TL;DR;
Hyperbole and "black and white" thinking aren't a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.
I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.
That's....certainly....one of the takes of all time.
I'm personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i'll highlight an important part for you as well.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
I personally wouldn't attribute "open to rational argument" and "kept in check by public opinion" as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that's just me.
Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.
A good example of a single person making a difference.
I'm genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn't vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,
Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.
it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
A few things:
"Just decide" implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.
Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?
It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that's a broad generalisation for no citation.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
That's an extreme amount of projection.
Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you've specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.
and further down :
self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.
If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I'm sure it's an interesting story.
Self-righteous, like "nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct" ?
Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.
It feels that way because you've set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn't allow for perspectives that don't align.
If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.
Example of nuance.
"A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I'm choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the 'saveable' bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions."
True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.
Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.
I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.
Fair enough, i don't agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i'm not sure it matters.
Assuming his stance wasn't antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that's an entirely different argument.
He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.
Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.
Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn't, is a common bad faith tactic.
Perhaps that isn't what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that's what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.
Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.
Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = "people don't like the truth".
Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.
That you weren't actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )
There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.
Agreed.
Oh it’s definitely a right-wing thing but I wouldn’t exactly blame Trump for all of it. He even got booed at his own rally for telling people to get vaccinated.
In a context where you know this was after a relatively long period of him not doing that.
It's disingenuous to the point of bad faith to present that as a bolstering remark (with no context until someone called you on it) to reduce accountability.
This reply was also in response to someone using masks and vaccines as conversation points, you responded to this by citing an event out of context and completely ignoring the mention of masks.
Downvotes simply mean people don’t like what I’m saying - not that it’s wrong
Also incorrect, they can dislike what you are saying and it can also be wrong, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Given the quality of your other responses i'd assume you know this (though i could be incorrect), so presenting it as a fact is either an oversight or intentional.
It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.
As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.
But what are you using for sources here ?
Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.
Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.
I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.
From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to "decouple" it from google search.
If that's the case it's a dumb move if it's the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.
It even says that in the article.
It would be interesting to see how they'd deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.
They'd struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting...well..everyone.
TL;DR;
They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.
One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.
A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).
Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it's worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.
Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn't.
Now, developers/businesses have a choice.
- A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
- B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
- C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.
In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.
A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this "just so happens" to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.
They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can't use the most effective adblockers.
Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.
There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.
IIRC there was a film as well, i don't remember how much of the story was covered though.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314063/
I also can't vouch for quality.
Sure, as i said, i don't disagree with that.
What does that argument have to do with whether or not people should assigned some responsibility for how they voted (or didn't) ?
Yes everyone understands all that. But are you saying we people that vote blue should keep trying the same failing tactics?
No, but if your tactic changes haven't been implemented by the time voting comes around and the choice remains "nazi's vs not nazi's" then you should be voting "not nazi's".
"The Dems continue to fuck up repeatedly, so i can understand why people chose nazi this time" isn't a tenable argument.
I'm not disagreeing with your disappointment in, well, everything.
I'm disagreeing with this part of your previous reply
Anyone else other than literally Nazie’s (aka Trump, JD, the majority of RNC members and leaders, and some of their voters), shouldn’t be blamed.
If a person understands that the choice is nazi vs not nazi and then actively chooses to not vote, they are tacitly choosing nazi.
"If i vote for the not-nazi's, they won't understand how disappointed in them i am" is not a good argument.
"Their policies don't align with what i want" is not a good argument
"They don't represent my values" is not a good argument
There is no good beginning half to the sentence "< INSERT REASON HERE >, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's"
Except maybe, "I genuinely believe the alternative is worse, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's".
Even then i'd probably disagree, but it would be a substantive argument.
If you don’t have xyz why should I vote for you?
because in an effectively two party system where neither party has xyz you should definitely vote for the party that also aren't nazi's ?
The degree of closeness to your ideal of progressive policies doesn't mean shit when the choice is nazi's vs not nazi's.
Unless you are arguing that those weren't the choices available here ?
Ah, so it's a mutual block but initiated from one side.
Thanks.
Is...that not what's supposed to happen?
I don't have any other socials so I'm not too up on what the standards are.
Self Hosted SCM & CI/CD Chicken and Egg
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/12701628
> Struggling with a problem that i just can't seem to figure out. > > When starting from scratch self hosting both the SCM and CI/CD server. > > Given that you can't use an existing setup to deploy/manage it, what is the best practice for deploying said services?
Self Hosted SCM & CI/CD Chicken and Egg
Struggling with a problem that i just can't seem to figure out.
When starting from scratch self hosting both the SCM and CI/CD server.
Given that you can't use an existing setup to deploy/manage it, what is the best practice for deploying said services?