Comment by self_awareness
4 hours ago
For the sake of simplicity, and to detach our feelings from this subject, let's assume that Ω-GN is a grift. Ω is a superset of Ω-GN. We cannot conclude that Ω is a grift solely because a subset (Ω-GN) is a grift. However, can we objectively say that Ω is not a grift just because there are some instances within Ω that are not grifts? Clearly, there are also instances within Ω that are grifts, since Ω-GN (a subset of Ω) is a grift by our assumption. Therefore, the existence of both grift and non-grift instances in Ω means we cannot categorically label Ω as either a grift or not a grift based solely on its subsets.
Yet you say that objectively it's not a grift because there is at least 1 instance of a non-grifting event in Ω. Even Kenneth Copeland _sometimes_ is right about _something_, can we say that objectively he's not a liar because _there was at least 1 instance of him telling the truth_? I think not.
Also, you people use this word, "nazi", but do you actually know what are Nazis? German National-Socialists. Even the name "NAZI" is taken from German language. So if you ask me "what is wrong with disliking nazis", yet you use some artificial and historically wrong definition of a nazi, then I'm telling you that the problem is with you people using "nazis" for others who disagrees with you. I probably am a Nazi in someone's eyes, because I'm opposed to trans-women participating in women's sports. In reality, my grandfather fought with the actual nazis which existed in real world, not in your imagination.
> Thus, if you want to create an inclusive community, you have no choice but to exclude certain groups of people.
Yeah, this is how I understand it as well. People want easy inclusivity, a mono-themed style of thinking, and diversity only within their own strictly defined boundaries. I interpret this as a contradiction and a lie: diversity among selected groups is not true diversity, and inclusivity limited to chosen pools is not genuine inclusivity. For me there is absolutely no difference between this and a situation where whites stick to whites, blacks stick to blacks, etc.
If something is marked as "LGBTQ+ friendly" then I'm all fine -- it's very understandable and I know what I'm dealing with. But if something is "inclusive" then I automatically know I'm not in the target audience, because the sole definition of "include" is already loaded. The language already contains words with different meanings. For me this means "we're so closed, we even use our own definition of 'inclusion' to not think about the outside world".
You seem quite passionate about this, which I find difficult to understand, maybe because I’m not as deeply immersed in American political culture as you (I had no idea people see BLM as an organisation rather than a movement / ethical stance) but I’m curious: Is it really just about language for you?
If the section was phrased as “We are LGBTQ+ friendly and do not tolerate transphobia or racism” that would feel more welcoming to you?
At the end of the day, it’s a programming language community. If you join and ask a question about how to call functions from Erlang, you’ll definitely get an answer. If you join and bring up your feelings about trans women in sports you’ll most likely be asked to stop or removed, as it’s just not a space where that kind of discussion is welcome.
But why should it be?
It's not American, it's global. I'm not American, yet I'm judged by the these political culture quirks. The creator of Gleam is not American, he's from UK. Trans-movements aren't American, they're in my country too, and I'm interested somewhat in the politics of my own country. Also parent posts differentiated between BLM and BLM-GN, where one is a "movement", and the other one is supposedly a marxist organization, so I guess there's a difference too.
> Is it really just about language for you?
No. I mean, I'm not a murderer. I'm not a thief. I only do to others what I want others to do to me. I don't want to be treated differently because of my race or my gender, therefore I don't want to treat others differently because of those things. Yet, I actually am treated differently because of it; and it's mostly by those people who "fight racism" and "fight transphobia". Who are virtue signalling left and right how tolerant they are. How inclusive they are. When a black director says "I'll never hire a white main actor" then it's OK. But when I point out he said it, then I'm a racist -- this is how it works today. So:
> If the section was phrased as “We are LGBTQ+ friendly and do not tolerate transphobia or racism” that would feel more welcoming to you?
No, because it's too easy to frame my views as transphobic or racist, like I've written in my previous paragraph. And this is the language part. Using "master" branch in git today is a manifestation of racism. People fork "rubocop" projects because it has a "cop" in the name; and they want to defund the police. I think that police is needed because without it the law wouldn't exist? Then I'm a nazi. When I'm asking questions about whether someone's wheels were spinning during sudden acceleration, I'm being called an ICE-lover.
You might see me being passionate, but I'm merely a product of current political polarity.
> If you join and bring up your feelings about trans women in sports you’ll most likely be asked to stop or removed, as it’s just not a space where that kind of discussion is welcome. But why should it be?
No, I will be removed only when I say that it's not OK. I will be upvoted when I'll say that it's OK. But more generally, that's a good question, but I don't know the answer, ask Ipil, he sees the necessity. I do think that there's no reason why it should be a place for discussion of trans-rights and racism and I wouldn't want to discuss it there (not even here to be honest). So why it's being manifested on the main page, before the language tour and before the newsletter, since it's clearly not a place for these topics?
I used 'Nazi' in reference to the series of tweets about a polite Nazi. (Forgive the Reddit link) https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw...
Take it to mean a literal straight out of 1942 National Socialist if you like, it doesn't change what I was trying to convey.
If you want a historical comparison to BLM, how about the suffragettes. I can guarantee that there were grifters looking to make money off the movement, which would be a subset of it, but I think it's quite fair to say the suffragettes were objectively not grifters.
I would also say that Christianity is objectively not a grift, despite the fact that there are many grifters within the faith. If the core ideas of a movement are spread by people that truly believe in them, and are not controlled by any individual, then how exactly could it qualify as a grift?
Legitimately, I don't understand how a decentralised set of ideas could be a grift. Do you have any examples?
"Diversity only within their own strictly defined boundaries" is exactly right, but you don't seem to understand that those boundaries are what let's diversity thrive. Without rules against bigotry, LGBTQ+ people are far less able to express themselves due to the increased scrutiny from people that refuse to accept them.
When there are people in a community that denegrate others for being themselves it creates a toxic environment where being different makes you a target, so everyone either falls in line or leaves.