothing to do with conservatism? None. Because you've gone completely blind in that area.
I don't think anyone doubts it has real applications, but there's a difference between that and it being a mass market everyone-must-have-it type thing. The naysayers, myself included, are of the opinion that in terms of a general use device, it's just not compelling, it's not what we're asking for (which is impossible at this time), and "3D", which is what this is, has never had the mass market appeal that every marketing person who's tried it thinks it should have.
I think the reality is that if we'd wanted 3D everything, including games, we'd have implemented that a hundred years ago. The technology has existed since the 19th Century. To date, only the ViewMaster has been successful, and then because it was aimed at children.
VR as "3D games" is a dead end. Because it isn't VR. I think we'd all like to be able to immerse ourselves in a computer generated reality, but a 3D headset isn't going ever cut it. It'll always be bulky, and always require just as much imagination to fill in the gaps as watching something on a 1080P 25" LCD screen three feet away from you.
TBH, I don't see a problem. What IBM sells these days is consultancy and support, they do have a few "packaged" products but even then the way they make a lot of the money is through integration. I can see it being in IBM's best interests to keep the RedHat model alive, maintaining a first class distribution and selling support to fund it.
The entire point of the Open Source movement's founding was to build a movement that would create Free Software that didn't have an ideology associated with it beyond "This is the way that the highest quality software can be built." You might argue that that is a moral point of view, but you'd then have to assert that, say, Agile project management or Managed Code (eg JVM, CIL) are moral movements too. They aren't, at least not in the traditional sense.
Free Software (whose baggage the OSI was formed to leave behind) was based on the central principle that nobody has the right to hide from you knowledge, or prevent you from using that knowledge. You have to admit that's an entirely different moral ballpark compared to "we can make better software if more people can contribute to it."
But Apple pulls ads from Bloomberg and the cries of unfairness are loud.
Let me guess, you saw this article, and quickly hit the Post Comment button hoping to get first post, not realizing that lots of people had already responded, none of whom argued it was "Unfair" for Amazon to pull ads from Bloomberg?
If you try to put 4.1oz of water into a 4oz glass, it'll make a mess, despite there only being a tiny percentage increase in the amount of water. Your comment "going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is equivalent to flooding" implies that as long as an increase is small, in terms of orders of magnitude, it's harmless. That's not how anything works in the real world.
Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.
As I said, "weaponized #metoo" doesn't happen and never will: the moment a woman starts making accusations against any men, even now, she generally suffers severe career consequences, and unless multiple women come forward making accusations against the same man, the allegation never goes anywhere.
And the moment she starts making multiple allegations against multiple men who are not being accused by anyone else, she stops being credible period.
It's simply not possible to weaponize #metoo. The people you're reading claiming otherwise are generally the people trying to discredit the allegations against themselves, or people who believe the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but in that case what about economic anxiety? Could they have voted for Trump because they were economically anxious which is totally not the same thing as racist so shut up stop saying that?
"Uh, yeah, this is Houston. We are confirming that we did use 32 bit processors for all the computing infrastructure up there with you... older designs means we know the bugs, why are you asking? And what is a... "thirty two bit time underscore t type"?
After 30 minutes of waiting, the engineer listened, resigned to the answer, already knowing what he was being told. "I'll get right back to you, out" he grumbled, and left his chair, thumping the wall, and walking back to the rocket.
No, it's not. It's pointing out that the original statement has gone uncriticized, and therefore is both true and the implications of it are true. Whataboutism rarely actually raises hypocrisy, it usually merely claims that someone else did something that kinda sorta looks vaguely similar to the act being criticized. It rarely suggests that the person it's addressed to did that thing.
"Oh, so you're saying Trump eats babies? Well I saw you eat a baby!" is addressing hypocrisy. "Oh, so you're saying Trump eats babies? Well, I saw Clinton eat a chicken and I didn't see LIEberals complain!" is whataboutism. In both cases, the poster is admitting Trump eats babies. But in the first case, the poster is correctly raising a case of hypocrisy, while in the second the poster is merely trying to deflect.
Stop right there. The constitution doesn't say "local jurisdictions", it says the jurisdiction of the United States and the State wherein they reside. It's also not saying that US or State jurisdictions can contain laws telling you if you're a citizen, it's saying that if you are under their control, that is, if it's possible for the police to arrest you and bring you to court for a US or State crime, and it's possible for them to force you to pay taxes, and so on, then, congrats, if you were born here, you're a citizen.
Also, FWIW, calling someone born here an "illegal" (which is already an absurd term) inherently contradicts the above constitutional statement.
The funny part is that there's a kinda sorta loophole I could see that would work, except for one thing. It could be argued that someone who is born here but immediately leaves is not under US jurisdiction.
Well, my settlement wasn't too bad, I got to use Google's search engine for free for the rest of my life. Plus they give me free email.
They do, just indirectly. What we get is an operating system, sometimes directly (Fedora), sometimes more or less directly (CentOS), sometimes indirectly (Amazon Linux, which more or less is CentOS), that we can use for whatever we want, and don't have to pay for. We don't get direct support for any of these, but we indirectly benefit from those who do.
And we make money using those operating systems as part of the platforms to implement solutions for our employers.
Open source contributors? In most cases, they're sharing something with the rest of the community, including RedHat, that solved a problem for themselves or their employers. Often they're getting help with that project by sharing it.
And in many other cases, they're paid by RedHat - projects like GNOME, Linux, and so on, get funding from both RedHat and the company buying RedHat.
So... while on some level the headline is true, in practice it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how OSS works, and who benefits from it. Nobody goes into open source and says "I'm going to work on an accounting package I have no intention of using and I'm going to donate it to RedHat who'll never mention me again." To read the headline, that's kinda what you'd think goes on.
People get the full value of what they contribute and then some.
The money RedHat is getting reflects how its employees and shareholders worked together as a company. They deserve every cent. Linus Torvalds doesn't, believe me, he's more than adequately compensated.
OK, you're wrong, Nobody has ever criticized you for having a job, or for having "the correct color skin" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
I have no idea what this refers to, it sounds like a ridiculous interpretation of something, and that feeling is helped by the below:
I assume this is a reference to when Clinton said that 50% of Trump's then supporters (this was the primaries, and he had around 30% of the Republican vote, so 15% of registered Republicans) were neo-nazis and misogynists and specifically referred to that 15%, AND ONLY THAT 15%, as "Deplorables". Here's the quote:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobicâ"you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. (...) [the other half of Trumpâ(TM)s supporters] feel that the government has let them down [and are]desperate for change. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Now, please, tell me what is specifically wrong with any of that? Because I don't see it. It's 100% accurate, and it neatly distinguishes between Trump's fascist supporters and his supposed good faith but misguided supporters. One thing that's impossible to do is to assume that it's a reference to YOU unless you're saying you're "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic (or) Islamaphobic" in which case I'm struggling to see why you'd think liberal push back would be right.
Are you saying you work for the Trump administration and you're directly involved in policy such as Family Separations? Because if not, then "Auntie Maxine" said nothing of the sort. She was never referring to people who didn't work for the regime.
I could go on but I won't. The reality is it doesn't matter what liberals say, you'll find a way to invent a meaning for it that turns it into an attack on you personally. So stop it, listen to what we say, and, hey, if you still disagree then that's fine, but for fuck's sake nobody is saying those things about you.
Which they probably wouldn't have done if it was Apple's memory and that had failed... given third party alternatives fail from time to time, it's incredibly easy to pretend you have much higher standards by highlighting third party components when they fail, and just ignore the issue when it's your own.
Frogs have plenty of alternatives to mosquitoes, and mice have plenty of natural predators.
...we screw it up. We get rid of harmless Dodos. We don't get rid of rattlesnakes or mosquitoes. If humanity is going to have this kind of affect on the planet, can't we at least do it in a positive way?
You are aware that they themselves call themselves that, or White Nationalists, right? They've picked the name, not us.
No, that's not quite it, it's more:
A true libertarian believes that all rich people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association. People who aren't rich should try to find a way to be rich, which will be hard because of the lack of those rights, or else suck it up and do whatever the rich people tell them to.
The problem is that that pesky government is necessary if you really want people to have freedom of choice and voluntary association (not to mention liberty and life) for everyone, no matter how poor. And libertarians generally find it very, very, hard to wrap their minds around that. If libertarians generally supported state supported healthcare (right to life), employee rights (choice, association), etc, then I'd agree with you, but they tend not to.
If a community wants to ban porn, they can just as easily ban private ISPs from allowing it as they can a local community run ISP from allowing it.
The reality is that it'd be hard for them to do either, but private ISPs can unilaterally decide to censor whatever they want, whereas government own ISPs are beholden to the first amendment.
If "Someone who's left of Lenin" implements an any-kind-of-speech filter on a government run communications service", then they'll be running foul of the first amendment and you'll be able to take legal action against them.
If someone who is more like Trump implements an any-kind-of-speech filter on their privately owned monopoly communications service, then you're fucked.
So you just basically came up with a very good reason to support municipal broadband over private monopoly operators. Well done.
Probably not. The thing is that a year or two ago, as I understand it (at least, from reading the Tweets of many prominent conservatives as well as Slashdotters), Twitter banned all conservatives from Twitter just for being conservative. Yes, all of them. No, not one or two, and if it had been one or two it certainly wasn't for violating the ToS, they banned them just for being conservatives that was it so stop saying that.
Before they implemented the ban, of course, they "shadowbanned" a bunch of conservatives. This meant that sometimes if you clicked on a thread their posts wouldn't show up, which is totally because they're conservatives and not because Twitter is a shitty web platform that's held together with glue, twigs, snot, and PHP with the same bug affecting everyone even today even liberals so stop saying that.
So as a result there just isn't any conservative content on Twitter. It's just LIEberals now who are latte-sipping snowflakes who eat quinoa and also who are super violent Antifa thugs who we need to protect ourselves from by buying AR-15s.
Based upon that, nobody could possibly be using the Like button to like conservative content, because there isn't any.
If it's deep enough under the water table, the pressure may be enough to keep it down there anyway.
You can get some surprisingly good phones for $60 if you look around (Blu R1 HD I got three years ago was excellent at the time); $200-250 seems to be the going rate for a 5" phone with decent performance and enough storage that an SD card isn't necessary.
My rule for Android phones is that the more you spend, the shittier the phone is likely to be. Phones in the $150-250 range will generally come with headphone jacks, expandable storage, often with dedicated buttons on the bezel (no more guessing where you have to swipe from to get the buttons to appear on a full screen app), dual SIMs, battery lives longer than a day etc. As the phone gets more expensive, the headphone jacks and storage starts to disappear and the battery life gets shorter.
They sell because people are gullible and think pricier=better.
You are aware that Tweets often include URLs, right? Or have threads? (Also the comment is a simplification - most of us Favorite, or now "Like", Tweets we want to keep track of.)
BTW this is Twitter in a nutshell. Replace a useful feature with a half-witted re-interpretation of it, then remove, rather than undo, the feature when they realize nobody uses it for that reason and on the odd occasion they do it's a bad thing.
Liberal: The problem with Twitter is that there are too many Racists and Nazis.
Conservative: Oh so you're saying Twitter should ban conservatives?
Liberal: Uh, no, just Nazis, you know White Supremacists/Nationalists, people who describe themselves as such or even as Nazis, and often even include swastikas and stuff in their profiles.
Conservatives: Oh so you think conservatives are Nazis? Well I'll have you know that Nazis only applies to members of the German National Socialist Party between 1922 and 1946, so you ARE talking about banning conservatives.
Liberal: *headdesk*
A sizable number of conservatives have basically decided that Racists and Nazis are just ordinary conservatives. And the Nazis themselves have capitalized on it, with things like the "Unite the RIght" rally which wasn't a rally where people listened intently to speeches by Marco Rubio and Charles Krauthammer, and discussed the merits of flat taxes and deregulation, but, you know, involved flaming torches, chants against immigrants, blacks, and jews, and one flat out murder of a woman who had earlier in the day protested against neo-nazism.
And how many conservatives complained about "Unite the Right" and made it clear this bunch of lunatics had nothing to do with conservatism? None. Because you've gone completely blind in that area.
I don't think anyone doubts it has real applications, but there's a difference between that and it being a mass market everyone-must-have-it type thing. The naysayers, myself included, are of the opinion that in terms of a general use device, it's just not compelling, it's not what we're asking for (which is impossible at this time), and "3D", which is what this is, has never had the mass market appeal that every marketing person who's tried it thinks it should have.
I think the reality is that if we'd wanted 3D everything, including games, we'd have implemented that a hundred years ago. The technology has existed since the 19th Century. To date, only the ViewMaster has been successful, and then because it was aimed at children.
VR as "3D games" is a dead end. Because it isn't VR. I think we'd all like to be able to immerse ourselves in a computer generated reality, but a 3D headset isn't going ever cut it. It'll always be bulky, and always require just as much imagination to fill in the gaps as watching something on a 1080P 25" LCD screen three feet away from you.
Well, CentOS is right there already.
TBH, I don't see a problem. What IBM sells these days is consultancy and support, they do have a few "packaged" products but even then the way they make a lot of the money is through integration. I can see it being in IBM's best interests to keep the RedHat model alive, maintaining a first class distribution and selling support to fund it.
The entire point of the Open Source movement's founding was to build a movement that would create Free Software that didn't have an ideology associated with it beyond "This is the way that the highest quality software can be built." You might argue that that is a moral point of view, but you'd then have to assert that, say, Agile project management or Managed Code (eg JVM, CIL) are moral movements too. They aren't, at least not in the traditional sense.
Free Software (whose baggage the OSI was formed to leave behind) was based on the central principle that nobody has the right to hide from you knowledge, or prevent you from using that knowledge. You have to admit that's an entirely different moral ballpark compared to "we can make better software if more people can contribute to it."
Let me guess, you saw this article, and quickly hit the Post Comment button hoping to get first post, not realizing that lots of people had already responded, none of whom argued it was "Unfair" for Amazon to pull ads from Bloomberg?
If you try to put 4.1oz of water into a 4oz glass, it'll make a mess, despite there only being a tiny percentage increase in the amount of water. Your comment "going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is equivalent to flooding" implies that as long as an increase is small, in terms of orders of magnitude, it's harmless. That's not how anything works in the real world.
As I said, "weaponized #metoo" doesn't happen and never will: the moment a woman starts making accusations against any men, even now, she generally suffers severe career consequences, and unless multiple women come forward making accusations against the same man, the allegation never goes anywhere.
And the moment she starts making multiple allegations against multiple men who are not being accused by anyone else, she stops being credible period.
It's simply not possible to weaponize #metoo. The people you're reading claiming otherwise are generally the people trying to discredit the allegations against themselves, or people who believe the latter.
Live your life.