You're behaving in the very definition of the term, no matter how much people might dislike its over-application, and how it's almost applied to anything one does online - you'll excuse my generalization about as easily as you'll accept the term, I'm sure.
You're behaving as if you know what's best for resources you don't even own, nor operate yourself. Why not just let Valve and Github work out policies between each other.
Your knee-jerk is the very essence of vigilantism, albeit online social justice: hence whiteknight. You might not like the pejorative, but it fits perfectly for the action.
Maybe think before you speak? Not everyone needs an activist. Valve and GitHub are big boys, they can fight with eachother - though by the sounds of it they're not fighting at all.
I don't think my actions are as significant as you make them out to be.
> You're behaving as if you know what's best for resources you don't even own, nor operate yourself.
I don't know best — so I file an issue to start the question. This is how you start discussions. An issue/bug report does not always mean "this is a software bug, fix it now!"
> Your knee-jerk is the very essence of vigilantism
Really? Vigilantism is filing a github issue? Lollerskates. I see things that go against my intuition, I file bugs, this is how you make software better. Sometimes the bug reports are invalid shrug. My intuition is usually good. Sorry it was wrong in this case.
> Maybe think before you speak?
This phrase gets thrown around a lot but only when talking to other people. What makes you think that I didn't think before I wrote that? Or that somehow your snide suggestion is more likely to convince me to "think more" before I file future bugs than Github and Valve's professional responses ("we're cool with this, closing")?
> Not everyone needs an activist.
I still think you're making out filing a two-sentence GH issue as waaaaaay more involved or significant than it really is. I'm not a Github activist. I just write code.
Tumblr isnt real life. Its more likely people will stop being offended by things once they realize it's the weakest form of argument and serves no purpose other than to be used as an argumentative social trump card and non-sequitor: to reduce credibility from one person and move authority to another.
Being offended about anything is the weakest form of argument. You're upset this person does not subscribe to your binary world-view in that particular post.
Perhaps this person felt they didn't want to pick a side because they wanted to avoid the flame war.
It's just a stupid online forum, where the arguments are meaningless and the points don't matter; have little affect or influence in the real-world can have little to no value, other than the smug satisfaction one obtains from patronizing another person into the fetal position with their oh-so-superior logic an rational skills.
Congratulations, you now have 1000 internet points. Spend them wisely, son; don't let people see your real power levels.
you're worried about an eventuality, right? Are you more concerned the extinction will be at the hand of humans themselves, or nature? This species hasn't been around very much, but the Sun is eventually going to die. Some spectacular even between now and then could also do it.... so, there are far better things to think about: it's the equivalent of worrying about your own death: that's bound to happen too.
That's subjective. Many programmers would probably have a difficult time even understanding what git is, much less how to use it. Once you get over that hump, sure, the basics are fine, make repo, add files, branch, push. Anything beyond that suddenly becomes arcane magic.
it only affects people in government, and doesn't affect your household. If you work for the government, and don't like it move out.
it's a simple social contract. If you don't like what the government is doing, or what the citizens and government value more than your religious convictions, move somewhere else.
Can you edit/modify/respond to my post in a way that shows that choosing to limit what certain people who work in the government wear is not racist?
I don't want to start a flame war, but want to understand your opinion, which I honestly don't understand. The only way to have meaningful political dialogue is to understand each other.
Keep spinning it that way, if you'd like. But the people who are (for example) Muslim or Sikh in Quebec tend to not be white. The Jewish population is another matter, but the Quebec nationalists have it in for them, too, and that goes back decades.
Why don't you leave Canada, go live in Arizona or Utah.
Have you read the Charter of Rights of Freedom, you know that law the entire country including Quebec is suppose to follow. I mean your to busy undermining the values of the country so you can have your own crappy value system. Why don't you people go live somewhere else like France where this sorta thing is so popular and productive.
Doesn't seem like the rest of Canada agrees with you. And I'd argue letting Quebec do whatever the fuck they want is the reason this is an issue in the first place.
I have read the charter, yes. have you? Do you forget that the religious freedoms part is mean that neither the citizens nor government dictate what religions to follow or practice. What Quebec is trying to change is how the government dictates how the government may represent itself, that is as secular. It still does not affect you personally, or how you identify yourself publicly at all; unless you work in government, but why would you want to work for the government? Doesn't pay well and is shit.
I don't think you understand cognitive dissonance at all. Do you presume to know how all of Canada feels? Perhaps the majority of people nearest you do share the same thoughts on the subject, and that you don't feel it's right. Just because someone happens to offer a different viewpoint than you, and you happen to disagree with it, doesn't mean that I have cognitive dissonance. I'm more than capable of accepting new ideas. This idea in particular is different than the one I grew up with and I happen to see value it in.
You clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I don't care what people practice, or how they are in their own homes or out in public. I don't feel untoward or speak ill of anyone who is religious or wants to wear things they consider to be part of whatever it is they consider to be their identity. What I do think is fair is that anyone representing government not display their beliefs. It's not fair that quebec has made distinctions between what is acceptable and not. Nothing should be worn by individuals. It doesn't matter nor does it help to perform your job. If you work somewhere, it'll most likely have a dress code. Consider this an extension of that.
I don't mind that many canadians feel this is a violation of the charter; maybe they should be thinking about what they value more: how government represents and polices itself or social identity. This has nothing to do with how the government treats citizens. Yes, citizens make up the government; but guess what - you're not representing segments and races: you're representing canada.
But isn't canada made up of many races? Am I seriously suggesting people not represent things they cannot change, which is skin colour or whatnot. no. but what are you really trying to accomplish in government? represent canada or whatever background you happened to be born into without choice.
you don't like my thoughts since it doesn't fit your ideal and initial world view: that's cognitive dissonance. I can accept people for who they are, and I really don't care about this issue as much as it may seem, despite replying to your bait and various others. At the end of the day, Quebec isn't going to get what they want, and canada is going to keep on rolling; you'll have your way, and I won't care what Quebec's decision is.
Still want me to leave? I bet you'd relish the thought. I'll stick around long enough to challenge your views though. enjoy.
You're behaving in the very definition of the term, no matter how much people might dislike its over-application, and how it's almost applied to anything one does online - you'll excuse my generalization about as easily as you'll accept the term, I'm sure.
You're behaving as if you know what's best for resources you don't even own, nor operate yourself. Why not just let Valve and Github work out policies between each other.
Your knee-jerk is the very essence of vigilantism, albeit online social justice: hence whiteknight. You might not like the pejorative, but it fits perfectly for the action.
Maybe think before you speak? Not everyone needs an activist. Valve and GitHub are big boys, they can fight with eachother - though by the sounds of it they're not fighting at all.