I support teaching all kids what it takes to exist, regardless of gender.
I just popped in to say that back in the long ago, in my family, only so much help cleaning up was tolerated from men-folk before they were exiled to football on TV so the women could sit at the kitchen table and talk.
Trying to assist in cooking was nearly impossible by anyone who wasn't my grandmother or the aunts that had been cleared for assistance.
I was taught to cook and clean by these same people, but it was clear that at big family meals like Thanksgiving that most of us were in the way if we tried to assist.
I guess what I'm saying is, for sure teach everyone all of it, but big meals might not be the best time. (depending on size of family and a variety of other factors).
If people communicating in a public space are of differing opinions regarding a topic, and all can claim truthfully to have reflected thoughtfully, and understood the complexities of the topic, then disagreements about the topic can still be communicated gracefully to one another. If left unpersuaded, they can agree to disagree and part peacefully. The act of the discourse is valuable even in disagreement, either to re-enforce ones own convictions or to soften a stance when presented with new information.
I'm fairly confident that the OP isn't referring to discourse and debate but rather comments or posts that unnerved them. I suspect the comments were some shade of anti-social, ignorant, or violent from their perception. I'm speculating on the specifics, as I'm working from the same post you saw.
If you want to talk about objective and subjective thresholds of truth vs. fact and determination of what is considered valid, I'm not sure this is the right place. The OP seemed to be concerned at the prevalence of concerning rhetoric online, at least, that's what I took from it. A broader philosophical discussion might be better served in it's own post/comments.
I'm curious about the tone of your reply. My perception is it seemed combative and contrarian, though I can't be sure that you intended it that way. Your comments seemed to be directed at me specifically rather than at the ideas only. Am I misinterpreting your meaning?
If the OP had a mechanism to opt-in to aggregated comments, rather than individual community comments, there could be an identifying notice that the comments of that post were being "hosted" in whichever community on whichever instance and were governed by their rules. Essentially, commenters would be guests in that forum and be expected to comport themselves accordingly. I don't think it needs to be complicated for mod teams.
Consolidation is one of the things the fediverse tries to mitigate. I see your point, but federated services need some amount of redundancy and autonomy for the whole thing to work.
In order to be civil, thoughtful, and graceful, a person needs to reflect and understand complexity. The platforms of the internet incentivise the opposite. Extremity is louder than resonability so it floats to the top of the discourse.
Additionally, seeing 100, 1,000 or 10,000 people on a platform, from around the world, express shocking or anti-social viewpoints represents an infinitely small sub section of the population. A group that includes provacateurs, bots, nation-state actors, and wing-nuts.
The real trouble comes from others who aren't taking time to reflect, who see this content every day and begin to believe that it must be valid because they keep seeing it. Slowly they twist and adopt pieces of rhetoric because there isn't enough of a counter balance of opposing views sharing the same weight in their feeds.
She and her fellows were featured quite a bit in "The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism" written by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
The original idea was that the "trick" was the default (some type of mischief or vandalism) but the costumed (annonymous) tricksters would give the person a chance to be spared by offering a "treat" instead.
Source first” is a new licensing standard that we will be using to describe some of our software.
Source first software will:
* Allow users to see the source code of all of our software.
* Ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it.
*Ensure that our software is not limited to use by a particular organization.
* Demand that any client we release that requires a server, also releases the server
software under principles as free as the client software.
* Avoid the integration of crypto scams.
* Reject “the customer is the product” as a business model.
* Most crucially however, source first software will not force programmers to let
others, especially the tech oligopoly, profit from their work for free.
I disagree with your conclusion. It seems they're trying to do something new that addresses some of the issues with developers not being compensated for their work.
If you believe that the open source community is healthy and not in need of change, i understand why you might not trust anyone trying to upset such an important foundational part of the software ecosystem. I think they are trying to thread the needle of having accessible open source but in a manner that large companies cant build their fortunes off of, while those that built and maintain key parts of the corps codebase aren't compensated for their efforts.
I don't fault anyone for being weary of outfits using an established term like, 'open source' in a way that doesn't conform to how most of us understand it. I'm glad people complained so Futo had to address it. But I dont feel like they're shady as much as i think think they made a bad call and were made to adjust and clarify their position.
If you're anywhere near PDX,
Free Geek