- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s the one with a dev that thinks that replacing “he” by “they” is political propaganda?
Yeah, no thanks.
Thanks for the heads up. Not worth the time
Do you think there are no assholes working for google or mozilla? Assholes are everywhere. And fuck cancel culture.
Edit: I stand by what I said, you can downvote me all you want. It doesn’t matter to me one bit.
Cancel culture, this far-right myth that fascists love so much. You forgot to continue and talk about freedom of speech and how you are a centrist.
people can have different views. you might not like them but it’s their views, not yours
And it’s my view that we are free to dunk on people with bad views.
i don’t get why sane people would rather a person with good opinions over a free independent web browser, the latter just seems so much more valuable to me.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
This is sorta a hornets nest. On the one hand I get that when it comes to tech who cares about the persons personal life but on the other hand when it comes to free software there is a concern over the orgs or individuals that run them given the trust involved. Yes you can rely on the many eyes but you want to be confident of the org (or individual) to begin with.
So you think you can draw a connection between someone’s views on inclusive language and whether an individual or org can be trusted with software security.
I’m sorry but to me this line of thinking is bonkers. The two things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. What if a conservative individual argued that they have trust issues with an open source project because it features inclusive language now? The person might argue that they don’t understand why devs would devote their limited time to such cosmetics instead of focusing on code quality. How would you view this argument? On Lemmy it would probably be ridiculed, and rightfully so. Yet it’s the same line of thinking that I see if I interpreted your comment correctly.
Look, the dev is a reactionary. He lists that the browser is unstable and intended for devs. So IF I were to use it, that would mean reporting issues and/or fixing issues myself. I’m not interested in working with a reactionary. So I will not be using this browser. You’re welcome to use the browser if you want. At this time, I’m not interested.
Sure everyone’s free to use it or not, contribute to it or not. That’s not related to my argument. I was only talking about making a connection between someone’s political views and how much trust they deserve when it comes to e.g. security.
maybe I’m not seeing where the smoking gun is, here. I see a guy saying something akin to “can we not do this here in the github please”
and then I see a bunch of people blowing up and yelling about “dehumanization” over it.
…why is this such a huge deal exactly?
Absolutely nothing. The fact that they had to bring up a totally irrelevant 3 year old issue during an event that is supposed to be celebrated tells you a lot. They have been blatantly brigading various communities just for attention, and probably to get the dev cancelled or something. Even this post, the privacy community does not need this whole chain of replies. And yet, they overshadow every legit discussion with this bullshit unprompted.
Open mindedness is a key factor for success (especially in open source). Inclusivity demonstrates open mindedness. The fact that the lead dev goes out of his way to prevent such a minor change (it’s not even like people demanded a strict CoC or something) is a bad signal
so I don’t understand. why are all these comments yelling the same stuff? did they just decide to harass this one guy for saying “take it somewhere else, please”?
I’m trying to find anything malicious in anything he’s said. I’m finding nothing but a dude working on a browser.
this kind of behavior scares me greatly. I know individuals who have been victims of real transphobia. this seems to be a simple language difference. and I think targeting this guy is a mistake.
Flooding and being loud doesn’t make them right. it just means they’re loud.
I’m trying to find anything malicious in anything he’s said
They use the “silence is violence” trope to harass and terrorize projects, hiding behind their “protected status” as a transgender. Whenever someone rejects anything that calls for “greater inclusion”, they go nuclear and tell all their friends to do the same. The bullied becomes the bully. It’s very childish. It’s always people that never contribute any meaningful code as well.
Open mindedness is a key factor for success (especially in open source). Inclusivity demonstrates open mindedness. The fact that the lead dev goes out of his way to prevent such a minor change (it’s not even like people demanded a strict CoC or something) is a bad signal
Changing “he” to “they” isn’t a political change, or shouldn’t be if you’re not a fucking shithead
Maybe I’m dumb, but I completely do not understand what the dev did to upset people.
I read the thread and I’m confused about it.
People get upset over anything tbh
That’s enough brigading for today
What the fuck have to do one thing with another. You people are so fucked up . You make drama from anything imaginable
He is right, hey shouldn’t push a political agenda. They can fork it if they don’t like it. It is his choice and he is the one putting in the work, not you.
Refusing the change is pushing a political agenda too. But I guess it helps seeing which agenda you prefer ;)
Well it isn’t something that should be discussed in a Github issue.
I’m sorry but “project documentation should not be discussed in a GitHub issue or pr” is what you’re going with?? Where the fuck else would you discuss it?
And where then? It is about changing a part of the software, that fits quite clearly an issue/pull request
Based Andreas KING
