Quoting: scaineWell, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

I'd go as far as adding the responsibility to actively speak and act against ongoing persecution by your peers. What we should not accept is guilt by association any more than we should recognise honour by association.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineAll I'm saying is that we all need a bit of introspection to make any real change on this. And, you know, since this won't happen as "humanity", we need CoCs.

100% agreed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AppelsinUnless there's a story one was particularly taken with, I can't really see the appeal of "replay value". Assassins Creed is likely the modern gaming industry's definition of replay value. And the 80 hour playtime boils down to lots of busywork and "open world" chores. /sigh

Hey, I happen to love exploration and open-world "busywork", as long as there's some reward for it in the form of story content, no matter how tiny the snippets. I haven't played AC, but side quests and collectibles make similar games (I assume) like Mad Max and Tomb Raider infinitely better in my opinion. But that's not replay value in the literal sense, at least not for me; I almost never actually replay these games. I just do everything I can in a single playthrough, explore every bit of the game world and never touch the game again until maybe years later when I've forgotten most of it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: tuubiWill these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from.

Sorry, I honestly don't see where Syldat has done so?

Quoting: TheSyldatYou just illustrated my previous points exactly with that very comment a knee jerk reaction that everybody have when they are told "if you're not LGBTQ then yes like it or not you're part of an overarching group that has been abuser" and somehow this is us classifying you as "an enemy" . No not an ennemy an abuser there is clear distinct difference but apparently you don't know that there is one ...

Thanks.

This relates to the point I was addressing earlier when I spoke about #metoo: you're NOT being accused of "being an abuser", you're being shown that you're part of a group which is commonly an abuser.

I still read that as him saying I'm an abuser if I'm not abused, and I don't see how you'd read it differently. You don't need to try to rationalise his prejudice.

Quoting: scaineAnd asking for leniency or distinction while still part of that group... keeps you (in a tiny way) as part of that group. Only WE (the group) can change this. This shouldn't be thrown back at the abused. Their opinion of the abuser group is utterly irrelevant too, except that it's typically used as a trigger for the abuser group to become EVEN MORE abusive.

That's kind of nonsense. I'm saying we should not automatically be judged as part of one group just because we're not part of another. There have to be shades between the extremes of black and white, or black and rainbow maybe. There are plenty of CIS-gendered people who actively work against inequality and injustice. They should clearly not be painted with the "abuser" brush. Notice that I say they, not I. This isn't "not all ____". I am not denying past or ongoing abuse and injustices.

I was a socially awkward, nerdy kid in the eighties and nineties, and naturally got bullied in school a lot. That makes me a different kind of abused (not comparable, I know, but bear with me). Does that mean everyone who wasn't bullied at school is responsible? This is another example of a cultural problem, but the problem is the culture, not every single member equally. Not everybody is guilty, but obviously everyone has the responsibility to recognize, reject, and strive to rectify those harmful elements in their cultures. And that should be enough to earn our respect. It's childish to think that not solving a problem is the same as causing it.

EDIT: I just realised I refer to Syldat with the male pronouns, but I have to admit I'm not quite clear if that's what they'd prefer. No offence intended if that's not the case. I think gendered pronouns are extremely silly and should be abolished, but that's neither here nor there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineAgain, this isn't about Syldat, but about other people's reaction. Some of these people won't change.

Will these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from. Does a gross reduction of the whole of humanity into the abusers and the abused (tribalism) somehow make things better? Because I think it does the opposite. Name calling and harmful stereotyping isn't going to stop name calling and harmful stereotyping.

Kind of ironic, frothing about "christian" values being the problem and then basically basing his argument on the concept of inherited sin. I don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire, but somehow I am responsible for the deeds of every single human being ever who has abused someone for having a different gender identity or sexual preferences just because I'm not and could not be a member of the abused.

As Eike said before, I'm responsible for my deeds, and I'll accept some appropriate responsibility for the deeds of those who I can directly influence, but that's it. I can and do make an effort to treat everyone equally, but that has to extend to holding everyone to the same standard as well. Respect has to go both ways.

Syldat is free to tell me what I'm doing wrong, and if he wants an apology for the atrocities committed upon his community throughout human history, sure I'm game (even though apologies from third parties are meaningless). The reason I stopped responding to him is that I simply don't enjoy one-sided conversations with prejudiced and judgmental people.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSyldatAgain when I say you it's an all encompassing everyone who's not LGBTQ yes you don't know what it is like and what it feels like and whether you like it or not sometimes you do and say sucky things, we're not attacking you and if you want to not be yelled at anymore then simply just stop doing what you've been told is wrong. And no I won't stop because yes it is an US versus you situation where you are part of the group that has been the abuser for millenias on end.

Okay. I was about to reply to what you wrote before this, but if you're not even talking to me, I guess it's better if I let someone who is your enemy continue this conversation. A little hint though: Unless you can start respecting people until they prove they don't deserve it, you can't hope to be treated any better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSyldat

Quoting: tuubiBeing LGBTQ (if that's the right combo of letters these days) doesn't and shouldn't afford immunity from criticism.

It ain't the case and has never been the case in founded on an abrahamic religion cultures down to the point that we legit don't know what it is to never face any criticism at all ...

I get your point, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody deserves a free pass. And I mean individuals specifically, not communities.

Quoting: TheSyldatThat's the thing that you seem to forget about . We're the children of a community that is only now gaining some respect which is cool . Problem is our oppressor isn't a mob of people , it's a mob of old ideas and old reflexes that you all have and that you never questionned .

No, I didn't forget about that and yes, I did question them obviously. If you meant "you" as in "people who are not part of our community", please be careful with that. It reeks of "us vs. them", or worse "us vs. you".

I think this is just your garden-variety fear of the different that we need to overcome as a species. Not a product of any religion or culture, but often strengthened and legitimized by them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWell, the thing is, I think there's a huge amount of controllers that are in use that are read as X360 controllers but are in fact not X360 controllers, like my Logitech Rumblepad, it's shaped like a ps2 controller, but instead of PS2 labels it has xbox labels on the buttons, and on the underside of it it has a "logitech controller" mode and "x360 controller" mode, the latter of which gives it a lot better compatibility since logitechs controller drivers are shit and not as widely supported as XINPUT.

Are you sure? My old Logitech F310 has the D/X switch, but the system correctly recognizes it as a Logitech regardless of the mode. Or it did before the controller got permanently stuck in xinput. lsusb shows "046d:c21d Logitech, Inc. F310 Gamepad [XInput Mode]". There are probably some cheap clones that do present false data, but it's hard so say how much that skews the totals.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSyldatSo again I renew do we need a CoC ? Yes my day to day life is constant testimony about how much we need one.
The one we have right now ? Fuck no that template CoC is way too vague way too exploitable and we need to adress that before somebody starts to play dumb with the wording.

I'll paraphrase my previous reply: I seriously think this CoC—despite not going to much detail—gives some definition as to what constitutes disruptive behaviour and is thus better than nothing at all.

I liked their previous "Be excellent to each other", but sadly people pick and choose who that applies to. This document makes it clear that it applies to everyone. It gives examples of abuse and harassment, but lets the people in charge (note, people in plural) use their judgment. Leeway is good in this case, because otherwise you'd need to list every possible infraction like in criminal law to plug any loopholes, and that's an endless and thankless task. We'll just have to put our trust in the integrity of the board until they prove to be lacking.

I know you're invested for obvious reasons, but please don't make this black and white. Something is definitely better than nothing, and this document does not make it harder for you or anyone else to contribute to the Linux kernel. Whatever misgivings you have about the specifics can and should be discussed in detail, but this requires diplomacy, not warfare.

Off topic: I personally know a shy, intelligent young girl with similar hormonal and genetic traits as you describe. I say similar, not same because in her case the feminine always overrode the masculine, but the cause (if that's the right word) was determined by doctors to be physiological and chemical, not psychological like slaapliedje would assume. As if that would make a difference. In any case, her personality made her dutifully try her best to be a boy with all that it entails, quite successfully it seems, but when she came of age recently, her parents allowed her to change her name and stop pretending to be what everyone in her immediate family knew she was not.

In the end, there are many reasons why someone might not fit the mould, most of them valid, and none of them any of my damn business. I'm a straight white male with poor social skills, and I might not be able to identify with someone different, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve my respect. Of course, words and actions are what determine your respectability, not your gender or sexuality. Being LGBTQ (if that's the right combo of letters these days) doesn't and shouldn't afford immunity from criticism.

Sorry, another incoherent wall of text. I should probably unsubscribe from this thread now...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI thought it would give us seamless discrete card switching, better multi-monitor, smooth window scrolling everywhere, better switching into/out of fullscreen games, less tearing, more reliability. In fact, none of that has really happened. Indeed, Canonical found it less reliable and more likely to crash the whole session.

I see the point of it (cleaner code, more modern architecture), I just don't see why people care so much when it all boils down to is "it's cleaner behind the scenes". Especially when it actually brings major pain points to actually deal with - all the DEs having to support branches which support Wayland, no network support, no driver compatibility.

I feels weird to me.

I think that might be because Redhat is the only company properly pushing for desktop Wayland currently (as far as I know), and in the grand scale of things, there might be bigger priorities for them as well. On the other hand, Wayland has been doing the job perfectly on my old Jolla for years. Mobile was an easier and juicier target I guess, with many interested parties.

I don't know what Canonical tested but I doubt that the protocol itself caused the instability. Must have been the implementation, and in this specific case Gnome's Wayland compositor. Desktop is complicated, and you can probably see that the migration from X to the very different Wayland was never going to be technically simple.

I have no doubt Wayland will some day be the standard on desktop as well, but nearly twenty years on Linux have taught me to be patient. As you said, X might have its faults, but it does the job. That doesn't mean Wayland wouldn't be better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments