Anybody who didn’t know, didn’t want to know. The information is out there for anybody to find.
-
-
Replying to @tedneward @john_codeinaire and
that is a fair assessment, but is it how humans work in general? If that would be the case we wouldn't have the US govt fighting against fake facts/news published on social media skewing public opinions etc. All the facts are always there, right, and so far it didn't help.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @2xb @tedneward and
my point is -- assuming malicious intent of someone who asks both sides to sit down and talk is wrong. A good intention turned into a mess and this happens. Is this a reason to ban from conferences? I do not think so.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @2xb @tedneward and
I don't believe anyone was assuming malicious intent. Not that I can tell. It's the assumption that someone who was abused wants to sit down with their abuser to have a "civil convo". For HIM it's good in intentioned but if he just stop and thought for a moment he'd see it's...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @john_codeinaire @2xb and
Completely inappropriate and inconsiderate. No mediation was required. The abuser needs to stop being an abuser and take immediate steps to remedy the situation. Then he, Charles, continues to support the abuser. Now, I can see how peeps may believe malicious intent from that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @john_codeinaire @tedneward and
Apologies, but I will ignore the "abuser" part. Now, for the sake of the argument, let's say it was inappropriate and inconsiderate. Should this be the reason to ban someone from any conference? I never heard of anyone being punished for being inappropriate or inconsiderate.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @2xb @john_codeinaire and
I do not recall
@linuxfoundation banning Linus Torvalds for insulting people, being insensitive, inappropriate or inconsiderate. He, like everyone else in the US, enjoyed the 1st amendment and rightfully so.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @2xb @john_codeinaire and
He should have been. First Amendment argument is a red herring. It means the government cannot jail me for calling you an asshole; it does not protect me from your angry response and Twitter block that follows.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tedneward @john_codeinaire and
1) Red herring? You don't see double standards at all here? 2) I would just have to deal with you calling me an asshole; or I can go on twitter, call you "abuser", make a scene, ban you from all conferences and call your employer and tell him that you should be fired.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @2xb @tedneward and
You could call my argument a red herring if I would use it to misleading or as a diversion. While I use it to point out an actual issue. So far, out of 2 of us, I was the one who brought arguments outside of "making others feel bad" and a bunch of ifs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not really, no, but that’s OK. This is pretty clearly turning into a pointless discussion so you do you, bro. Cheers.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.