bill_mon

This is getting off topic. Stating facts about the world is not discriminating. As an employer, I can choose not to hire stupid people.

The UN humans rights are not law in the USA. The first amendment says that the government can't make laws about religion. In the USA, people are free to have whatever religion they want, which is great.

Pointing out that all available research points to some religious claim being wrong is not harassment.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. You can be religious without any gods. An atheist can be religious.

Treading carefully is probably our best bet, but it's very difficult and error prone.

There are no militant atheists, in any reasonable sense of the word. If mentioning facts about the world is seen as criticism of religious people, that's a big problem. We know vaccines work, because our best research shows that. It's not controversial and we should be free to mention it. Huge parts of many religious text are factually incorrect, we know that from enormous amounts of research -- this is also not controversial and we should be free to talk about it.

> Isn't that just a really wide-spanning opinion though? Maybe we're using the word differently and mean the same?

In that case everything is opinion and we have no real knowledge of anything.

Thanks!

I can agree. But this means that we can never talk about anything other than specific, technical issues at work. We can never reveal any opinion or outside fact about anything. I suppose that's a solution.

In this scenario, our guy wouldn't accept that others might believe differently, because he'd never know, because they never say. Fine by me.

> being wrong (i.e., of a different opinion than you)

That's not what wrong means. Opinions are personal and subjective and can't be wrong or right. Religious ideas a not opinions, they are fact claims about the universe.

> So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion.

Yes, I knew all along that "toxic" means "dangerous". When we're not talking about eg. plutonium, we at least borrow the seriousness of that use. It's a very strong word.

> [...] his actions are to call people stupid over their religious beliefs.

I think it's a stretch to call speaking an action. Hitting religious people would be an action, calling them out really isn't.

Stallman is apparently not the most agreeable person, and possibly he's been nasty and hostile. Some people have chosen not to work with him, others have worked a lot with him. He's not killed anybody, he's not made of plutonium, there's no danger.

> what makes you think so?

Because that's how language works. You don't call somebody a neanderthal to imply he has great hair.

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business.

When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning.

I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

Now you're inventing more personality for Mr X. He doesn't like Microsoft and doesn't hide it. He thinks Santa Claus is for children and doesn't hide it. He's not the problem here.

Toxic means dangerous.

> Take Mr. X, who is outraged by Microsoft's behavior and refuses to buy Microsoft's products, tells other people about his problems with Microsoft, and tells everyone to use FOSS alternatives? Now, Mr. X also thinks that it's stupid to believe in god, and is not afraid to say it to everyone he meets. He's suddenly changed from "FOSS advocate" to "toxic workplace on legs".

What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensible points of view and you think Mr. X is dangerous to be around?

> How do you respectful tell someone you think they are mistaken?

How about "you're mistaken"?

The problem is with "You don't know what you're talking about, but I do, so let me answer your real question".

Good points.

I'm not so sure benefit of the doubt must be earned. More like, any participant in a discussion forum must show it when answering, and do proper research before asking anything. If all questions are good questions, there's no problem. But, as you say, they really aren't. I think poor question should be down voted with a brief explanation instead of trying to answer the "real" question. Or moved to a Frame challenge forum.

Are we trying to answer the question or to solve the problem?

I disagree, I see it as saying "you don't know what you really want, but I can read your mind". It's disrespectful and not giving the benefit of the doubt.

This article is hidden behind a cookie wall, pressing "Agree and Continue" does nothing.

Edit: tried opening in firejail and enableing javascript, this gave some kind of infinite loop reloading the page over and over.

I find both to be correct.

> Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word.

If my intent is irrelevant, why bring it up?

And this is exactly what we're talking about: Is using the wrong word bad in itself, or does there need to be some intent? Can we determine intent objectively? Fairly? Does intent matter? What is a wrong word? Who decides? What consequences do taboo words have for society?

You can't just claim "Your intent is irrelevant ... when you use the wrong word." when that's the entire question.

Your ex colleague thinks people should grow thicker skin. You think we should police language. I don't see that your idea is very developed and it certainly doesn't work very well right now.

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do.

But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.

> I’m saying that the word carries intent.

No, you're saying that you know the intent.

> Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it?

We can construct any bar we'd like.

You seem to completely dismiss concern for the bar being too low, why is that? Lots of people might feel sort of offended by women showing their hair -- should we accept that bar?

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish.

How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true.

You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is?

Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

There are conflicting reports about every little thing.

I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing.

Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.

If remote viewing was possible, why are we not seeing the results?

That's me thinking, like you asked for. On the other hand, I don't see any actual evidence from you. Do you have any?

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. Wikipedia also tells me that "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues."

I'm not really qualified to read through CIA papers. People who are seem to not agree with you.

If remote viewing works, wouldn't all major companies have departments full of viewers spying on competitors?

I'll note that the James Randi prize has not been won.

My reading skills may be lacking here, but are you claiming that remote viewing works?

Because most devices can't be updated? Supporting version 4+ gives you a much larger audience than limiting to version 7+.

Thanks, that's good. Thank you for providing this work.

I still find the terms very vague. For example:

- Who's morals? - What exactly "spoils the image of..."? - Illegal in what jurisdiction? - Do I not redistribute the icons if I put them on a web site?

The "terms of use" make it impossible to count on these for serious work. One day the author may find your use of them inappropriate.

He held out for a limited time in history, he end his empire is gone. Western civilization rules much of the world today, though not all.