They're not very specific and quite open to interpretation. As a left leaner here in Norway, I find at least the last two to be quite problematic and a huge red flag. They make me feel significantly less welcome.
Trans rights are not well defined (ie what do the Gleam team put under that umbrella), and I've seen several statements in that context that I find problematic at best.
And they say "No nazi bullsh*t", which to me is a very loose phrasing with avtivist vibes, meaning I get unsure what exactly they put under the Nazi banner. Is it just actual Nazis or anyone they don't like, or something inbetween?
trans rights are incredibly well defined, actually. they’re human rights. trans people deserve the same rights as every other human. idk what “problematic statements” you’ve heard but it sounds like you need to listen to less ben shapiro. saying you’ve heard “several” without providing any examples sounds like you just don’t like trans people.
I think it’s safe to assume that when a community claims to contain “no nazi bullshit”, they mean that it contains no nazis or their associated bullshit. if you’re worried that that includes you or people you sympathize with, ask yourself “_why_?”, because it makes a lot of sense to everyone in the quite active gleam community.
I mean you say they’re well defined but your own explanation is a vague generalization. I don’t think any decent & rational person wants to deprive trans people of basic human rights, but that doesn’t mean they’re comfortable with every single demand of activists either, which is probably the actual intent of the message.
As for the “no nazi bullshit” part, this doesn’t tell me anything except that the community has some childish and unstable people who have a habit of calling everyone they disagree with a nazi. It’s not hard to be “worried that that includes you” when there are plenty of people who would call someone a nazi for just about anything or for being even slightly to the right of them on any issue.
It has very little to do with a literal interpretation of these words, which these types always hide behind because they are cowards, and everything to do with the implicit meaning given broader context.
again, I would really like to hear what the "activists" are demanding that you think is so unreasonable.
that's a lot to assume from a couple words on a website, but if you're this fun at parties we must really be missing out.
also btw, hi, it's me, the coward who wrote the prose for the website. tho it wasn't _just_ me that thought it was a good idea. it's done a terrific job of keeping "un-politic" buzz kills away.
When 'trans rights' are demanded by these activists, typically it's because they want self-proclaimed 'gender identity' to override sex in every circumstance.
This is particularly harmful to women who need female-only spaces away from any males. Any man who calls himself a woman would be able to enter any space designated solely for women, with impunity.
This has already happened in many places that have acceded to 'trans rights' activist demands. It is a political and ideological assault on women's boundaries and consent.
> trans rights are incredibly well defined, actually. they’re human rights.
Then why can't I readily find a well defined list of what they are? For reference, the human rights are fairly well defined[1].
Of course trans people should be covered by the human rights. They're human as well, so that goes without saying.
> idk what “problematic statements” you’ve heard
I don't keep an evidence folder, so to speak, so I can't provide references.
However, I think we can agree there are extremists on both ends. It's also not a well-established term, in that it's fairly recent and isn't solidified in the same way as older terms like "human rights". Thus the need to be specific when referencing it.
> it sounds like you need to listen to less ben shapiro
Never knowingly listened to (nor read) Ben Shapiro and I couldn't pick him out in a crowd. I generally don't listen to or read much political commentary.
> I think it’s safe to assume that when a community claims to contain “no nazi bullshit”, they mean that it contains no nazis or their associated bullshit.
No, that is not safe to assume at all because a lot of people misuse "nazi" to mean something very different from actual Nazis, typically someone they strongly disagree with.
It really shouldn’t be controversial to suggest that calling people nazis on the official website for your programming language is unprofessional, but here we are…
But the idea that it would even be a concern for there to be “nazi bullshit” in a programming language would require such an absurdly broad definition of nazi that i can only assume whoever wrote this would consider a large % of Americans to be Nazis. This is inherently exclusionary. The statement is bullshit. It isn’t “Friendly <3” as the heading would suggest.
Quite the opposite if you see my other comments, I think you may have misread what I said here. This statement is clearly a problem imo, its usage of political slogans makes it more of a declaration of political allegiance rather than actually being about inclusivity.
Only if you take it literally which you would only do if you were entirely ignorant of American politics or deliberately hiding behind this interpretation to pretend you aren’t actually taking about a broad % of the population
It should be safe. Still it seems some people get offended by it. What kind of people? I can only assume they are people more supportive of autocratic regimes than the rest of us.
You seem to be applying some kind of modus ponens rule to this list. To me, they read disjointly; you can agree with the status quo regarding police violence, and that trans people should not be welcomed in society, and still not follow Nazi ideology.
Thanks for the clarification. By that, do you mean that you have no issue with the exclusion of 'trans women' (i.e. men who identify as women) from female-only spaces?
