throwawayacc2
Oh no, no, no. This is a lie and a mischaracterisation. No one, and I mean no one, has a problem with “young non-white non-male” people being encouraged to participate.
As for “allowed”, you know all too well this is plain bs. There is nothing disallowing “non-white non-male” people from participating.
Here, let me lay out for you just one of the insane diatribes this foundation puts forth:
> The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
Questions for you:
1. Do you agree this is a racist diatribe?
2. Why is the above not worded like this, and instead makes racial references?
> The Wikimedia Foundation defines equity as shifting away from region centric attitudes, attitudes of supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of a multitude of people.
3. Do you agree saying something like “jewish media” is equivalent to saying “white supremacy”? Not all jewish people are involved in the media. Not all white peoples are supremacist. Using phrases such as “jewish media” increases hate towards jewish people. Using phrases such as “white supremacy” increases hate towards white peoples. Do you agree both outcomes are equally bad?
4. Do you agree “create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide” is an exclusionary and racist statement? Furthermore it can be construed to be a call to genocide as it implies people that are “not of color” are either not welcome or perhaps not around anymore.
5. Do you agree “people of color” is it’s self an eurocentric term, the very thing the foundation claims to want to shift away from?
Unlike what you are implying, people broadly speaking have no issues with “non white non male” people participating in society or anything else. What they have a problem is double standards, blatant racism, hypocrisy and nonsensical self-contradictory ideas. Or, you know, woke insanity.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
Using the term “white supremacy” is equivalent to using the term “jewish media”.
Both are racist dog whistles aimed at painting a large group of people with the same broad brush and increase hate towards them.
Not all jewish people are involved with the media, not all white people are supremacist.
If you consider one of those two phrases harmful you must consider the other one as well.
Furthermore, “create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide” - Are “people of color” the only voice whose experience must be reflected? What happened to the other people? Are they not welcome? Perhaps are they no longer around? I would argue this statement is a call to genocide.
And while we are on the topic of “people of color”. What are they exactly? Can you define a people of colour for me please? Also, isn’t this term, you know, Eurocentric? The very thing they aim to “shift away” from?
Does any of this make sense to you?
Would you donate money to an organisation with a blatantly racist statement such as this?
This is the insane things people tend to file under “extreme left wing”. And I suspect you know this, but just want to pretend it ain’t so.
Neo liberal society in a nutshell. And people wonder why authoritarian regimes and attitudes are getting more and more traction in the so called free west.
You can say whatever you want as long as you do as you are told.
Actually not even this is true for quite a while.
The following is a direct quote from one of the “foundations” they sponsor.
> The Wikimedia Foundation defines racial equity as shifting away from Eurocentricity, White-male-imperialist-patriarchal supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
I want to contrast this to what happened recently to Kanye West when he mentioned jewish media.
The immediate response to “jewish media” was “there is no such thing”, problems in the industry are due to individuals and saying “jewish media” is dangerous because it pains an entire group with a broad brush.
Why is no one’s response to this blatantly racist diatribe the exact same?
Why is it wrong to say “jewish media” but ok and acceptable to say “white supremacy”?
Not all jews are involved with the media and not all media-involved jews are malevolent. Likewise, not all white people are supremacist.
Why is one ok but not the other?
I have even seen, in mainstream outlets, “jewish media” being called a “call to genocide”. Why is that a call to genocide but not “reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide” - What happen to the white peoples? Is the sentence implying they are no longer welcome, perhaps no longer around ?
Why isn’t their statement:
The Wikimedia Foundation defines equity as shifting away from region centric attitudes, attitudes of supremacy, superiority, power and privilege to create an environment that is inclusive and reflects the experiences of a multitude of people.
I refuse to give money to racists, especially ones attempting to opress a global minority.
We need as a society to make a choice. Either all racism is unacceptable or none is. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t in the same breath say “jewish media is an anti semitic term” and follow that up with “dismantle white supremacy”. You can’t proclaim “black lives matter” and harp on someone saying “white lives matter”. You can’t claim to strive towards equity and say “reflects the experiences of communities of color worldwide”. It needs to reflect everyone’s experience.
Nothing good will come of racist policies like the ones supported by this “foundation”.
I genuinely don’t understand why people feel the need to shove their ideology down peoples throat every chance they get.
I’m with the guy you responded too, making a billionaire lose money is way funnier and interesting.
But even in a normal company, I never really understood this loyalty/ethics thing.
To me, it makes sense to do the very, very bear minimum and “steal” as much time as possible. So you can use it for your self.
A job is you selling time to someone else. It’s simply incomprehensible to me someone would willingly give extra of their time. Equally not attempted to claw back as much as their time as possible.
I suppose there’s an element of game theory, there are points in time where it’s worth to go that extra mile to achieve something that will put you in a better position, but those are the exceptions not the rule.
Not judging you, I’m glad people like you are out there. My life is better due to people like you and I am thankful for that. But, yeah, I guess I’m just fascinated at the differences in outlook.
Asking honestly, why?
I am genuinely curious to understand the reasoning behind this line of thinking.
But that’s just me. Other people are harmed way more! Maybe you can wave away my ad inducted anxiety but can you wave away people with epilepsy? Can you wave away people with ADHD? Can you wave away people with accessibility needs? Can you wave away people unwillingly outed as lgbt by the ads they are served? Can you wave away predatory ads? Can you wave away “making the world worse” through ad enabled miss information?
As for lettuce I am allergic to it. I will literally die if I don’t remove it.
Your move.
Here’s something that sprang to mind.
A slaver to his slave: Your attempts at achieving freedom are undermining a business model that is letting a lot of people enjoy cheap clothing, and that would be selfishly making the world worse.
What’s your thoughts on that one? Genuinely curious.
The way I see it, I’m not “making the world worse”. Waving away the can of worms opened by the notion of “making the world better/worse”, I genuinely cannot understand how refusing to consume something makes me selfish.
I’m not selfish for removing lettuce from my burger and I’m not selfish for removing ads. The problem is not with me. The problem is with the business model.
People not liking something drives innovation. Instead of doubling down on something that is not working and telling people “stop being a bad person and consume the ad” perhaps the business should find an alternative way of monetising.
There is a burger place.
The burger place offers free burgers.
They are able to do this because Big Lettuce pays the burger place to put lettuce in their burger.
When I go and get a burger from the free burger place, what I do is I remove the lettuce from my burger. I just don’t like it.
I made no agreement with the burger place to eat lettuce.
They assume I will. They try to convince me to. They might even try to make the lettuce hard to remove from the burger.
But what has not happened, unlike you are implying, is an agreement that I will consume the lettuce.
I’m not going to stop going to the free burger place. I really like free burgers. And I won’t stop removing lettuce from my burger either. I deeply dislike lettuce.
So, instead of telling me to stop going to the free burger shop because I like removing lettuce, how about you tell the shop to stop giving away free lettuce?
If people really like their burgers, they will pay for them.
If their burgers aren’t really that good and people consume them just because they’re free, maybe the burger place should go out of business.
Sweden wasn’t “the lone member state that did the right thing” and the illegal immigrants were not “dumped on Sweden”. Sweden made a very bad choice opening up to what is very clearly a criminal cohort going out of its way to abuse welfare.
And the same goes for Germany. Even more so because their incompetent leadership invited the entire middle east to Europe.
If you really wanted to “help out” and “be humanitarian” Sweden and the rest of the EU should have established safe zones in Africa. And end what is essentially a ferry service from Africa to Europe. Migrants go on dingy inflatable boats 5 miles of the coast, issue an SOS and get transported to the EU. If this isn’t incentivising illegal migration, I don’t know what is.
You can’t expect to conduct a policy of ethnic replacement which is what Swedens policy has been for the last few decades and don’t get resentment from the native population. You reap what you sow. The only good news is, the tide is turning.
> We’ve been investigating this case for the past 24 hours, and it's not straightforward. I can’t share more publicly here, but we’re in touch directly with OP.
Can you lay out your version of the events please and give written permission for the Strip guy to lay out his version as well?
Curious to see how the two line up.
Not only was Uber protested against, in some places successfully, but there were pro Uber protests as well.
Also as a somewhat funny anecdote, it wasn’t a protest as you describe, with people on the street but my aunt told me how a few years back there was an upgrade for the OS at the place she worked at. We’re talking completely non technical boomers having to switch from Windows 98 to Windows 7 or something like that. They were pissed! They were arguing with the boss about it, complaining non stop, saying how they don’t understand anything anymore and pretty much did an informal go slow for a few months.
* Long march through the institutions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_insti...
I think the police should be allowed to arrest this man. A DA might decide to file this new mental health charge against him. Assuming the crazy person doesn't accept the plea deal he would be offered, voluntary commitment in a mental health facility, this goes to trial. If the trial finds the defendant guilty of being insane, he is forcefully commited to said mental health facilty.
Are there issues? Sure. Is it somewhat ok because it's done via due process? Maybe. Is it better then letting potentially violent crazies in desperate need of mental health treatment run loose? Absolutely.
Changing the time seems silly. I can think of better solutions just at the top of my head.
1. Instead of changing the time ( God, what an arrogant concept this is ) why not change your schedule/working hours.
2. Instead of changing the time or working hours, just keep going as it is. We have artificial lights we don’t really solely on the sun, and in most places it’s not like lights are not used anyway.
3. But people want some sunlight. Well they don’t get it anyways in the north and they get it anyways in the south. Daylight saving is only partially effective around the 45th degree parallel. So, how about give people a midday break, make them go outside, touch grass. Productivity might actually increase.
I think people can come up with better reasons and ideas if they ponder more then the half minute I spent while offering a sacrifice to the porcelain god.
Honestly, I don’t get this mindset.
When you see someone doing better than you, why is your first thought “I must put him down” instead of “I want to learn this too”.
In matters like this, it’s best to actually look at how both sides present the issue.
Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents.
If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
> If no keywords were triggered for misinformation, and none of the eyeballs on that post marked it as misinformation or offensive
Keywords? Who decides the keywords? What are you going to do when normal words get a coded meaning. Remember “milk” and the “ok” sign. 4chan is going to have a field day with this! What about the ((( echos ))). You gonna write a regex for potential use of non letter characters?
Marked as misinformation. What, you’re going to ask the ministry of truth for input? Do you think this will achieve anything except build an echo chamber and increase division? The same for offensive. What’s going to happen when all posts by trans people are marked as offensive? Or that doesn’t count cause you’re ok with it. Should we establish a Ministry of Morality, perhaps with a morality police like the saudis to tell us what’s offensive and what’s not?
Everything you wrote is, I don’t even know how to call it. It’s evil. It’s evil, that’s what it is. You have though up an evil system whose only outcome will be oppression, division and resentment.
Yes! This is precisely what should be the standard. Everything that is not explicitly illegal is legal and protected. No corporation should prohibit legal things.
And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.
As I said in a different thread, we have laws preventing businesses from discriminating. We do not allow shops to put up “no blacks here” signs. Why do we allow infrastructure providers from doing essentially the same thing?
Censorship, of any kind from anyone, government or corporation is an abomination that must be stamped out. We cannot have a civilised society as long as censorship is accepted.
Bruv …
Honestly I can’t tell if you’re for real or no. You already did that! California. People robbing stores in broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I need to say anything about that third world enclave? Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over!
What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!