I hate how nowadays you are either "woke communist" or "nazi", and there is no place for any balanced view or compromise.

Labels pretty much always lose meaning. Woke was originally about being aware of injustices and racial issues, now it's used by the "right" to mean pretty much anything they don't like. It's just nice to see Linus stick up for good values :)

Linus is a good guy? I'm not surprised.

No, I don't love to see it. It's sad.

Also, the link above doesn't show the post Linus replied to. It can be seen here: https://poa.st/@morgthorak/posts/AWSUzyWVYwiP02DkHo

That rag is nothing but woke communist propaganda anyway. It has been pure trash since its inception, and it will never get any better.

I wouldn't use it to line the bottom of a bird cage.

I find it weird that Linus himself was kinda mad at NYT but quickly jumped on someone who commented on the same subject and dragged him through the mud with a bunch of assumptions, calling to dehumanize people who he doesn't like. I can't interpret "anybody who uses that word as a pejorative is a f*cking disgrace to the human race" in any other way, it's not just calling them "being wrong", it's calling them subhuman. All that because of the words that someone he doesn't even know used to describe a thing he doesn't even like. You think this behavior is good? Assuming things then treating people like trash? And the person in question was polite even in the response. I find it impossible to praise such behavior. It's far left extremism at its finest.

Last edited by rkfg on 8 Jun 2023 at 8:51 pm UTC

I have to tell you this line right here - “you can sign up online, but you have to call and talk to a human to cancel”

No company in this world gets my money if they do business like this.

Looking at the thread, I think it reaffirms my belief that social media turns what could be ordinary people in real-life into complete garbage online.

All of those people could use some social interaction with a human that doesn't require a screen between them.

I find it weird that Linus himself was kinda mad at NYT but quickly jumped on someone who commented on the same subject and dragged him through the mud with a bunch of assumptions, calling to dehumanize people who he doesn't like. I can't interpret "anybody who uses that word as a pejorative is a f*cking disgrace to the human race" in any other way, it's not just calling them "being wrong", it's calling them subhuman. All that because of the words that someone he doesn't even know used to describe a thing he doesn't even like. You think this behavior is good? Assuming things then treating people like trash? And the person in question was polite even in the response. I find it impossible to praise such behavior. It's far left extremism at its finest.

You're clearly intelligent, you know as well as anyone what kind of people use "woke" in the way the reply did. What Linus said is great. I too am sick and tired of idiots throwing around "woke" and "communist" and *insert thing bigots don't like*.

There's literally nothing "far left extremism" about any of this. That's the usual bullshit dogwhistle attempt that people on the "far right" use to talk about bigoted things they don't like, just like with the word "woke" - you're just being part of the overall problem here.

And jeez, you're still sticking up for them after seeing their later reply? I'm shocked anyone who follows GOL legit falls in line with such ridiculousness. poa.st is a fediverse literally set up for (their words) "shitpoasters".

You used to be strong, but the woke commies broke you a while ago.

the woke mind virus destroyed you, and that marxist ideology now controls you

If you believe any kind of that shit above, seriously - just remove your GOL account.

Last edited by Liam Dawe on 9 Jun 2023 at 9:57 am UTC

what kind of people use "woke" in the way the reply did

People who don't like the way the Western government and corporations push the world to. The problem is that these people are quickly labeled "nazis", "bigots" and "far-right extremists" which somehow gives the opposing side the moral right to doxx them, dehumanize them, silence them and call for violence upon them. There's no space for discussion even, they're judged and sentenced on the spot. Everyone who dares to question the left agenda instantly becomes a (potential) murderer of everyone who shares the said agenda. Yes, I share many moderate right opinions. No, I don't want to exterminate gays, trans, blacks etc. I don't call for violence. I don't even want to silence them, on the opposite, everyone deserves free speech. Truth isn't afraid of discussion and argument, only lies are. Let's see who doesn't want to discuss and instead resorts to censorship!

I only want more freedom for me and the others, including freedom of opinions, freedom of argument, without silencing people you don't like even if you have such power. Silencing is extremely easy, listening, discussing and maybe changing your mind is very hard. Grouping up people and blocking them simply because they use a certain word is as far from the ideas of freedom as possible. It's sad that you don't share these values but I guess times change and the old hacker culture is long dead anyway. Linux is captured by corporations so it's only logical that the culture goes in the same direction.

The reply is really mild considering what Linus called him. No name calling, just sadness and regret. And it's shocking for me that parroting the usual corporate/government talking points is now considered stunning and brave. What's so brave about it? He's not in any danger for saying that. No one will doxx or attack him for that, he will not lose his job or property.

People who don't like the way the Western government and corporations push the world to. The problem is that these people are quickly labeled "nazis", "bigots" and "far-right extremists" which somehow gives the opposing side the moral right to doxx them, dehumanize them, silence them and call for violence upon them

Because, most of the time, it is an extremely accurate description of how they act. I've made my views and the GOL stance clear on it. Bigots and people who believe in the "woke mind virus" are simply not people I want here.

So you judge people not for their actions or even actual words they say to you or on your site, but simply because they have certain views? Even if the said views do no harm to you or anyone else? Interesting.

Yes, people with certain views that are massively opposed to my own are not welcome on the site I run. It's not a difficult stance to understand. It's part of the benefit of doing your own thing, you get to run it how you want - and how I want, is to not have bigots, "far right" apologists or anything of that sort here.

How about people who are moderately opposed? Do you not tolerate any opposition at all? I mean putting all people you don't like (even slightly) into a big box of "bigots" isn't a very clever way imo. People are more complex than ones and zeroes, we all may agree on some topics and disagree on some others. The problem with the said "mind virus" is that it works exactly this way, it makes you push the tolerance boundary excluding more and more people because you become oversensitive to criticism and opposition, even if it's not bigoted or extremist. Just a good advice, before labeling and banning people listen to them and try to understand them. It's the hard way, yes. But it helps to keep things balanced and in check, without becoming a bigot yourself.

I will never, ever tolerate bigoted views and people who appear to be on the "far right". And again, anyone will legitimately uses "woke" or "woke mind virus" as insults can just GTFO. I'm not going to debate it further with you, my views are very clear on all this. If you hate the "left" and "woke", you basically hate me and everything I stand for.

It's absolutely possible to disagree without hatred! It is also possible to be right-leaning but not far-right and/or extremist. Again, it's not binary but a spectrum. Why does simple disagreement or lack of support now equal to hatred and death wishes? This is beyond me. This stance is exactly what creates enemies when people could just talk and debate.

The reply is really mild considering what Linus called him.

You're literally defending a guy who shouted "Woke commie!" and "You are suffering from the woke mind virus, you marxist!", for whatever reason that you have.

First of all, the marxist/communist stuff is so misguided and wrong, that it's hilarious. He has no idea what it actually means, and it's commonly used like that in US politics as a slur (as if Sanders or AOC were commies ha). So that alone should brand him a moron.

But to use the buzz word slur "woke", without him most likely being even able to define such a nebulous term, says all you need to know about him. What you and others like you don't seem to understand, that everything you *think* it stands for, is in fact usually taken as a badge of honour by leftists. Empathy, tolerance, inclusion, love not hate, acceptance of all kinds of minorities, to mention a few. Because the term is largely made up as an umbrella term for anything a right-winger rages about on any given day, it's hard to pin down the exact qualities that it aspires to, but suffice to say - the values it stands for resonate highly with left-wingers (and probably most people centre) and is in direct opposition to right/far-right-wingers. Right-wingers who, Don't Say Gay, who ban books and poems from schools and libraries, who take away freedoms such as women's rights to not have forced births, banning life-saving care for minorities, who prefer to choke themselves with forest fire smoke just to own the libs and the list goes on ad nauseam.

There's nothing to be ashamed about being called "woke", like Linus said. Take it as a badge of honour.

And you don't have to tolerate intolerance. By calling someone a bigot, you don't automatically become one. That's like, Tolerantism 101

It's absolutely possible to disagree without hatred! It is also possible to be right-leaning but not far-right and/or extremist. Again, it's not binary but a spectrum. Why does simple disagreement or lack of support now equal to hatred and death wishes? This is beyond me. This stance is exactly what creates enemies when people could just talk and debate.

Just look at what happened to the discourse (and I say that rather charitably) around Hogwarts Legacy. Despite a loud, obnoxious activistic minority crying "Wizard game bad!" because it's transphobic, the activists did more damage to the trans community than the game ever did:

- Someone literally made a website dedicated to identifying which streamer was streaming the game before he got roundly ridiculed and eventually took it down.
- Pikamee and Silvervale were bullied and harassed just because former wanted to play the game and the latter streamed it. Pikamee's subsequent announcement of her graduation was originally viewed as a result of the harassment due to the timing (she's now back as Henya and the harassers lost their s**t).
- The mainstream gaming media was trying its damndest to make sure the game wasn't successful through character assassinations and shaming tactics.
- It was also the laziest form of activism and the game wasn't even a revenue stream for JK Rowling.

What you and others like you

There are no "others like me", me is me. I have my own ideas and I have agency. No need to do what I described above, put everyone you disagree with into one box, put a label on it and give yourself a right to throw this box off the cliff.

Empathy, tolerance, inclusion, love not hate, acceptance of all kinds of minorities, to mention a few

I really wish it worked like that but in fact they're the least tolerant and most hateful people I've ever met. You can see above that for some reason Liam interprets disagreement (and I underlined it many times, just a disagreement, nothing more) as hatred. I assume, and I hope to be wrong, it's done to escape discussion while being morally superior at the same time. There's no need to debate hatred, it's bad and evil by default and by fighting it you automatically become a hero.

There's nothing to be ashamed about being called "woke", like Linus said. Take it as a badge of honour.

So why overreact like this in the first place? Wear it as a badge of honour, call yourself woke with pride, thank people who call you that. I'm not sure you're right about this if Linus instead reacts as if he was called the lowest of low. And even then his reaction was not warranted because those words (that he first answered to) were not directed at him but at NYT. Something's not right.

Just look at what happened to the discourse

Fully agree, so much for the tolerant left... and despite all those efforts the game made fantastic sales. Either their activism doesn't do what they want, or there are too many "hateful bigots" in the world who spend their money out of pure hatred. In the latter case it's gonna be a very tough battle for the left.

There are no "others like me", me is me. I have my own ideas and I have agency. No need to do what I described above, put everyone you disagree with into one box, put a label on it and give yourself a right to throw this box off the cliff.

Sure, but what you are saying and what you are defending is remarkably similar to a group of people known as right-wing (possibly far), so don't be surprised people lump you together with them. Similar to you calling Linus far-left extremist in your earlier comment.

I really wish it worked like that but in fact they're the least tolerant and most hateful people I've ever met.

Everyone's experience is different and their own, in addition to being anecdotal, but I'm curious what makes you say this? Remember, you don't have to be tolerant of intolerance, and at the risk of repetition, you don't become a bigot by calling someone one.

So why overreact like this in the first place? Wear it as a badge of honour, call yourself woke with pride, thank people who call you that. I'm not sure you're right about this if Linus instead reacts as if he was called the lowest of low. And even then his reaction was not warranted because those words (that he first answered to) were not directed at him but at NYT. Something's not right.

Your interpretation of events is remarkably detached from reality, from what was actually said (including the later comments by the anti-woke guy). How you could completely miss Linus' point is beyond me, you seem fairly bright and kinda sensible maybe so that can't be it. Linus is not reacting the way he is because he thinks he was being called the "lowest of the low". He is reacting that way because the guy is a moron for using the term woke in the first place, no less combined with the idiotic comment about commies/marxism, signifying he has been drip-fed propaganda from fake news sources for quite some time. Linus specifically points out that he disagrees woke should be used as pejorative, so your wild description of what actually happened and what was said only occurred in your head. Which is alarming to me, yet not surprising unfortunately. Maybe when you stop white-knighting for the guy who used senseless slurs in the first place, you would realise this.

Yes, you're judged by your views and nobody has to tolerate intolerance. That's circular logic often employed by the intolerant, that you must tolerate their offensive beliefs too.

Here's the thing about freedom... you DON'T have the freedom to lobby to take away someone else's, or call for their destruction or elimination. You may think so, until you meet someone who won't tolerate YOU.

Authoritarianism with its dog whistles and projected morality is not a point of view, it's hostile to humanity.

Also free speech:
!xkcd

nobody has to tolerate intolerance.

That should be written in bold.