Interesting. That’s the difference between the cooperative movement and the syndicalist; democratic decision at the industrial level allow some leverage against capitalists and not self-exploitation

So much disdain, and yet so little argument. Did I say we should mute and not argue with intolerant people ? No, I was precise, and you did not :

If we would tolerate intolerant people, we would expose segregate people to even more segregation

“Freedom of speech”, “intolerant”, “rationality”, … you are repeating terms that mean nothing without concrete situation. Segregated people are muted by their oppressor; so long for the freedom of speech, and the rationality. If people wants to speak to nazis and de-radicalized them, good luck to them. The point was to not make others have to be around those nazi because a WASP want to de-radicalized them; doing so will just make a community more nazi, and less queer or racialized.

Ideas are not disembodied, their are link to people; without a social diversity, their is no diversity of opinion. Again, the post was about communities.

Ecologically ? Yes; with phalcon you could use low level execution

yep, I do agree. But their is some example of it’s just using code or exe and people refuse to do so because dev are shit

No it’s not. Becoming tolerant to intolerance is intolerance and cowardly. It’s called Paradox of tolerance

If we would tolerate intolerant people, we would expose segregate people to even more segregation. However, ban their communities and using their code is not the same thing. If pirating video game make by shitty person is okay, why not looting FOSS production ?

I agree as a PERL programmer ; definitely a bad opinion

PHP is the best web language, not because it’s a good language, but because the other are worst

this picture is the same picture

Firefighter, nurse, social care, domestic work, teaching, childcare is done underpay or freely. Those job are the basic of society, and is not done because of “selfish turds”. However they are some, and they do have the half of global wealth. So taking everything to them and giving back to everyone is one way

A harmful ideology is not the same, and nothing close of what we are talking about.

Everyone have stupid believes, but not everyone is mocked. You cannot expect others to change their mind if you do not try yourself to consider what need is fulfill by this believe. As pointed in another comment, astrology is a way to make emotional connection with others. But one may have other reason we could not discover if we do no take their need and point of view seriously.

This is a critical approach, and how we made science. Disdain produce ignorance and social domination.

And even if one refuse to get medical assistance because of this believe (which is not in the core believe of astrology), you have more chance to convince that person after that honest investigation.

Mocking believes of others and surprised that other don’t want to be nearby. If you thin you have to disrespect everything your disbelieve, you are not that rational thinking person you think you are

Community classics you run : 0 Edgy of edginess

Why struggling of giving the right to live decently, why we could defend the right to kill each other ?

Debian allow killing machine to use it, so it’s not a surprise that thirsty machine are allowed too

I do agree. Maybe I’m little paranoid, but I feel like in some years, recycle old chips will be the only IT available

Definitely unionized, but in a revolutionary union. Those people have a very positive mindset

I work in a self-organized tech coop that we made by ourselves, and I do agree with your. This is a lot of concern to deal with unstable future, and it’s prevent ourselves to be active with others; some people left for stability, and reduce stress.

We are unionize too; and we think about modifying our rules to give the final word to union.

Kite is non-binary, so screw them

pacifism <> anti-militarist <> non-violence

However depending on how you define those, you may recognize in each one. If we rely on a legal definition, militarism and war are only link to states. Armed force without state are not an army, and armed conflicts no declared by states are not war. Dumb lex, sed lex

For exemple, in this definition revolution is not a war, so pacifist could took part in armed force independent from states. That explain why their is a pacifist tradition in communism … except when those revolution succeed … well you should leave that armed force that became an army and refuse conscription.

This debate occurred recently through the essay “How Nonviolence Protects the State”, which address the non-violence and/or pacifism as exploiters : if you don’t want to use violence, other will have to The essay do not get rid of the ideal of non-violence, only what individual position do to people that could not choose.

Now their is an Elephant in the room : police. A violent armed force, acting for a state but without a declaration of war. So from our first definition, we could be a pacifist and let the cops do the exact same thing that an army.