Soapbox is developed by a massive TERF, boyfriend/husband to the founder, and co-founder of the transphobic, radical "feminist" hate-platform spinster.xyz. This is where all the TERFs migrated after the reddit ban of /r/gendercritical, /r/LGBdroptheT, ...
I think in this case, it's really hard to separate the product from the person, since it's all over the place; he's at the core of organized transphobia, harassment and hate.
In the age of J.K. Rowling being called TERF could probably majority of population be called TERFs, I see such labels no longer useful. And unless you subscribe to notions such as guilt by association, ancestral sin and similar I don't know how is conduct of developer's spouse relevant.
I feel like the case you're trying to make that JK is a "normal" person and therefore her views are common. This isn't an instance where someone who happens to hold an unorthodox opinion is caught by people trying to apply labels to her. She isn't getting caught up in the fight between feminists and the broader cultural push for trans acceptance. She's been on the front lines of this fight for years and years. It just happens that one, people are starting to actually care about trans people and two, JK decided to start venting more publicly on the largest outrage machine on the internet.
Very few people are TERFs. It's a relatively uncommon set of beliefs which are separate from the kinds of views that might get you called transphobic.
Unlike J.K. Rowling (I only know about a few dramas, maybe there were some that I missed) this person is an actual TERF. He basically says that because a trans person once molested a girl then all transgender people are bad, along with all the other usual TERF arguments. See https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/ for his opinions.
Although I personally do not think that the authors personality/opinions/etc should be considered when selecting software so I denounce 488643689's post. I would understand boycotting a paid product if the company producing it was engaged in unethical behaviour (such as abusing their employees, etc) but this is not close to what is happening here.
I actually checked out r/GenderCritical just before it got banned -- and it's nothing like what you describe it as. I only found mature, good faith discussions regarding the trans issue.
Let's share some more information, then. Alex is also an atheist and the kind of annoying vegan advocate. I am a Christian Orthodox and I roll my eyes every time I see him talking about any of his soybean-dirt-based meals or the typical shallow sophomore religion-bashing post. Should I just interact with those that are exactly like me?
> Is this the cancel culture apocalypse the right is talking about?
Asking people to not separate the product from the person, and think that the guy does not deserve any praise for his work because of some association with people that disagree with you? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about.
Trying to label everyone that holds an opposing view as "hateful" without absolutely no room for dialog? Yes, that's cancel culture that (not just) the right is talking about.
> it's not ethics anymore?
Does Soapbox come with some kind of clause that says you need to share their views to use their code? Is the product itself exclusionary in any way? Then no, ethics have nothing to do with it.
> Asking people to not separate the product from the person
Sorry, but why should i separate the product from the person?
I'm not boycotting lactalys because their product are bad, they are quite good in fact, but he way the brand owner used to treat his employees, and the way they still treat milk producers irks me. I don't want to contribute to a person fortune if i don't like him or his way of treating people.
Should i buy some Nestlé product for convenience when i know that people gaining the most of the deal are not even apologetic about the contaminated water scandals? When they knew about African water and still sold mothers powder milk?
I quite like some of their other product, i just don't want to give them my money.
It is the same for this soapbox product, no?
I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad? Also there is room for dialog, i've talk quite extensively with a sodastream ambassador. Still won't ever buy their products, but we did talk.
I’m going to be downvoted to oblivion, but I couldn’t care less.
From my point of view (Western Europe) this whole “cancel culture” thing is demented and stupid, and I’m probably as liberal as they come.
Why? Well, let me provide an illustration: what was Carl Benz’s opinion on, oh I don’t know... homosexuality or transexuality? I’m guessing blindly that it was probably very restrictive and ‘unenlightened’ by our own “modern standards”. He’s the inventor of the internal combustion engine... how many people are willing to give up their cars because their inventor’s views were ideologically impure? Louis Pasteur was probably also a bigot by modern standards too: are we going to wipe the slate of hygiene theory clean because of this?
People are imperfect. In the eyes of those who will come later we too will be imperfect. Let’s be charitable towards those who despite different political views and values nonetheless collaborate in this great technological and cultural enterprise that is the sum total of human knowledge and capabilities.
None of us have are the golden standard. Koan-like, those who might think they are the final word in morality aren’t, because they lack humility and also empathy with the circumstances that inform others’ views.
This really have nothing to do with this. My father is boycotting products since the 80s (being born in jerusalem in 68 and having links with orphanage sisters living the Israeli/palestine war from the "poor" side probably have something to do with it).
In his case not about cancelling israel, its about not engaging with them economically.
But this is not only that. This is a generation thing. You (and i say "you" as in: older generations) told us that if we don't agree, we have to vote with our wallet.
Not happy about climate change? Vote with your wallet then, are you still using cars and planes hypocrites?
You're not happy about how we treat pigs and cows? How about you stop eating meat and vote with your wallet? (this one was delightful. Never heard this again since 2010).
Younger people probably had it harder than i did, and i did start to boycott things early in my life when the inconvenience was not to high. Just to piss you off. I did never coordinate though or ask people to boycott something with me. I'm not the social kind of guy. But i understand why people my generation would do that. You told us to vote with our wallet, that this is the only power we have. Don't be astonished when we use it.
OK, I’ll happily grant you that you’ve made a compelling case. I still think there’s a significant difference between “cancel culture” (which I deplore) and boycotting/“voting with your wallet” (which I support), but I can’t quite put my finger on it so it’s entirely possible that I’m holding an untenable position. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.
Absolutely not the same. His work was not achieved due to exploitation of anyone. His personal views do not change the usage of the product and do not mandate any kind of compliance or agreement to any of his values. You want to put someone who simply expresses a contrarian view on the same stand as someone who actively exploits their employees?
> I don't care if it is cancelled tbh, i just don't want the people behind the product to get my money, is this bad?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...
Yes, pretty bad. This is the seed of totalitarianism that is planted in most progressives minds and speeches. You just don't think is bad because you are not in the out-group yet.
An open source project is different then like a chair or something. Part of the value of open source is the community around it. You can contribute to the code and ask around for support, but that requires associating or at least potentially associating with the creator.
If that creator is someone you don't want to associate with then why not just find a different project to use?
(This is already getting tiring, so forgive me for the flippant answer)
I don't want to associate with Richard Stallman (even before his stupid comments regarding pedophilia), yet I use Emacs every single day of my life. If you tell me that Emacs itself only came to existence due to any of Stallman's ridiculous statements or if you tell me that my usage of Emacs enables Stallman in any way to be the asswipe that he is, then I would seriously consider dropping it.
> but it's not something that anyone takes seriously
I do, and so do a lot of other people. His arguments were tolerant and made perfectly fine sense.
> Stallman's views on people who use platforms like Facebook or tools like Photoshop, namely that they deserve whatever abuse they receive for being too stupid or lazy to become programmers and sysadmins so they can use FSF products instead
More importantly, I agree with parent that expressing views is something else than actively exploiting someone or using violence. Words != violence. Tolerance is being able to co-exist, work with and even be friends with people we disagree with. And, yes, that include people we think are intolerant (or that will be the excuse not to do the hard thing and engage in debate).
Open debate is a good thing, and it was hard won. Let's not throw it away so quickly.
Spinster.xyz is build on Soapbox and _run by Alex Gleason. It's hosting a community, which was banned from reddit for actively harassing and willfully hurting trans people. That's actions not words. Maybe people underestimate how organized and funded these hate groups are, how coordinated and planned the gaslighting of the public is. It's also not just "feminism" but more and more intersection with ultra right and "christian" conservative thinktanks.
Just because you are not directly affected doesn't mean it's all just opinions and words, and nobody gets hurt.
Are you saying they're beating people up? Or stalking them? Because, if not, it absolutely is "just" words! And if they do, that's illegal. I'm not in the US, but it seems to me like your laws, for the most part, strike good balance in these types of scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you would disagree?
I'm not saying it's nice, or good, or that they're moral. I'm saying that the "fix" many people (maybe not you) are advocating usually leads to much darker things than people having their feelings hurt by words[1]. We know this because many societies have gone down that path before us.
1: OK, that sounds flippant, I know. But I think many people underestimate the horribly things people have done, and still do, to each other..
Open debate is certainly nice but sadly both Alex and the spinster.xyz administration and users prefer offer troll responses and insult people behind their backs rather than engage in discussion.
> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist...
Thank you for this. I understand your view better like this.
This is my point of view:
I use my money and my time however i want. No one should feel entitled enough tell me if i am allowed to boycott a product.
This is why i don't think it is cancelling and that you are doing the term a disservice:
Neither i nor 488643689 did say "don't use and/or participate with this product, he is transphobe". 488643689 just informed me, and others, of the product owner views on trans people, and that he cofounded spinster.xyz (which is a TERF platform).
Our society and economy is build on the myth of homo economicus. That people will take the best decision for them with the right informations. Having this information without haviong to dig in makes everyone stronger and able to make better decision.
Preventing someone to do business with perfectly informed economic actor is totalitarism. But informing people about the personnal deed of a product owner, not shaming them if they still engage with him, is something you should absolutely do if you believe in liberal capitalism.
Invoking the ghost of Martin Niemoller to complain about people not wanting to do business with somebody who publicly espouses views they find abhorrent is a hell of a swerve.
An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it?
(If that's what TERFs ~actually~ want I don't have the time or nerve to debate, but wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief)
> An annoying diet is a bit different from "hey this segment of people should just not exist", isn't it?
It is this constant mis-representation of opposing views that make these kind of discussions so unbearable. I've wasted already, what?, an hour and a half arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. No wonder things are so polarized. Instead of trying to reach for common ground, the default behavior is to distort the argument, dehumanize the other and to try to "beat" the opponent into submission.
> wherever you draw the line, it's still a very different category of belief
You only mentioned the part about being Vegan, but I trust that you are smart enough to look at the part where I mentioned religious differences and figure out where I would draw the line? Hint: atheists can deny my beliefs all they want; what they think of me or my religion makes absolutely zero difference in my life.
Soapbox is developed by a massive TERF, boyfriend/husband to the founder, and co-founder of the transphobic, radical "feminist" hate-platform spinster.xyz. This is where all the TERFs migrated after the reddit ban of /r/gendercritical, /r/LGBdroptheT, ...
I think in this case, it's really hard to separate the product from the person, since it's all over the place; he's at the core of organized transphobia, harassment and hate.