To make what I previously said more clear, it's bullshit, because the 1963 vision of deinstitutionalization as passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by JFK could not work because the usual suspects soon took force off the table. The "decisions" he made following that 1963 law when governor failed because... force was very shortly afterwards as I recall taken off the table.
And it's not like the public health services for the indigent went "poof" when he "discarded" that law, several of my doctors in times past, including a psychiatrist, volunteered their time at them. On patent branded drugs, though... those would have been an issue at times. But not the early ones, first generation anti-psychotics and probably lithium carbonate. Although the latter requires blood work to get the dosage right, it has a narrow therapeutic index.
Seriously, if you want to come off as better than a NPC, reply to my points, review the link I provided, instead of regurgitating talking points so old they've turned gray.
So you're saying believe you, not my lying eyes that saw every bit of the physical stuff I said like her clothing, gross obesity, and smoking, and the family's report that she died of a heart attack, and as I recall official confirmation of that later? If these medical records that say blunt force trauma, which curiously caused no lacerations and resultant visible blood, are available, can you point me to them?
It was [Reagan's] mental health hachetjob that lead us to where we are today, first in California then the US as a whole, with both the far left and far right being people who should have been institutionalized years ago for violent or antisocial tendencies.
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
You're sort of right about the cause, the Left decided there were better ways to buy votes, while the judiciary made it impossible to institutionalize people against their will, one judge went so far as to say being schizophrenic was just as "authentic" as being "normal".
Check the link, the process began long before in the mid-1950s when we developed anti-psychotic and somewhat later realized lithium carbonate was a very effective anti-bipolar drug. These were true miracles drugs, but they're nasty, and many people have to be forced to take them. Removing the feedback of force from the new system made sure it would never work for a very large fraction of the severely mentally ill population. Then Reagan became President and the media suddenly discovered the homeless.
Read up on the history of how the Feds did this in the 1960s and 1970s. Or note how, in an extreme that caused them to fail in the courts, almost half of the Oregon protesters/occupiers of that Federal wildlife center or whatever were Federal informants.
BTW, who exactly have the Proud Boys killed? And what do you have against self-defense? You may not realize it, but you're putting yourself firmly on the side of Antifa.
which are openly running "security" for Trump's rallies these days.
Now that requires a citation, especially seeing as how the Secret Service, probably other Feds, and the state and local police are visibly running security at those rallies. Only way the Proud Boys could be a part of that is if those agencies were tacitly working with them....
I've been told what killed Digg was it changing from a user generated discussion site to an advertising platform that favored the content generated by the advertisers.
That said, you're probably right about Slashdot's fate, it's the only major general tech discussion site I'm aware of that's trying to stay moderately neutral. The totalitarian tech Left is getting ever more intolerant of anything but NPC style agreement, so even if those of us on it don't tear it apart....
Although in the meanwhile, amping up metamoderation, and policing that might help.
it scarcely prevents anyone from starting their own payment processing company.
Nope, what prevents others from starting friendly to the Right payment processing companies is Mastercard, which as of late has been forcing the hands of a bunch of payment processors. You won't be generally successful if you don't accept their cards along with Visa's.
And what, prey tell, is a crime, if not today, then tomorrow? Already you're defining Gab's normal, better than Twitter policies and actions as a crime.
I'm not sure there are any really good ones, all can be subject to Social Terrorism, DDoS attacks, etc.
Most fascenating thing to me about this "discussion" is that as I type this, the comment you're replying to was downmodded 1 point. I wonder what the triggered snowflake who did that thought they were accomplishing, it's not like people aren't going to notice when Gab goes offline in 19 and a half hours....
That's all true except that there is no counterpart to Germany's pre-war communists in the States.
Except, you know, Antifa, which takes its name and flag from the last paramilitary organization of the German Communist Party, and is operating as a paramilitary arm of the Democrats/Deep State. If you deny the latter, why hasn't the DoJ dismantled them?
You mean that landwhale illegally blocking a public streets as part of a mob who a member of attacked in an unauthorized public march whose abused body couldn't handle the stress of her fat ass?
You left out: a smoker wearing black on a hot day, no signs of injury or blood when she was on the stretcher exposing way too much flesh, and per her family and something official, which has to be based on an autopsy, she died of a heart attack.
Now, the people running Gab have shown themselves to be idiots before, as in starting with the vanity.ai domain name which was easily pressured, and Joyent has long been social justice converged, one of the first purges of a developer was engineered by one of their people, the target just happening working for a competing company on the node.js project. But no one who believes in freedom of expression can believe this is a good thing.
Feminism and gay rights hasn't been around long enough to prove survival value.
On general principles, as well as history like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, they've proven to have anti-survival value. Today we can see that societies that embrace the former don't reproduce, a phenomena that Heinlein noted was self-correcting. History belongs to those who show up.
Sure. I'll even pull one straight out of the recene news: Linus Torvalds.
Another lie. Why, of course he perfectly matches your claim that:
The geek community was founded mostly by people who had been bullied, and in response to this trauma, they decided to set up a community that would never enforce social norms (so that others could not be unfairly targeted as theu were). This resulted in an influx of people who had been fairly ostracized for flagrantly unacceptable behavior: who were looking for a place to hide from the pressure so they wouldn't have to grow up. And they whined and cajoled and manipulated toward that end, molding us into the perfect enablers, so that we would not give them the treatment they needed to grow as people.
Which you now reveal to extends to geeks who failed to "[pick up] at least a little social grace" as you define it. Linux obviously has a lot of that, you're twisting his justified sharp verbal sanctions into a ludicrous claim about his general character.
There isn't a geek alive who doesn't know at least one of Those Geeks
I'm an exception, but perhaps that's because I'm older than the generation you're making these claims about.
On the other hand, I'm not aware of a single infamous incident where SJWs purged a geek guilty of what you claim.
If this problem is as widespread as you claim, point at some examples, else we can safely dismiss you.
You don't attack powerless people who society shits on. You attack the powerful.
How about attacking neither as a general thing, in the interests of societal calm? Especially since in what I gather of this claimed scenario, "the powerful" at that's used in the original phrase aren't really shitting on the powerless, it's much lower level monkey (or lizzard?) brain level stuff.
The basic framework of dividing people into classes and setting them at each other's throats, which Marx brought to something of an apotheosis, has overall done people no good, while resulting in a bare minimum of 100 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century.
As for why a for-profit corporation shouldn't start promoting religious dogma, the reason is that anyone who doesn't agree with their particular religious branch won't buy their product. I'm atheist bigot, so I'm sure everyone else is like me.
FIFY.
This might surprise you, but outside your bubble there are plenty of tolerant people, even atheists, which you would have learned if you're read enough of the second link I provided (you read little or nothing of it, or else you'd know why they felt compelled to adopt one, customers were starting to implicitly demand one).
And I repeat: I'm sure they're quite willing to take the very small hit they're going to get from intolerant bigots who will stop paying them money because they're Christian. Which would have happened anyway sooner or later, whether or not they'd adopted this code.
Because they way this is going down, simply being devoutly Christian is enough for your side to declare people to be beyond the pale.
ROFL!!!! Only chickenshit Russian trolls use the phrase "libtard".
Possibly, but I got the vague imprecision they were generally competent enough to avoid such weak sauce labels. We Americans to the right of Mao prefer the much more accurate "shitlib", we after all have seen you up close and personal, it's in fact personal for us, and getting more so every day as you escalate your attacks on us.
SQLite is controlled by a corporation, and that corporation requires adherence to a religious code in order to contribute patches to what is (in theory) an open source project.
But SQLite is not open-contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from unknown persons.
All of the code in SQLite is original, having been written specifically for use by SQLite. No code has been copied from unknown sources on the internet.
But even if they were open contribution, they make it very clear they only insist your stick to the spirit of the specifics of the code of conduct to be a part of the community. Maybe go to the effort of reading its overview? See also the background story on its adaptation.
Forking is a poor alternative because they've got extensive test suites that are not open.
So no, I don't care what the maintainers believe in their own little heads, but if they require contributors to hold those same beliefs, it's going to cause problems.
"In their own little heads" shows you don't have the slightest bit of grace required to conform to the spirit of this 1,500 years tested "Code of Conduct", and but it will only cause problems in your mind, they most certainly can do without your non-existent to date contributions to the community. In that, it's functioning as useful filter to keep griefers like yourself away from the project.
I'd also predict this will put a damper on their revenue.
As the KJV puts in in Mark 8:36:
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
There's no more widely used piece of FOSS in existence, I'm sure there quite willing to take the very small hit they're going to get from intolerant bigots who will stop paying them money because they're Christian. Which would have happened anyway sooner or later, whether or not they'd adopted this code.
It's all around a bad idea for a for-profit corporation to start proselytizing,
And why is this?
if I was their customer (or my company was) I'd certainly drop the contract at the next opportunity.
Empty words from someone who was never going to be one of their customers.
When the Linus surrender happened Coarline proposed to set up an organization to help reduce the "burden" administering a CoC places on a FOSS project. I suggest you contact her, you could get in on the ground floor.
I'm not going near that project if it means sticking to Christian ethics, I'm not coming down to that level.
We can be very sure they won't miss you, if for no other reason than that if you're so nasty you can't abide by the spirit of these time tested rules for cohesive and productive communities like the ones FOSS needs, you'd be a net drag on the project.
Would love to see the slightest shred of evidence for any of this, e.g.
- SJW thought police organisation
Ada Initiative. See also Coraline's project to set up a CoC enforcement organization to take that burden off FOSS projects.
- Getting paid to sit at home looking for wrongthink
Note how many SJWs are trust fund babies, plus the paid shills of Share Blue etc.
- Toxic elements of the Contributor's Code of Conduct
Coraline herself; if you can't see that, you're not living in the same reality as those who've found ourselves on the wrong side of enforcement actions. You can for example ask Rod Vagg or Ted Ts'o about this in practice. See also how CoCs in general are used to purge people like Larry Garfield of Drupal, the history of them tells us to assume bad faith as a default.
They are objecting to the use of a joke when having a CoC is regarded as a somewhat serious issue.
The top dog of the SQLite project is a devout Christian, and is 100% serious about this being a real CoC. Especially seeing as how it's stood the test of time, 1,500 years and counting. As he said:
So then, why not use a more modern CoC? I looked at that too, but found the so-called "modern" CoCs to be vapid. They are trendy feel-good statements that do not really get to the heart of the matter in the way the the ancient Rule does. By way of analogy, I view modern CoCs as being like pop music - selling millions of copies today and completely forgotten next year. I prefer something more enduring, like Mozart.
He also considered "Benjamin
Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as it provide more examples."
SQLite not only has a lot of developers
Lie, it has only a handful for the SQLite system and its extensive test suites, and everyone one of them agreed to this COC.
but also has conferences and other meet-ups, and sadly from experience people have had problems at those kinds of events in the past.
Cite the incidents or we'll assume you're lying as much about them as well. Also point out how they're not covered by this CoC.
Slashdot Mirror
To make what I previously said more clear, it's bullshit, because the 1963 vision of deinstitutionalization as passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by JFK could not work because the usual suspects soon took force off the table. The "decisions" he made following that 1963 law when governor failed because ... force was very shortly afterwards as I recall taken off the table.
And it's not like the public health services for the indigent went "poof" when he "discarded" that law, several of my doctors in times past, including a psychiatrist, volunteered their time at them. On patent branded drugs, though ... those would have been an issue at times. But not the early ones, first generation anti-psychotics and probably lithium carbonate. Although the latter requires blood work to get the dosage right, it has a narrow therapeutic index.
Seriously, if you want to come off as better than a NPC, reply to my points, review the link I provided, instead of regurgitating talking points so old they've turned gray.
So you're saying believe you, not my lying eyes that saw every bit of the physical stuff I said like her clothing, gross obesity, and smoking, and the family's report that she died of a heart attack, and as I recall official confirmation of that later? If these medical records that say blunt force trauma, which curiously caused no lacerations and resultant visible blood, are available, can you point me to them?
You mean the Community Mental Health Act, passed in 1963 when Reagan was a private citizen (JFK's interest in the subject is obvious)?
You're sort of right about the cause, the Left decided there were better ways to buy votes, while the judiciary made it impossible to institutionalize people against their will, one judge went so far as to say being schizophrenic was just as "authentic" as being "normal".
Check the link, the process began long before in the mid-1950s when we developed anti-psychotic and somewhat later realized lithium carbonate was a very effective anti-bipolar drug. These were true miracles drugs, but they're nasty, and many people have to be forced to take them. Removing the feedback of force from the new system made sure it would never work for a very large fraction of the severely mentally ill population. Then Reagan became President and the media suddenly discovered the homeless.
Read up on the history of how the Feds did this in the 1960s and 1970s. Or note how, in an extreme that caused them to fail in the courts, almost half of the Oregon protesters/occupiers of that Federal wildlife center or whatever were Federal informants.
BTW, who exactly have the Proud Boys killed? And what do you have against self-defense? You may not realize it, but you're putting yourself firmly on the side of Antifa.
Now that requires a citation, especially seeing as how the Secret Service, probably other Feds, and the state and local police are visibly running security at those rallies. Only way the Proud Boys could be a part of that is if those agencies were tacitly working with them....
I've been told what killed Digg was it changing from a user generated discussion site to an advertising platform that favored the content generated by the advertisers.
That said, you're probably right about Slashdot's fate, it's the only major general tech discussion site I'm aware of that's trying to stay moderately neutral. The totalitarian tech Left is getting ever more intolerant of anything but NPC style agreement, so even if those of us on it don't tear it apart.... Although in the meanwhile, amping up metamoderation, and policing that might help.
Nope, what prevents others from starting friendly to the Right payment processing companies is Mastercard, which as of late has been forcing the hands of a bunch of payment processors. You won't be generally successful if you don't accept their cards along with Visa's.
And where and how, precisely, did Gab do that?
And what, prey tell, is a crime, if not today, then tomorrow? Already you're defining Gab's normal, better than Twitter policies and actions as a crime.
I'm not sure there are any really good ones, all can be subject to Social Terrorism, DDoS attacks, etc.
Most fascenating thing to me about this "discussion" is that as I type this, the comment you're replying to was downmodded 1 point. I wonder what the triggered snowflake who did that thought they were accomplishing, it's not like people aren't going to notice when Gab goes offline in 19 and a half hours....
Except, you know, Antifa, which takes its name and flag from the last paramilitary organization of the German Communist Party, and is operating as a paramilitary arm of the Democrats/Deep State. If you deny the latter, why hasn't the DoJ dismantled them?
You left out: a smoker wearing black on a hot day, no signs of injury or blood when she was on the stretcher exposing way too much flesh, and per her family and something official, which has to be based on an autopsy, she died of a heart attack.
As in tomorrow, Monday at 9am US Eastern Time.
Now, the people running Gab have shown themselves to be idiots before, as in starting with the vanity .ai domain name which was easily pressured, and Joyent has long been social justice converged, one of the first purges of a developer was engineered by one of their people, the target just happening working for a competing company on the node.js project. But no one who believes in freedom of expression can believe this is a good thing.
On general principles, as well as history like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, they've proven to have anti-survival value. Today we can see that societies that embrace the former don't reproduce, a phenomena that Heinlein noted was self-correcting. History belongs to those who show up.
Another lie. Why, of course he perfectly matches your claim that:
Which you now reveal to extends to geeks who failed to "[pick up] at least a little social grace" as you define it. Linux obviously has a lot of that, you're twisting his justified sharp verbal sanctions into a ludicrous claim about his general character.
Try again.
I'm an exception, but perhaps that's because I'm older than the generation you're making these claims about.
On the other hand, I'm not aware of a single infamous incident where SJWs purged a geek guilty of what you claim. If this problem is as widespread as you claim, point at some examples, else we can safely dismiss you.
How about attacking neither as a general thing, in the interests of societal calm? Especially since in what I gather of this claimed scenario, "the powerful" at that's used in the original phrase aren't really shitting on the powerless, it's much lower level monkey (or lizzard?) brain level stuff.
The basic framework of dividing people into classes and setting them at each other's throats, which Marx brought to something of an apotheosis, has overall done people no good, while resulting in a bare minimum of 100 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century.
At least one of these three statements is a lie.
FIFY.
This might surprise you, but outside your bubble there are plenty of tolerant people, even atheists, which you would have learned if you're read enough of the second link I provided (you read little or nothing of it, or else you'd know why they felt compelled to adopt one, customers were starting to implicitly demand one).
And I repeat: I'm sure they're quite willing to take the very small hit they're going to get from intolerant bigots who will stop paying them money because they're Christian. Which would have happened anyway sooner or later, whether or not they'd adopted this code.
Because they way this is going down, simply being devoutly Christian is enough for your side to declare people to be beyond the pale.
Possibly, but I got the vague imprecision they were generally competent enough to avoid such weak sauce labels. We Americans to the right of Mao prefer the much more accurate "shitlib", we after all have seen you up close and personal, it's in fact personal for us, and getting more so every day as you escalate your attacks on us.
Open source, absolutely, open contribution, absolutely not:
But even if they were open contribution, they make it very clear they only insist your stick to the spirit of the specifics of the code of conduct to be a part of the community. Maybe go to the effort of reading its overview? See also the background story on its adaptation.
Forking is a poor alternative because they've got extensive test suites that are not open.
"In their own little heads" shows you don't have the slightest bit of grace required to conform to the spirit of this 1,500 years tested "Code of Conduct", and but it will only cause problems in your mind, they most certainly can do without your non-existent to date contributions to the community. In that, it's functioning as useful filter to keep griefers like yourself away from the project.
As the KJV puts in in Mark 8:36:
There's no more widely used piece of FOSS in existence, I'm sure there quite willing to take the very small hit they're going to get from intolerant bigots who will stop paying them money because they're Christian. Which would have happened anyway sooner or later, whether or not they'd adopted this code.
And why is this?
Empty words from someone who was never going to be one of their customers.
When the Linus surrender happened Coarline proposed to set up an organization to help reduce the "burden" administering a CoC places on a FOSS project. I suggest you contact her, you could get in on the ground floor.
We can be very sure they won't miss you, if for no other reason than that if you're so nasty you can't abide by the spirit of these time tested rules for cohesive and productive communities like the ones FOSS needs, you'd be a net drag on the project.
You asked for "the slightest shred of evidence", but we all know there's no evidence you'd ever accept, you'll just keep moving the goalposts.
Ada Initiative. See also Coraline's project to set up a CoC enforcement organization to take that burden off FOSS projects.
Note how many SJWs are trust fund babies, plus the paid shills of Share Blue etc.
Coraline herself; if you can't see that, you're not living in the same reality as those who've found ourselves on the wrong side of enforcement actions. You can for example ask Rod Vagg or Ted Ts'o about this in practice. See also how CoCs in general are used to purge people like Larry Garfield of Drupal, the history of them tells us to assume bad faith as a default.
The top dog of the SQLite project is a devout Christian, and is 100% serious about this being a real CoC. Especially seeing as how it's stood the test of time, 1,500 years and counting. As he said:
He also considered "Benjamin Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as it provide more examples."
Lie, it has only a handful for the SQLite system and its extensive test suites, and everyone one of them agreed to this COC.
Cite the incidents or we'll assume you're lying as much about them as well. Also point out how they're not covered by this CoC.