AlaricD wrote:

So, an eye towards social justice automatically makes you a bad programmer?

$0.02: the problem here is not with the concept itself, or with how it relates to a person's supposed skillz. The problem is that "social justice" (which properly belongs in scare quotes, since its typical proponents don't approach it from any sense of 'justice' as adults would define it) is today's Last Refuge of the Scoundrel. Just like "religion" was in olden times, and "patriotism" after that: the popular, correct viewpoint to have, guaranteed to push the emotional buttons of the broadest cross-section of your peers and put them on "your side".

The mentioned scoundrel uses this to gain personal power over others, to elevate adherence to The Agenda above any relevant skill or merit, to demonize those who disagree as "terrible human beings", and thereby to shut them down and force them out. This has the same effect on software development teams as it does on any other type of human interaction. Epic fails ensue.

Or being a terrible human being automatically makes you a good programmer?

...Yup, like that. 🤣

Well... The problem with some SJW's, are that they think that they can solve all problems in the world. By forcing people to think, act and talk, the exact way that those SJW's personally view the world. Luckily they are few, yet they are there, out in the world. The problem with them, is that they have gone fanatic, and you can not have a decent conversation with them, as they do not have an interrest in communication. And that is a shame, as people might learn something and get an understanding of why we are all different.

Why would they have an interest in conversation if you call them warriors?

If it's really a shame people aren't learning about and understanding each other, why have you given up on it and resorted to grouping people you don't like as enemy combatants?

I don't think the term 'social justice warrior' was originally coined for pejorative use; quite the contrary. At least that's what the Wikipedia article on the subject states...

If that's a reply to me, I did not say anything about whether or not it was pejorative. Just that it's a term that in no way invites meaningful conversation.

My comment was a reference of it, not an invite of "meaningful conversation" about sjwism, the topic of the comment being that it's as troublesome as dealing with dependencies, but linux will survive it, that things will get interesting in the linux sphere when projects are routed around the sjwism bug. BTW, this is already touching the world of DOSBox, the sidestepping of sjwism taken place: https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x/bl … E_OF_CONDUCT.md Love it.

awgamer wrote:

My comment was a reference of it, not an invite of "meaningful conversation" about sjwism

I was talking to brostenen about the contradiction in his post, not you.

There isn't a contradiction in his post, many sjws call themselves sjws, which breaks your assertion. Your "the only reason to say sjw is to invoke flamewars" simply isn't true.

awgamer wrote:

My comment was a reference of it, not an invite of "meaningful conversation" about sjwism, the topic of the comment being that it's as troublesome as dealing with dependencies, but linux will survive it, that things will get interesting in the linux sphere when projects are routed around the sjwism bug. BTW, this is already touching the world of DOSBox, the sidestepping of sjwism taken place: https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x/bl … E_OF_CONDUCT.md Love it.

hahahahaha...
on seriously note though, thank f*ck.

ZellSF wrote:

Why would they have an interest in conversation if you call them warriors?

If it's really a shame people aren't learning about and understanding each other, why have you given up on it and resorted to grouping people you don't like as enemy combatants?

I am giving up on them because:

They say they want equality, yet will not accept stuff like: Either military draft for both female and male, or no draft at all.

They say equality, yet thinks that any child daycare worker with a penis, are automatically a pedophile, and need to be investigated.

They say equality, and I say fine, then why are males painted as dumb Neanderthals in every TV-advertising and females are considered superior beings.

They say they want equality, then why are they against giving males full rights in regards to maternity leave, when males are in school? As an example. I was finishing my education as a web programmer at the age of 38-something, and I was told that I could apply for 14 days, yet it was not certain that I was granted anything. A female can just walk into the school's office and take one year leave. She is automatically granted that.

They say that there have to be 50/50 males and females in every job type, and will not discuss the fact that it is better to hire the best people and not just because of the ratio between genders at the workforce.

Those are just few examples, that hardcore SJW's will not talk about. I am not talking about those that fight for children's rights in a normal and decent way. I am talking about those that see males as nothing else than a supply or commodity to help a woman get pregnant.

To me sjw isn't interesting and nothing to discuss with them, what's of interest is the reaction by projects, how it's dealt with, overcome, how the take overs and subversions are conquered. Should be handled on the same level as dealing with microsoft's embrace and extend, other open source hostile take overs. It will be interesting to see the solutions and failures.

awgamer wrote:

There isn't a contradiction in his post, many sjws call themselves sjws, which breaks your assertion. Your "the only reason to say sjw is to invoke flamewars" simply isn't true.

That doesn't break my assertion at all. People who refer to themselves as warriors, do so because they want to fight. People who claim the people they oppose are warriors want to fight.

brostenen wrote:

I am giving up on them because:

So you want them to learn and understand why you're different, but you've given up on doing the same for them? It doesn't work that way.

Someone who claims to want decent conversation and who claims to want to understand and learn, needs to understand this.

Yes it does. I oppose it, I don't care to discuss it with them.

Rich country problems

Errius wrote:

Rich country problems

Our economic prosperity will be the end of our social coherence at some point...

Use whatever operating system you're most comfortable with. Duh. 😀

I've used MacOS (pre-OS X), OS X, Linux for over 10 years and Windows for over 25 years and meh! They all have their pros and cons. 😀

Admittedly, I'm the odd one out; I was an Apple fanboy for almost 15 years before little nitpicky things finally pushed me to switch to (of all things) Windows 8. At work, I'd been using and supporting Windows since Windows for Workgroups, but Windows 8 being what I jumped to at home would probably raise some eyebrows. 😀

At the end of the day though, I use what I have to when I have to, and what I want to otherwise. It's highly unlikely that me listing my pros and cons of all of these OSes is going to be a eureka moment for anyone and make them switch, just like people ranting and raving about different operating systems isn't going to make me jump ship either.

Just be happy we're discussing OSes and not how we're going to find a meal this week.