But that is my exact point, the only thing op is saying is that hate speech (along other edge cases) is protected by free speech. Which is true and doesn’t mean op agrees with it.

It could be interpreted as “you can’t touch me, I am protected by free speech”, or “remember that some seemingly innocent laws also protect some very douchy behaviors”. Which one YOU decide to interpret it is on you.

Either way, there is an interesting conversation to be had around the law, who is it there to protect, why, and what the limits should be. But instead that comment decided to say that “it doesn’t force the rest to agree with you” and claim that it makes op a racist. Just an irrelevant “feel good” argument and an ad hominem attack to shut down a conversation on a more than ever important subject.

What you interpret as me changing sides is just me agreeing with the relevant arguments you make.

You are the only one assuming my thoughts here. All I am saying since the beginning is that your argument doesn’t contradict op’s meme. It is not a false statement, I never said as such, it simply doesn’t contradict it, and using it to imply that op is racist is the issue at hand.

Freedom of speech does protect hate speech, that’s an issue with it, and it merits to be discussed. Every right comes with drawbacks, and closing the discution in favor of circlejerking is never a good idea.

On that note I’m getting tired of this discussion too, so I’ll stop there. Once again, I do not have a grudge against you or your ideas, I just hate seeing falacious arguments beeing aplauded all the time, but I guess that’s unavoidable on social medias, no matter which. Have a nice day, and ty for this conversation.

I have not backtracked on anything… My very first comment explicitly says that “It protects you against SOME consequences (then I proceed to list some as an example)”, which obviously implies that some others aren’t protected by it… I also never mentionned who would be enforcing it…

I didn’t care which consequences you thought about, and still don’t. It’s not what my comments are about. My issue with your comment is you saying that freedom of speech doesn’t protect hate speech because it doesn’t give you freedom from ALL consequences. But freedom of speech gives the same protection to hate speech as any other form of speech.

I would have the same to say if that comment was : " -Freedom of speech includes talking about minorities oppression -Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences you woke bastard " Or any other topic.

I think I would agree with you on a lot of ideas, but using fallacious arguments is never helpfull.

In a way… I admit that ALL types of free speech when used can have SOME consequences.

The issue I have with your original statement is that you put all consequences in the same basket… With that logic you can say that freedom to vote does not mean freedom from consequences, therefore you can’t complain that I try to indimidate anyone if front of the booth

Yes, there are, some fairly harmless, some much more impactfull. Getting a dislike from a comment is a consequence, although very benign. Getting boycotted or banned from a platform is another consequence, which could be quite devastating.

Except you are free from some consequences, that’s exactly why there are laws in place, to delimit what you can do without retaliation, and what you cannot.

The freedom of speech includes retaliayion from the government, but is not limited to it.

These other laws you mention are there to limit the scope of freedom of speech, because it would otherwise explicitly allow it…

What the fuck do you think it means then? Because otherwise everyone, everywhere has the freedom to do everything, but for some of them you don’t have freedom from consequences…

It does mean freedom from a lot of consequences though, like getting harassed, beaten or incarcerated, or anything else beeing covered by law. In that sense, it does cover hate speech, in all its forms, that doesn’t make op racist in any way…

In a fair fight sure, but this sneaky fucker can read inputs like those cheaty fighting games bots

I know right. Imagine the horror: you are about to eat a tasty platic bag, but you realize it’s actually a jellyfish

I don’t know about this specific building, so this is just speculation, but it looks like an old public building, something like a school, city hall, could even be a market or public bathroom. My guess is those door are new, and a way to close an otherwise open entry to a courtyard.

Verifiying the checksum of an iso takes 30 seconds… You don’t need to trust anyone

The thing is, as some other people have pointed out, the guy is not a native english speaker, and many latin based languages simply don’t have any gender neutral pronoun and make use of the neutral masculine instead. Many of these languages have seen some people propose new ways to handle pronouns to change that recently, most of which are somewhat controversial. It’s easy for a native speaker of those languages to assume the same is true in english (especially since the use of “he” as a generic neutral is, as far as I can tell, still valid, although clearly out of fashion). Once you take all of that into account, the proposed change can easily be viewed as someone trying to simply push one of those controversial ideas instead of a widely accepted generic masculine, which would clearly fall into politics in the sense of “real world beliefs and social issues irrelevant to the topic at hand”. The rest seems to simply be a pretty childish ego war between him and some mastodon users which could have been solved by either side taking 5 minutes to explain their point of view on this matter.

Now, even without this context, from what I can tell, the issue at hand was a single instance of " he" used to describe a generic anonymous user in the dev VM… Seeing that as unprofessional because it addresses someone as male by default surely is a bit of a stretch.

About that “no code for rivals”, I don’t think is as stupid as many mention. Right now when it comes to web browsers (at least ones with wide compatiblility and features), there’s only 2 choices : chromium-based and firefox. So someone trying to bring some fresh blood is welcome, and in order to avoid having the same issues as the chromium-based ones, you need to make sure you are not overly dependent of your competitor’s code. Granted, this is a pretty strict approach, but it doesn’t prevent them from using the same libraries and techs, it just means that any code written specifically for a different browser shouldn’t be copy/pasted.