Posts like this always remind me of Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless". You are completely misunderstanding the original purpose behind the CoC. Here's the relevant part:
"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."
Havel was writing about life under Soviet occupation. The open source project CoC does not come from a party official who demands you post it in your shop window (public repo.)
It comes from people who believe shitty behavior hurts projects and needs to stop.
>distribute the corruption, which remains constant
Why do you think the corruption would remain constant? When you have more centers of power, each tiny oligarchy is fighting for their piece of the pie. If they don't do something unethical, some other group might outcompete them. Meanwhile if you have more concentrated power, those in charge can think long term and won't be immediately threatened by the competition.
> The researchers used microphones to record healthy and stressed tomato and tobacco plants, first in a soundproofed acoustic chamber and then in a noisier greenhouse environment. They stressed the plants via two methods: by not watering them for several days and by cutting their stems. After recording the plants, the researchers trained a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between unstressed plants, thirsty plants, and cut plants.
This is interesting but obviously very different from the suffering that animals are experiencing.
This is why all the smart Russians are leaving Russia to go study at the Chinese Harvard. This is why they're all getting their news from the Chinese internet and why they're dependent on the Chinese military for protection and can't domestically produce weapons. If they refuse a request, China will bomb their gas pipelines or finance a revolution. Oh wait, I was thinking of a different empire.
What about the other ones? How would the US react if some foreign power was funding NGOs in their country with the goal of overthrowing the government? Btw I'm from Serbia where this has happened in the 90s and is now happening again.
"Finance a revolution"... as if Russian or Ukrainian people are bots who can't desire freedom and non corrupt governments.
Yes many Russians send kids to study in China now, I know some of those Russians.
No most Russians don't speak Chinese but yes they get news from official media which is China aligned. Remember using VPN to work around censorship or telling people about using VPN is now illegal in Russia.
And Russia does not refuse China like UK does not refuse US... China does not need to threaten to blow anything up. Brics currency for example would be a disaster for Russia and good for China but Putin will dance to Xi's pipe because he has no other friends left.
>as if Russian or Ukrainian people are bots who can't desire freedom and non corrupt governments.
Even with all the propaganda and force being used (and there is a lot of force, search for videos of how Ukrainians are being conscripted), I am certain that the vast majority of Ukrainians would vote against Zelensky and would be highly motivated to end the war. Whether such decisions should be left to the people is another question, but it's not even true to say that Ukrainian government represents the people anymore, which is why they refuse to hold elections.
>No most Russians don't speak Chinese but yes they get news from official media which is China aligned
China owns Chinese media. Russia owns Russian media. US allies don't own their media. USAID was funding 90% of Ukrainian media [0]. Don't you think this can be a problem in situations where interests of the two countries don't align? Was this war good for the Ukraine?
> but it's not even true to say that Ukrainian government represents the people anymore, which is why they refuse to hold elections.
As Ukrainian I strongly disagree. Ukrainian government do plan to have elections as soon as any ceasefire is negotiated. Also the idea to even talk about election is _very_ unpopular, to the point of any politician who tries to start political discussions is being ostracised heavily by people of all political spectrum. It is understood that any disagreement (and elections is based on discussing all the disagreements), will weaken the army, so you cannot have that during the war.
And we do have this discussion very often, since as soon as US make another promise to stop the war in the next 24 hour (as it did in November, December, January, etc...), some politicians decide that it is finally a time to start off their election campaign and get hated on by really everyone immediately.
I didn't vote for Zelensky and will not vote in the future, but he is indeed _VERY_ popular. The whole discussion about how he is a dictator and afraid of the election really pisses people off.
Fair enough, elections could really cause political instability. Would you be in favor of a referendum, simply asking Ukrainian people if they want to continue fighting or accept peace under whatever conditions are offered by Russia and the US?
Russia made their conditions very clear multiple times from the start of the war and never changed them a bit. People overwhelmingly continue to answer them every single day.
Russia said it wanted the UN involved so it could veto all the things via the security council. Russia lies and brraks contracts , you can not make deals with a rabid wulf.
What's the alternative, fight until the last Ukrainian? And we can't even have a referendum there, to make sure this is what Ukrainian people really want?
Once you start torturing somebody to make them do what you want, it is important to pause sometimes and ask if that's what they really want to continue hurting, or are they finally going to do/say what you want now. Every psycho knows that. You have goals, you are a busy man. after all you hate torture, you just have to do it to achieve your goals because some people don't want to bend to you voluntarily for some reason...
Of course Ukrainian people don't want it. Who would ever want it?
But you're asking the wrong people. Ukrainians don't have a choice. Someone who HAS a choice is one guy who sent troops to start it and since then continuously costs lives on both sides (and now also North Korean and Chinese lives too). He can stop at any time and he's not the one defending his home. So if you are so concerned about Ukrainians your alternative is to make that motherfucker go away forever. Hold a referendum, assassinate him, idk. You have my blessing.
Why not? What in the life of an average Ukrainian will change if he is ruled by a bureaucrat from Moscow instead of a bureaucrat from Washington? Let's say that he prefers a bureaucrat from Washington. Does he prefer him so much that he's willing to die for this? In an ideal world Ukrainian people would have sovereignty, but this is not the world we live in. By refusing to accept this, we're pushing them to commit national suicide.
> What in the life of an average Ukrainian will change if he is ruled by a bureaucrat from Moscow instead of a bureaucrat from Washington
"ruled by" shows you are a russian troll. A democratic government serves the citizens. You're "ruled by" if you're in a country like russia. Ukrainians had their chosen government.
> By refusing to accept this
By posing like somebody from the west you are trying to get them to internalize as if they have no choice, but they do have a choice as per my other comment. Putler has a choice every day whether to continue or not, and west has a choice whether to stop him. It's Ukrainians who don't have a choice but to stop him.
I don't think I need to engage further, it's pretty obvious and you are not saying anything I haven't heard before.
They don't hold elections because it's a war outside.
> China owns Chinese media. Russia owns Russian media.
And china owns russia.
> USAID was funding 90% of Ukrainian media [0].
Good stuff, it still should.
> Don't you think this can be a problem in situations where interests of the two countries don't align?
Why? Funding is money. Funding of free press is supporting a democracy. For comparison Russia instead of funding press funded hired guns and separatists.
One of those "two countries" is a corrupt to the core gas stop. Any country whose interests align with it is going the same way. Ukraine is better than that.
> Was this war good for the Ukraine?
What war? Surely you should say "special military operation" comrade?
Why "was"? The war is ongoing. Russia can't win in.
Wars are bad and that's why people starting wars should eat shit.
I would love to know in what way have you determined that the Ukraine is less corrupt than Russia.
>Funding of free press is supporting a democracy
It's not really "free" if they depend on foreign donations. Do you believe that those donations come with no strings attached? If the Ukrainian "free press" disagreed with the party line, would they still receive money? Or would they be banned, like the opposition parties that opposed Zelensky?
>Wars are bad and that's why people starting wars should eat shit.
In the real world, this is not how things work. The loser always pays the price. The longer the war goes on, the more Russia will ask for in reparations. If the war continues for a few more years, and the Ukraine loses more land and people, will this be better for them? Can they at least have a referendum, to make sure this is what Ukrainians really want?
> the Ukrainian "free press" disagreed with the party line, would they still receive money?
Absolutely. And they would receive Russian money too. But some things are more important than money
> The loser always pays the price
Exactly. That's why who started the war must be ensured to be the loser. It was the case with Hitler (except sadly his Russian friends got off easily), it is the case with Putler. He must pay.
> If the war continues for a few more years, and the Ukraine loses more land and people, will this be better for them
Absolutely not. So Russia has to lose this war fast, for the sake of free world and Ukrainians whom you worry about so much. And we all know how to do it.
>Also, while polls say Ukrainians want peace, the part that is not reported says the majority of Ukrainians does not want to give up land for peace.
I find this hard to believe. Do you think it would be fair to confirm it via a referendum? That way all the political instability of elections could be avoided, but we could still make sure that it's what Ukrainians really want.
I haven't followed Gumroad much, but I remember them being very pro freedom and having some interesting hiring practices. IIRC they were all being paid equally (based on position and hours of work) and had no meetings. Now I see a Code of Conduct.
The two are incompatible. You're either hiring based on race, gender, sexual identity etc. or based on merit. Firing people who got hired because of racist and sexist DEI practices increases merit.
This is the reasoning of a young child. How do you even define merit? Nobody, except maybe high level athletes are hired on what can be considered merit alone. To do so, you would have to remove people from the process altogether. Those who hire new talent have to evaluate more than pure results. Maybe they have to chose between two people, one is a rockstar with the results to show for it, but not a team player and puts themself first. the other is solid and dependable, better at mentoring, but with more modest results. Its not a given who will be hired in this case.
Sure, there was never a perfect meritocracy. I believe we should move towards a more meritocratic society and hiring based on gender and race goes against that.
I don’t think you fully understand what DEI means and what organisations do to improve in that regard. For instance, masking name (sometimes a good proxy for race) and gender in candidate assessments is a DEI measure and increases representation of marginalised groups. Did you know telescope time for minorities improved when reviewers couldn’t see the name of the scientist in the proposal? That’s DEI.
DEI means to work in removing biases that limit access of minorities to opportunities. When it works, being a white male doesn’t get confused with merit, as it usually is. Lots of people think this is discrimination, because their group isn’t being hired as much as before when, in fact, it’s just the removal of discrimination against others.
I've never understood "fat acceptance". Is your view that having more fat people in the media will help other fat people fell better about themselves? I have sympathy for them and understand that for some people it can be very difficult to lose weight, but I don't see how "fat acceptance" is going to help them. Especially given that on some level they must know how others really feel about it. It's interesting to see how these types of initiatives always produce the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
> I don't see how "fat acceptance" is going to help them
Did it occur to you to ask them what they want?
> Especially given that on some level they must know how others really feel about it.
It's not healthy to assign your self-value based on other people's opinions.
> It's interesting to see how these types of initiatives always produce the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
[Citation Needed]
On a more serious note, mental health is a very serious issue with women who feel they need to be thin to be fiscally healthy or attractive to others. Girls should never go through this.
"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."