zlacker

Why would this open source project add something specific to the US even if just a banner?

People keep saying slogans like "injustice anywhere..." or silence is complicit ... but they mean just on this US/Western issue?

It seems like brigading people.

>>blahbl+(OP)
I think the advocates would agree that it's brigading. They're trying to create a climate where it's simply impossible to be neutral on their issue of choice, since they feel it's wrong to be neutral.

>>blahbl+(OP)
Do you have an example of a similar banner that is specific only to the United States?

>>SpicyL+p
They don't have the numbers to impose the authoritarianism they seek (to fully remake things in the way they see fit), so the rampant threats and intimidation are meant to force joining. The best way to accomplish that, is to threaten a person's livelihood, which threatens their ability to exist. They started by just doing social ostracising, social threats of exclusion, and now they've moved on to targeting livelihoods.

Cancel culture is part of this livelihood targeting shift. Behave exactly the way we say, or you're "problematic" and we'll kill your life. And we'll cheer and dance like soulless monsters in the tweet threads while you suffer. It's going to get a lot more aggressive yet, until a line gets drawn by the companies that comply too easily with the cancel demands.

The malignant dictatorship of social media rage in the US is becoming insufferable. It's probably going to require government regulation to stop it.

>>advent+D3
> “The malignant dictatorship of social media rage in the US is becoming insufferable. It's probably going to require government regulation to stop it.”

you know you can just not tune in, right? it’s not coercive in any way, unlike said dictatorship or government regulation. amplification of voice is not a civil right.

>>clairi+a9
As many employers will not hire you now without an extensive, positive social media history, and many people communicate with their friends and family almost exclusively over social media, it's questionable to call social media use optional. It's also extremely dubious to effectively support bullying because "you can just go somewhere else".

>>clairi+a9
You can easily find yourself dragged into situation where activists at your workplace demand you sign a letter, or else you will be branded <all kinds of crap>. If you depend on these people in any way, you will be in trouble. And it's the social media that turned your coworkers that way.

These days you don't have to go to social media to find trouble - the social media comes to you.

>>DenisM+1c
folks just gotta learn how to say no gracefully. it's a useful workplace skill anyway.

as for the branding, you can say no without conceding either side. the target of this twitterer seems to have done it successfully, keeping their job and not conceding either way.

note that i'm not taking sides here either. just making a point about having the fortitude to put social media in its proper place.

further, if you can't take a principled stand under pressure (another useful skill), it might be an indication that the stand isn't principled, or at the very least, you need to find the foundational principles on which to stand.

>>clairi+lg
You missed the point. I don't want to take any principled stands. That's not why I came to work.

>>clairi+lg
I don't think the onus should be on the decliner to "gracefully" decline beyond a simple "No thanks", under threat of twitter mob.