Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LibreOffice 7.1 Starts Off With Presentation Improvements, Inclusive Config Options

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

  • #21
    Do any of you complainers actually code for LibreOffice? Do you submit patches, maintain documentation, or even file bug reports? No? Then I don't think you really have any room to be complaining. These changes have zero affect on your lives or your work, so let TDF maintain their LibreOffice project in the way they desire. It's no skin off your nose.

    If you actually are part of the LibreOffice development community, then you should be going through proper channels, and not posting your sour grapes on random websites (no offense Michael).

    Sorry, you don't get to choose what other people might find hurtful, nor the efforts that others may take to improve the situation.

    Comment


    • #22
      I really don't care in the end, if it makes some people feel fuzzy inside that they now see Allow and Deny instead of Black & White, fine. Provided I don't run into bugs because of it! THAT would piss me off.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Mark625 View Post
        Do any of you complainers actually code for LibreOffice? Do you submit patches, maintain documentation, or even file bug reports? No? Then I don't think you really have any room to be complaining. These changes have zero affect on your lives or your work, so let TDF maintain their LibreOffice project in the way they desire. It's no skin off your nose.

        If you actually are part of the LibreOffice development community, then you should be going through proper channels, and not posting your sour grapes on random websites (no offense Michael).
        Please, not this argument again. That's like saying we aren't allowed to discuss politics unless we are politicians ourselves. Or that we cannot discuss about cars since we're not car manufacturers. Besides, we weren't even complaining to the developers, we were just having a discussion among ourself, so why should we go through the official channels? There's obviously nothing wrong with this, unless you want to take away the freedom to think.

        Originally posted by Mark625 View Post
        Sorry, you don't get to choose what other people might find hurtful, nor the efforts that others may take to improve the situation.
        That's the problem with the whole thing. Thinking that removing "blacklist" actually improves the situation of black people. Besides, they are certainly *not* offended by the word "black", if that were the case people would put effort into not calling them "black", and not into renaming everything else. This whole "let's remove every reference to black and white unless we're talking about people" comes from a loud of group activists who are actually unaffected by themselves and who are now super satisfied thinking they actually achieved something. And companies jump on the bandwagon because it's a good way to do positive marketing with zero effort and to stay out of critique's way.
        ultimA
        Senior Member
        Last edited by ultimA; 17 August 2020, 03:34 AM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by ultimA View Post
          - It is funny that people like you who are supposedly fighting for inclusion are always the most aggressive, bad-mouthed and temperamental, driving people away. Just read back this thread, your tone was not at all in line with anybody else's. That's inclusion for you: if somebody doesn't share your opinion, then it is OK to call them "pathetic", "rude assholes", and to speak to them in a demeaning way in general. But of course you are "inclusive" because you chose not to use the word "blacklist" which doesn't even have to do anything with Afro-americans. You probably think you have actually contributed to social justice. I'll leave it at that, I don't want to take that warm and fuzzy feeling away from you if it makes you comfortable.
          Nothing new. All the self-declared tolerant people (ecologists, LGwhatevs-friendly, vegans/vegetarians, feminists, anti-racists) are often actually quite narrow-minded, do not accept any opinion not going their way, and try to impose their one-track thinking through that dictatorship (deny whatever is not aligned exactly with them, even if it is very nuanced, well argued and rational).

          In my country, extreme rights party don't have the legal right to expose their political ideas in the media. They can't go on TV. I don't think I would ever vote for one of them, but on what grounds do we forbid them to express their opinion? How is it less valid? Left extremists are whitelisted ( ) to do so though, go figure.

          Basically, these supposedly open-minded people are usually the least tolerant.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
            Denylist sounds so trash!!!

            What is the problem with blacklist? IT IS JUST A WORD!!! Nothing racist!!!
            Denylist sounds as trash as the cultural destruction that it implies.

            The people who see problems with language are just projecting their own prejudices and biases onto others.

            In their weak minds they think minorities find offence on everything and are stupid to understand that as you point out there is nothing racist on words like "whitelist" or "blacklist", it is the same with the word "slave" which comes from the word "slav", or thinking that Master always means someone who owns slaves.

            It is all so tiresome.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Mez' View Post

              Nothing new. All the self-declared tolerant people (ecologists, LGwhatevs-friendly, vegans/vegetarians, feminists, anti-racists) are often actually quite narrow-minded, do not accept any opinion not going their way, and try to impose their one-track thinking through that dictatorship (deny whatever is not aligned exactly with them, even if it is very nuanced, well argued and rational).

              In my country, extreme rights party don't have the legal right to expose their political ideas in the media. They can't go on TV. I don't think I would ever vote for one of them, but on what grounds do we forbid them to express their opinion? How is it less valid? Left extremists are whitelisted ( ) to do so though, go figure.

              Basically, these supposedly open-minded people are usually the least tolerant.
              <sarcasm>They've found the true way, don't you understand?<sarcasm>

              It is exactly this, they project their false believe systems onto others. They are the pure, they are the righteous and the virtuous, they're the anointed who will show you the error in your ways, whether you want or not or else.

              This cultural "SJW Social Justice Warrior" mentality is the result of losing traditional religious culture, losing the link to the divine and losing the sense of transcendence.

              Human beings have an innate religious sense, and to belong to "the good people". Before modernity religion served that purpose, and gave the nuts purpose and kept them at bay, but since having religious beliefs is now socially portrayed as being little more than a stupid person who knows no better, we have a resurgence of new religions in the form of Veganism, SJWism, Leftism, Liberalism, Scientism (I believe in science, I'm so cool), etc.

              As Chesterton said: “When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”

              Comment


              • #27
                "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,‭ ‬but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.‭"-- ‬William F.‭ ‬Buckley,‭ ‬Jr.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by JPFSanders View Post

                  <sarcasm>They've found the true way, don't you understand?<sarcasm>

                  It is exactly this, they project their false believe systems onto others. They are the pure, they are the righteous and the virtuous, they're the anointed who will show you the error in your ways, whether you want or not or else.

                  This cultural "SJW Social Justice Warrior" mentality is the result of losing traditional religious culture, losing the link to the divine and losing the sense of transcendence.

                  Human beings have an innate religious sense, and to belong to "the good people". Before modernity religion served that purpose, and gave the nuts purpose and kept them at bay, but since having religious beliefs is now socially portrayed as being little more than a stupid person who knows no better, we have a resurgence of new religions in the form of Veganism, SJWism, Leftism, Liberalism, Scientism (I believe in science, I'm so cool), etc.

                  As Chesterton said: “When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”
                  I'll agree with your assessment of the symptoms but I see people continuing with "therefore, we need to return to traditional religious institutions" so often that it makes me wary to see you say that.

                  I think it's the Chesterton quote. It's like saying "When a man doesn't believe in 1+1=3, he believes that 1+1 can equal anything". It sets up a false dichotomy between one specific faith (with no conclusive evidence that said faith is correct) and nonsense.

                  I could just as easily throw quotes like these back at you:

                  Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
                  -- Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000
                  And why does this same God tell me how to raise my children when he had to drown his? -- Robert Green Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses (1879), Section XVIII, "Dampness".
                  (All religions can't be equally right, but they can be equally wrong... and that's why the one thing all religions can agree on is to hate and fear atheists. They see the viability of the "all gods are false" hypothesis as an existential threat.)

                  I think it was Carl Sagan who pointed out that science has a predictive accuracy that makes all religions green with envy. (And that should stand for something.) I'll stay a secular humanist, thank you very much. (Until someone finds a way to corrupt the term away from what I know myself to be in a futile effort to voodoo doll me into following their cause.)
                  ssokolow
                  Senior Member
                  Last edited by ssokolow; 17 August 2020, 10:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by ultimA View Post
                    I support substituting master and slave.
                    In that case, you must really hate us Dutchies as we (children, but also society as a whole) call a male teacher "meester" (which is "master" in English).

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Cape View Post
                      > banned blacklist
                      it's a nice beginning but pls, could you address the elephant in the room?
                      The term OFFICE is mega Raycis! It clearly targets the WASP America that has nice 9-5 office jobs, while discriminate the Black and Latino menoreties who actually do the hard work in the street 🙏!

                      You should change it to something like LibreWORKPLACE or LibrePRODUCTIONSITE
                      Not to mention "libre", which is offensive to anyone living in a country where freedom is severely restricted against their will.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X