Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian's Anti-Harassment Team Is Removing A Package Over Its Name

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    No we cannot. Nothing good comes out of it as a rule. With some special ops types and/or ethnical groups (kurds for example) being exception to the rule. Women's social dynamics and gender-imposed mental patterns are different. Where males develop (at least in Western militaries, Arab armies don't) brotherhood-attitude, women as a rule would instead start infighting and undermining each-other.

    Using females in combat units would also tend to disturb male protective instincts, sooner or later it would lead to various relationships etc IF there are any males in that unit - which would lead invariably to manipulation and special privileges. That's pure mental aspect. Physically, females are less capable, have less musculature, less stamina, smaller stature and more fragile bone structure. On average. That's because male bodies produce testosterone, which promotes physical strength. Females almost completely lack that hormone.

    Women are perfectly okay as intelligence specialists, logistics support troops etc - anything really not demanding physically nor demanding "sense of belonging/principle"-based cooperation - but females are not good as front line combat troops.

    Oh, one thing women can be, is being more cruel and ruthless than males.

    ----
    SJW, feminism etc is purely product of industrial civilization. Because of the inferior physical capability women are less "worth" in agrarian societies. They consume almost as much food as males, but they are capable for half the work males are. For first time in human history their brains make them almost equal to the males and they are eager to make themselves known.. and start chasing equality they can never achieve because God (or evolution) made female and male bodies different. One way out to equality is to neuter males. Figuratively.. that's what we are seeing.


    Erm.. not all feminism was like this. For example some feminists demanded equal pay for the same work which sounds to my macho Gallic mind totally reasonable. Or same vote rights. I would not call such examples SWJism.
    Last edited by Dedale; 21 December 2018, 03:55 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by aht0 View Post

      No we cannot. Nothing good comes out of it as a rule. With some special ops types and/or ethnical groups (kurds for example) being exception to the rule. Women's social dynamics and gender-imposed mental patterns are different. Where males develop (at least in Western militaries, Arab armies don't) brotherhood-attitude, women as a rule would instead start infighting and undermining each-other.

      Using females in combat units would also tend to disturb male protective instincts, sooner or later it would lead to various relationships etc IF there are any males in that unit - which would lead invariably to manipulation and special privileges. That's pure mental aspect. Physically, females are less capable, have less musculature, less stamina, smaller stature and more fragile bone structure. On average. That's because male bodies produce testosterone, which promotes physical strength. Females almost completely lack that hormone.

      Women are perfectly okay as intelligence specialists, logistics support troops etc - anything really not demanding physically nor demanding "sense of belonging/principle"-based cooperation - but females are not good as front line combat troops.

      Oh, one thing women can be, is being more cruel and ruthless than males.

      ----
      SJW, feminism etc is purely product of industrial civilization. Because of the inferior physical capability women are less "worth" in agrarian societies. They consume almost as much food as males, but they are capable for half the work males are. For first time in human history their brains make them almost equal to the males and they are eager to make themselves known.. and start chasing equality they can never achieve because God (or evolution) made female and male bodies different. One way out to equality is to neuter males. Figuratively.. that's what we are seeing.
      Are you retarded?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

        Are you retarded?
        Whoa there! Will the Phoronix admin please ban that account for offensive use of words! Please also implement filters on the boards so my eyes will never see such puerility! I also believe all user accounts should digitally sign a Code of Conduct, such that we can have a welcoming and anti-harassment environment in these forums. THANK YOU!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by aht0 View Post

          No we cannot. Nothing good comes out of it as a rule. With some special ops types and/or ethnical groups (kurds for example) being exception to the rule. Women's social dynamics and gender-imposed mental patterns are different. Where males develop (at least in Western militaries, Arab armies don't) brotherhood-attitude, women as a rule would instead start infighting and undermining each-other.

          Using females in combat units would also tend to disturb male protective instincts, sooner or later it would lead to various relationships etc IF there are any males in that unit - which would lead invariably to manipulation and special privileges. That's pure mental aspect. Physically, females are less capable, have less musculature, less stamina, smaller stature and more fragile bone structure. On average. That's because male bodies produce testosterone, which promotes physical strength. Females almost completely lack that hormone.

          Women are perfectly okay as intelligence specialists, logistics support troops etc - anything really not demanding physically nor demanding "sense of belonging/principle"-based cooperation - but females are not good as front line combat troops.

          Oh, one thing women can be, is being more cruel and ruthless than males.

          ----
          SJW, feminism etc is purely product of industrial civilization. Because of the inferior physical capability women are less "worth" in agrarian societies. They consume almost as much food as males, but they are capable for half the work males are. For first time in human history their brains make them almost equal to the males and they are eager to make themselves known.. and start chasing equality they can never achieve because God (or evolution) made female and male bodies different. One way out to equality is to neuter males. Figuratively.. that's what we are seeing.


          Oh come on, get to the 21st century. Female soldiers and officers work fine even in heavy combat units, eg. US marines(92 female riflemen and combat engineers serves currently).
          What you spout is utter rubbish, as long as they fulfill the physical and mental requirements which should be equal to a man's there is no problems. What can be a problem is when they get deferential treatment... eg. lower standards.

          The greatest problem in armies of the western world is not women, but overweight men....

          And you apperantly are an endocrinologist since you spout hormonal wisdom, also reflect that women tend to be less prone to infections due to lower testosterone levels. Eg. no manflu.

          I served with a female submarine captain, (which is Norway's first female admiral now). she was way tougher than the maie officers i served with.


          Kind regards
          B.
          Last edited by Brutalix; 20 December 2018, 12:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Flaburgan View Post
            well, the code itself is full of insults, and when a friend proposed to remove them, he was blocked, see https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/...ests/228/diffs

            https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
            The first url shows a patch of a person that removes insults. That has actually been merged.

            The second url shows a patch of a person that adds insults, that actually has not been merged.
            If that friend of yours is the one blocked, he was the one adding insults, not removing them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ynari View Post
              Women receive unwanted attention all the time, this does not help. In the eighties it was acceptable for workplaces to have topless calendars pinned up, times have moved on.
              It's not just women, everybody gets unwanted attention. It's stupid to focus on women.
              And if we would switch gender roles, my gf would then be a boyfriend and he would be the biggest male chauvinist and sexist pig.
              So please don't say women, say people.
              With the difference that most males seem to not feel threatened nor objectified by her.

              Comment


              • As another person pointed out brainfuck is still in the repo as is pimp-ass newsreader (pan), git, gimp, etc.

                Seems very selective what they consider to be inappropriate.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                  Does a women dressing nice while showing some skin at a club mean she wants attention? Does a woman wearing a swimsuit at a beach mean she wants attention? The answer is no. Don't get me wrong, "yes" can be the answer to both questions, but assuming that it's always yes is your deep conflict.
                  Haha, I remember when in Uni at Sweden we actually discussed that kind of things in somewhat unrelated course, like introduction to usability or something. The discussion was about usability aspects of women's stockings. The conclusion was that there must be usability aspect of getting attention or else it would be totally crazy to wear miniskirt and stockings in winter.

                  On another note I have to say that if a woman go to a party or even to a club she for sure want to get some attention, and not be left ignored and unnoticed. I might even argue that women expect that the time they put in making themselves more beautiful correlates to the "quality" of attention they get. Perceived alpha males deliver acceptable attention and lesser men deliver unwanted attention.

                  I am sorry in advance if this offends someone, but I do not make apologies about writing it.

                  Comment


                  • Debian.

                    Deb Ian. Does nobody remember how the distro got its name?

                    It was based on Ian's current relationship at the time. Did anybody stop to think how Deb felt, after they broke up? Did anybody even ask Deb? Does anybody think about how this was a male / female relationship, and that may make non heterosexuals feel unwelcome, or oppressed in the community? Ian is no longer with us, so we can't talk to him about it, but is that really relevant at this point? Even if Deb were okay with it, and not being constantly reminded of an old relationship that didn't work out everywhere she looked in the Linux community, is the idea that the project names itself specifically for a heterosexual relationship even something the Committee on Inclusivity can accept?

                    I should bring this up. They should insist on renaming the project, its assets, and Foundation to get with modern times . Let the troglodytes who don't get upset by this sort of thing go their own way with the old oppressive name.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JAYL View Post
                      Personally, for me, I don't really care. I'm not part of the Debian community and I think they can do whatever they want. Though, I really enjoy people getting overly upset or "triggered" about it. Same thing happened when the linux kernel adopted a CoC that basically amounted to "Don't harass people, especially not for being a protected class".
                      You sound like you are ok with discrimination so long as a "protected class" is being "protected".

                      Humm... history has proven that approach to be quite wrong in many cases. Here's a case to consider:

                      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
                      Because I was not a Socialist.

                      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
                      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

                      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
                      Because I was not a Jew.

                      Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
                      The quote belongs to Martin Niemöller.
                      HTML Code:
                      https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X