Yup core values. More often than not sticking to them come with some kind of cost.

Kudos Wikepedia. This world would be a better place if more did the same and honored their core values at whatever cost.

I mean, it's literally a fraction of a percent of their revenue stream, according to what the Wikimedia Foundation says in the threads below. It seems like a tiny sacrifice for a small benefit, to me.

Core values is just a vague concept. A lot of things considered backwards or even downright evil today used to be core values not too long and vice versa, e.g. racial segregation, LGBT, women's right, etc.

I don’t think it’s vague at all. You know as a person when something internally doesn’t sit right.

But I do agree that one’s core values are necessarily ’good’ by other’s standards but they are still core values. For example I have stopped eating at my favorite fast food restaurant because they supported(ed) BLM on their front page. I am an ALM guy because I believe that giving one color preference over another is the by definition racism. But what sticking by my guns does is it causes me to at some level evaluate that every time I choose not to eat there.

At the risk of going massively off topic and triggering a flame war, I always thought of movements like BLM in this way - “until <minority> lives matter too, then all lives clearly don’t matter”. I.e. if you support ALM you must also support <minority>LM, by definition.

EDIT: added the word “too” to clarify my meaning.

You are correct of course. In fact the whole ALM thing is just a reactionary middle finger to BLM.

ALM sounds like, but is not, a superset of BLM.

BLM opposes violence against black people. ALM doesn't oppose violence against all people - it opposes BLM.

Agree with BLM actions or not, but ALM is an whataboutism distraction, not a legitimate movement.

Incorrect.

ALM is a censure of BLM, which was a convenient nominative signpost for a rally banner that was aggregating a significant amount of violent and destructive riot activity in the name of it's cause.

You can argue that "if it was violent, it wasn't BLM doing it", but when you had the movement being used as a cover the way it was, and look at the bigger picture, it should start to crystalize.

ALM is a reminder. Yes, BLM. No one reasonanable questioned that. What chafed people, is the assertion any one group should be treated differently period. The fighters for civil rights of the last century plus fought hard for equality. There's this new push for equity which comes with extra baggage of "others should have to be subjected to exceptional treatment to compensate for historical treatment*. That is just racism, or segregationist thinking in another wrapper.

That is what ALM is a reaction to. Equal is hard. Equal requires work. Equal requires the unreaonanle among us to refuae to be pushed aside, and that's okay. Just... Be judicious with what gets enabled in the meantime, and don't provide cover/outlets for arson/robbery/vandalism/destruction of infrastructure at the same time.

Obstruct, be heard, yes. Divide, destroy, no.

All lives matter. And if someone feels like they aren't mattering, odds are, the bunch of people trying to make heads or tails of quantitative and qualitative evidence as to the claim, and information propagation is work, and takes time, and has mo guarantee of success.

It’s used to be widely accepted that all light travelled through a luminiferous aether that encompasses the entire universe.

Then we learned about special relativity. Societies learn and adapt.

Strongly disagree. Science is based on fact and whether models fits observations.

Politics and core values is more like fashion and there is no right or wrong.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem : science advance is about "is" statements, and core values are "ought" statements.

More often than not, comments such as this come across as justification for being a jerk, while other people are trying to make the world a better and more inclusive place for others. The world can’t effectively operate well without a shared sense of right and wrong.

I will point out that this comment is factually wrong.

The concept of luminiferous aether was discarded- not because of the discovery of Theory of Relativity, but becauae of the Michelson and Morley Experiment [0].

It is often joked about in High School and college Freshman Physics circles- Michelson received Nobel Prize in Physics [1] for a literally failed experiment.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

[1]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1907/summary/

Calling the M-M experiment a "failed experiment" is a bit misleading. The experiment was successful; the result was definitively negative (no aether). Previous experiments had failed to reach a conclusive result.

And what moral reasons could those possibly be for Wikipedia?

If you click the link, you'll find out :)