“you thought you did something there, didn’t you?”

  • 1 Post
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle





  • I only ever call myself things like cisgender for the sake of argument, as it is the identity I was born into and lived with for many years before realizing I was agender.

    I personally consider cisgender and cishet to be slurs solely because I’ve so largely seen it used in a derogatory context, the same way “white male” is used by certain bad actors to signal outrage

    In all reality gender, sexual preference, race, ethnicity are all our of place in most civil discussion-- the majority of the time it is brought up is in discussion of identity politics. And if what we want as a society is equality, then identity should take a back seat to humanism.

    Unfortunately, as I’m sure my comment score will no doubt soon reflect, a lot of people take issue with this notion of equality and, as I’m sure replies to my comments may end up reflecting, are ready to disagree and offer their own definitions of equality. It is therefore the duty of the reader to decide what equality means to them, unfortunately.



  • Red Hat

    No, you’re angry at IBM. When news of the IBM acquisition broke, sector veteran colleagues I’m close with moaned and groaned that IBM was sure to do something to piss everyone off again, which was apparently their habit a couple decades back. Sure enough, they could not have been more accurate in their assessment.

    Turns out IBM is three hot messes in a trenchcoat and always has been. Hence why they have already lost the Quantum wars and likely the GenAI wars as well. One AI vet I know says they’re posed to even lose the AI war altogether, which is pathetic given the groundwork provided by Watson alone.




  • But “it” is for inanimate objects

    Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

    When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

    Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

    I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.


  • Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you’re ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.

    I say this because I didn’t read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.

    I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3


  • Thank you for the civil discussion.

    Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.

    I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I’d hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.

    And for anyone who thinks I’m overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.

    If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.


  • This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

    Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.

    I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.



  • I created a GitLab account long before they implemented this, but never used it. Went to post an issue related to self-hosted GitLab on their issue tracker, and it told me my account was banned. I wrote an email to support and they essentially said “an automated system identified your account as a bot and banned you during an account clean up some years ago to cut back on malicious users”. I informed them that this was not at all reasonable, as I’ve never even posted anything on any GitLab account, and that I would be advising my organization to never pay for any GitLab product or service unless legal writes up the contract terms, because I have no faith in them as a vendor.

    Seriously, fuck GitLab. And if anyone from that org wants to discuss this with me, they can pipe their email to /dev/null