Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Sound Subsystem Begins Cleaning Up Its Terminology To Meet Inclusive Guidelines

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by gnulinux82

    How would renaming blacklist to blocklist possibly do that? This stuff is actually increasing hostility towards these people, not reducing it.

    The worst thing of all is that it's always some leftist taking offence on someone else's behalf, when that other person doesn't even really care and actually just finds the whole thing belittling and patronizing.

    I'm not even white and someone in this thread (probably a white liberal) has already accused me of benefiting from "white privilege". These people are clowns.
    It should be a non-issue.. Honestly, the fact that you're using words like "leftist", makes it seem like you're politicizing the issue into a US government thing, and it shouldn't be.. I haven't looked at the previous comments..

    It's definitely NOT the wrong thing to do, but for some people long term it could be the right thing.. There should be no reason why anyone is taking offense.. Why should anyone get pissed off that someone is taking actions to try to make the community better? Why would changing it possibly offend anyone? Not everything has to be a statement to support "freedom of speech", or related to the US Elections.

    They're trying to do the right thing..
    Last edited by Auzy; 21 July 2020, 07:52 AM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by geearf View Post

      This is a self fulfilling prophecy, because people keep parroting/believing this, it goes on.
      Sure the road is much much harder for anyone outside of those 2 gangs, I think in part because of Ross Perot.
      Yet Bill Walker, Jesse Ventura, Angus King, Orland Loomis and others proved it is feasible to at least attain the rank of Governor (of course others also attained the rank of Senator/Congressman); maybe it means that some states are more stuck on that idea than others and it's all up to them to wake up?
      Due to the electoral college, a 3rd party candidate will likely never become President. Any other elected position in government, sure, but not President. Hell, I'm 35 and at least twice in my life we've had two Presidents that won the office without the majority vote because the EC rebelled and voted R even though the majority of the people in the state voted D, Bush II and Trump. All it taught me was that my vote didn't matter and that, if there was a secret deep state, that it's ran by Republicans because all the iffy, deep statey shit always favors Republicans. I mean, shit, the fuckers deep stated two minority of the vote Presidents for Pete's sake.

      Until American voting is updated to be actual majority rules without the EC, it's going to stay that way and a third party won't be viable choice.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by geearf View Post
        This is a self fulfilling prophecy, because people keep parroting/believing this, it goes on.
        I personally agree but that just because you and I are strong individualistic thinkers that don't let themself be bullied to vote for bad parties because there might be a 1% less evil than the other horrible thing, but both are horrible, that is not how most people think, they rather take the 1% better or they vote for 1 guy because they hate the of course horrible media or they vote for the party that might win because they like to be in the winner team.

        I think we seen it know clear the 2 countries I know with a "the winner takes it all" presidency system America and France both are in horrible state of close to civil war and horrible parties on the top. In France you have permanent martial law and 2nd strongest Party a nazi party and 1. strongest a corrupt neoliberal party that is hated by most people in the country.

        Also even here in Germany a 5% minimum rate for parties to get into parliament which is like 1/6 or 1/10. of what you need to president in the US deter people from voting for this parties, so sure we have a bit more choice with 6 parties (nationally) but to some degree they also suck all, not as bad as the US but still, but we still have only 1 neo-liberal party that call them-self libertarian (in europe the translation of libertarian is "liberal"), but we have noo liberal(libertarian)+social party, which I would like, that said the pirate party did not fail because of the 5% but because they got radical left wingers / feminists and stuff like that. That said the Press sabotaged them a bit, too. The point is it's not impossible to get over the 5% wall, but even that often pushes people to not vote for better smaller parties (we have like 100 of those) because of strategic voting and the fear to loose your vote.

        Comment


        • #54
          What a fantastic use of development time, its very important that a word is changed so i dont die or somthing.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by andrewjoy View Post
            What a fantastic use of development time, its very important that a word is changed so i dont die or somthing.
            So you think it took lots of time to change?

            Its funny about all the people worried about this slowing down development time suddenly. One way to help speed it up again, is to contribute... It's open source, and people are free to contribute what they like.

            People who don't contribute probably shouldn't care as they'll never even notice this patch. It affects developers mainly

            Someone felt it was worth their time to write this patch. I have no problem with them doing so...

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by sverris View Post

              You are missing the point. No one say that this fixes a lot. No one says that saying blacklist etc. proofs that some one is a racist. The point is that language permanently reproduces cliches and stereotypes - aside from what a speaker intends. And it is kind of absurd: there is never a clear cut what might sound offending in some contexts or not. Language is fluent, and even a very positive word can sound very negative in some situations, ie just by saying it with a certain tone. Yet we teach children to learn what to say and which words to avoid. For good reasons. Because the freedom of speech also has its limits, and because words can really hurt.

              I do not know if those changes in terminology in the kernel community are necessary, but the discussion around it is still a good thing.
              TL;DR: Many are missing the point indeed.

              I am against SJWs most of the time. There's a clear double standard where people don't like bullying but they bully others into changing the way that they think and communicate. If you say the wrong thing or have the "wrong" idea you can loose your job and end up on a deny list where nobody wants to hire you regardless of your merits. It's not just something that is happening to random people on the internet (who you don't know, that could actually be trying to be malicious), but it is happening to your friend or you. A decade ago nobody would have thought that this would be possible outside a dictatorship, but here we are today. While I would like to reiterate many of the injustices that "social justice" has caused, I'll try to keep this semi-focused.

              I guess many here associate this small change with what's been going on in the world over the past few years in politics (relative to my previous paragraph). The association that is made by reading "Inclusive Guidelines" gives people the idea that this is just another bully on a power trip making changes as they see fit without giving a damn what others think about it or what the impact is. By this point logic is already out the window and we see tacky comments and trolling which in return fuels similar feedback from opposing parties. The derailed thread/downwards spiral continues from there on.

              In my opinion freedom of thought depends on freedom of speech. Getting hurt from words is worth the risk compared to not being able to express thought. Incitement to violence is where I draw the line. It's clear that we don't agree on politics, but I agree with you on what the point of this change is. It's not trying to rewrite history or indoctrinate. It's simply to avoid clich├ęs. If that reduces the risk of hurting someone or at least avoiding awkward conversations how is this not a win?

              While I have given my opinion in why were are seeing some of the comments in this thread it's really embarrassing to actually read it. Given your reasoning and effort to explain things in detail (which to me and probably you is common logic) it feels like we can at least have some form of civilized discourse so thanks for taking the time.

              Off-topic: In my country the court doesn't prosecute you if are a politician of a specific race and you incite to racial based violence on multiple occasions (public call out to kill race XYZ), while if a civilian of another race and use the k-word multiple times while in a state of panic (similar to the n-word) then you are a convicted racist and get sent to prison with hours of media coverage and outrage. IMO both people are bad, but there's a clear injustice (double standards). Sadly this cannot be debated publicly, you will loose your job and be labeled a racist. It is causing a split in my nation and will likely cause major problems in the future. That said, it seems like a minor problem compared to what is going on in other places around the world at the moment... talk about a change in perspective. The world can surely use some love, humility, and less ignorant leaders right now.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by kuco View Post
                This thread turned into the expected shitshow. All this "us vs. them" bullshit. Right vs Left. Liberals vs Convervatives. Black vs White. Barcelona vs Madrid. Sith vs Jedi.
                Kinda expected in an IT-forum. Binary thinking.

                Do you still have to identify with some meaningless group-ideology to feel confident? Highschool all over again?
                5 pages in and you're one of the very few sane people in this whole thread.
                It's one thing to be opposed to this new terminology; I get it. But everyone who is doing this "us vs them" thing is far more of a problem. I don't care whose side you're on - everyone pointing fingers and generalizing entire groups of people are assholes.

                Also, I find it rather ironic how many people here are so anti-leftist (keep that in mind, people: liberalism is not limited to the left), considering Linux has some seriously leftist ideals. I would expect that sort of behavior on an Apple forum.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                  Due to the electoral college, a 3rd party candidate will likely never become President. Any other elected position in government, sure, but not President. Hell, I'm 35 and at least twice in my life we've had two Presidents that won the office without the majority vote because the EC rebelled and voted R even though the majority of the people in the state voted D, Bush II and Trump. All it taught me was that my vote didn't matter and that, if there was a secret deep state, that it's ran by Republicans because all the iffy, deep statey shit always favors Republicans. I mean, shit, the fuckers deep stated two minority of the vote Presidents for Pete's sake.

                  Until American voting is updated to be actual majority rules without the EC, it's going to stay that way and a third party won't be viable choice.
                  As far as a quick research shows me, 7 electors were unfaithful, the rest could not, and 7 was clearly not enough to change the result of 304 for Trump, 227 for Clinton. (Some of these deflectors actually voted 3rd party.)

                  Also the majority of vote is of no importance as the USA is not a democracy but a constitutional republic (or a representative democracy); and of course the reason for this is simply to prevent one big state (or a few) to dictate everything for the others (whether that is good or bad, I'll leave that up to you to ponder).

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post

                    I personally agree but that just because you and I are strong individualistic thinkers that don't let themself be bullied to vote for bad parties because there might be a 1% less evil than the other horrible thing, but both are horrible, that is not how most people think, they rather take the 1% better or they vote for 1 guy because they hate the of course horrible media or they vote for the party that might win because they like to be in the winner team.
                    Agreed, but that is clearly the people's fault, they are complacent in this system.
                    I really hate how people don't necessarily vote for someone but against a party because guy X is a communist or guy Y is a nazi, etc... and of course, most of the time they don't know a single vote either of the candidate has taken, only the pointless blabber they delivered on the air which must be 100% true because no one would break a promise right? And if they do, it's always the others' fault...

                    Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                    ...
                    I don't know anything about the german system, I'd be happy if you could expend on what you wrote (or even give me the proper things to search for, that'd be fine too).

                    What do you mean that winner takes all in France? Is it because the President nominates the Prime Minister and then all the cabinet is picked instead of elected? There has been a mixed government at rare times though (Chirac and Balladur under Miterrand, Jospin under Chirac, maybe more that I don't remember) so that's not impossible. I think their system of everyone fights and then the top 2 move is a bit nicer, of course it collapsed last time because there too many similar parties going for it that sort of nullified each other, so maybe it's not that good after all. I agree with you though, if the country is a democracy it would make sense to have more people (somewhat) happy with the result than that....

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by geearf View Post
                      Also the majority of vote is of no importance as the USA is not a democracy but a constitutional republic (or a representative democracy); and of course the reason for this is simply to prevent one big state (or a few) to dictate everything for the others (whether that is good or bad, I'll leave that up to you to ponder).
                      Yeah, except with gerrymandering, the biggest states still have the most control, so, what exactly do you think it accomplishes here? The only thing gerrymandering does is make some random guy on a farm have disproportionately way more voting power than someone in the city (I'm generalizing here but that's the gist of it). That's not to say the farmer doesn't deserve to be heard, but you're literally advocating for inequality of votes. The people who support gerrymandering are the same sort of people who don't like mail-in ballots, compulsory voting, voter identification, etc: they know that such changes are likely going to make them in the losing side. And I'm not mentioning sides here because it isn't all one-sided.
                      But here's the thing: if you're so certain your party is going to lose, shouldn't that be a wakeup call that maybe, just maybe, it isn't righteous? If you are registered to either party, you are too biased to be making an informed decision, anyway.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X