but if cheesecake factory hired him and supported him to make this discovery, you would look at the menu differently.

Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

You seem to think the world run on responsibilities. How many people you see in your life take responsibilities for everything they do and say? And I am not saying responsibilities do not matter, but you can’t just interpret what I said based on your imaginary value system. I never said people aren’t responsible for their ideas and what they support. It just doesn’t matter in this conversation. You want it to matter? Then who are you to say “they are responsible”? Who are you to judge the consequences of policies? Who are you to call what exactly does a person believe in simply based on his party affiliation?

But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy?

Well you missed the part of talking to your neighbor first. How he act alone doesn’t really matter that much. To understand what he believes in you gotta talk to him. Does he hate gays? Or does he just believe in small government and love guns?

If he hate gays, and you tell him you are homosexual, would he start throwing dog shit in your yard, or would he have a painful conversation with you? That’s the important part. You didn’t really get what I am trying to say.

I said we keep the conversation going, I never said treat everyone like your BFF. You talk, you don’t judge before you talk. You don’t brand a Republican as a Nazi before you talk to him.

“Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests.

I am honestly not sure what are we arguing about. If you are fine with talking to your neighbor in a frank manner, what do you disagree with me on? Like, how do you know Bill is going to argue that way? How about he tells you “yeh I don’t really like that shit either but I don’t like how the liberals are doing things yada yada”? Wouldn’t you think if you talk long enough the latter response is more likely and probably a more interesting discussion to have?

Best I can say, don’t make it so absolute. No one is perfect. Everyone has their share of sin. You are not an exception.

I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.

Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.

Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.

So where are all the Republicans in the public sphere standing up for moderation?

You know even from liberal media that there is a moderate republican faction, and they are indeed getting hammered exactly by people just like you but from the right.

See, now, the 1920s and 1930s taught us that reasonable debate with fascists is impossible.

Where did you learn that? A reasonable debate with any extremism is impossible, it isn’t just fascism. Point is you can’t let an ideology slip into extremism to begin with. If you refuse to debate your position, that’s already a sign of extremism, and calling your counterpart fascist doesn’t really make yourself better.

So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.

The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.

It’s sad isn’t it, how predictable people are.

Dehumanizing your subject is easy. Republicans do that to people on the left too. Let’s just hate each other till we destroy each other. That’s gonna get a good society going.

Oh you don’t give a shit about personal beliefs? You the kind who thinks a king is better than a democracy? Because democracy is all about personal beliefs, and convincing your fellow citizens of what you think is right.

I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.

Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?

I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”.

Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.

But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.

You look at this thread, and you ask “where’s all the voices”. You don’t find that ironic?

Silence could mean acceptance, it doesn’t mean agreement. Just like being on the left if I say “let’s keep the discussion going” all you fuckers are gonna downvote me to oblivion and accuse me of less intelligent and make anyone who have a different idea an outcast, it is the same thing for republicans. Someone who don’t go with the flow is made an outcast, so if you don’t agree, tough luck.

Yeh, if the left treat its different opinions like this, what the fuck you think a republican having a different opinion is treated like? So if you are strongly for the core policies of your affiliated party, would you raise your voice? Or if you did, you think those voices get heard and get reported?

If you are not in the republican circle, how do you even know how they perceive the policies?

You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.

That’s the spirit.

To be honest, a lot of Republicans are still very respectable. The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief. A Democrat doesn’t believe in everything in the Democrat’s platform either.

In that sense, insulting a party is not generally helpful for public discourse.

Lemmings.

It has been reported that the support contract from RedHat says you can’t redistribute the source you receive as part of being a paid customer and they reserve the right to cancel your support contract.

Where is the report? I mean yeh if that’s what RedHat said then they have chosen the path of getting sued to oblivion, but that’s not what the initial argument is about, and that’s also not what Rocky’s new path forward indicates. (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Rocky-Linux-RHEL-Source-Access)

Did RedHat add that restriction? GPL requires source to be distributed along with binary, but the distributor can still decide who to distribute things to. If the only way to access binary is through being a paying customer, I don’t see why RedHat can’t say only paying customers can get access to source.

What’s the GPL violation in that, or did I misunderstand RedHat’s new policy?

The free as in freedom principle isn’t violated. GPL stands. So why all the rage? People call RedHat IBMified, what the hell does it even mean? Has IBM done anything to the community?

Really there is no principle being defended. People’s workflow isn’t even impacted as it stands, they just have to figure out new paths going forward.

Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say “what a twat” but doesn’t necessarily reflect poor education.