Recent searches
Search options
@lunduke @Codeberg The #Codeberg article starts off talking about "far-right forces", but ends with "the fight against right-wing forces".
So are you fighting against just the far/extreme-right, or anyone on the right side of the political spectrum?
Not all right-wing supporters are evil and need to be "fought". Not all of them post horrible things online or spam/troll people. Some just have different views to those on the left, so I hope they're not on the receiving end of your "fight".
@normplum
We have learned that nuances between far-right and right-wing differ a lot between culture and country. However, one thing is clear: We won't tolerate discrimination of any kind. And most arguments I have read today that say "right-wing is an acceptable position" argue for parties that are involved in discrimination of trans humans and immigrants, and spread an idea of women from the terrible past.
It doesn't matter how it is called. It's clear what we don't want.
~f
@lunduke
> It doesn't matter how it is called. It's clear what we don't want.
> We won't tolerate discrimination of any kind.
So why does your blog post say "Far-right forces endanger free/libre software projects", labeling a group of people who may or may not be involved, instead of just naming the issue itself, e.g. "Discrimination endangers free/libre software projects"?
I'd hate for your blog post to risk being guilty of the very discrimination you're trying to fight against...
@Codeberg @normplum You’ve indeed made it clear that you condemn discrimination and far-right ideology, and I’m glad for that! But you’ve made it unclear whether your political involvement ends there, or if you also take a problem with other, less universally reprehensible political stances. 
Unlike ‘far-right extremism’, which is generally understood to favour discrimination, ‘right’ has like dozens of nuanced interpretations in practice, some of which concern primarily economical views and do not entail discrimination in any way. By using this term, you beg the question which of the many possible interpretations you were going for. You’ve evidently left some of us feeling uncertain how we should be reading that, so it does in fact matter how you call it if you want to be understood by everyone. 
You could very easily clear up this confusion by clarifying your blog post (by always referring specifically to the ‘far right’) and answering our questions by saying something like: ‘yes, “right” in the sense of “less taxes” and not “white male supremacy” is fine with us’. This simple step would in no way bring into question your support of the targeted groups, nor your stance on racism, sexism, transphobia or antisemitism; it would only help us who identify with that stance, but not necessarily other stuff one might attribute to the left-right distinction. By not taking it, I think you’re not helping anyone and are only creating division among your (potential) users where it doesn’t need to be at all. :gutkato_malĝojeta: @lunduke @squirrel
@tirifto
Controversial opinions are tolerated here, even if less taxes probably rather help large companies including our worst competitors instead of free/libre software projects.
However, hate and discrimination is not an opinion. The rise of far-right forces has lead to some previous right-wing forces to participate. From blaming social issues on immigrants to delaying action on climatecrisis, we disapprove of any action that makes the world a worse place due to selfish interest.
@squirrel
@Codeberg … ‘any action that makes the world a worse place due to selfish interest’ also reads like an incredibly malleable/opaque statement. (Said as someone who agrees with the sentiment.) 
In any case, I hold on to my main complaint being that, regardless of any trends and projections, the current international use of ‘right-wing’ in the world does not allow for interchangeable use with ‘far-right’, and such use should be avoided when speaking to a diverse, worldwide audience. Detailing your position with unrelated terms helps, but does not address the core issue; I don’t think you can do that unless you stop using the dubious term or directly and explicitly clarify how you’re using it. 
[…] you are free to join right-wing political movements, but you might not be welcome here if these promote hate and discrimination.
I think this is the closest you came to clearly dissociating the terms, that is acknowledging the possibility of them not necessarily overlapping. This really ought to be reflected in the blog post, though, not hidden in a pile of replies. Assuming you wish to communicate in a clear and transparent manner, that just… seems like a no-brainer to me. @squirrel
> And most arguments I have read today that say "right-wing is an acceptable position" argue for parties that are involved in discrimination of trans humans and immigrants, and spread an idea of women from the terrible past.
This is a bit silly because it is the fashion of the day for left wing parties to be involved in discrimination of women.
@normplum @lunduke
re: https://peister.org/objects/33c4076a-fc3c-41f8-89d1-872c5f4799db "This is a bit silly because it is the fashion of the day for left wing parties to be involved in discrimination of women." (adding the reply in full in anticipation of being blocked)