The language is not clear.

" As a vegetarian, which of these three options you want the least and which you want the most? You MUST choose to continue:

1. Chicken sandwich.
2. A kick in the balls.
3. Pork sandwich.

"

You are saying that a reasonable person (vegetarian in this case, and disclaimer: I am not vegetarian) would say “well, I want a kick in the balls the least, so I’ll choose that. Now, fuck, I HATE chicken sandwiches and I HATE pork sandwiches. They both make me puke. But if I have to choose, I guess I’ll go for the chicken sandwich. Hey pollster, I want the chicken sandwich the most.” And the pollster writes “Chester wants the chicken sandwich the most.” Yeah, very clear.

It’s the “most wanted” language. I don’t blame common folks associating “most wanted” with “I want this!” when in fact they don’t mean it.

I think you’re attributing malice to something else. Bear with me while I point out these two things:

First, The tomatoes quote is a consequence of something he mentioned later:

I firmly believe that FOSS is literally for everyone.

And second, he goes on to write this:

It’s important to note that there are many people who disagree on topics like religion, economic systems, LGBT issues, geopolitics, and other. For whatever reasons they may, we still should not ostracize them as long as they can interact with the FOSS community in a respectful manner, without arguing about those issues in places not meant for such discussions.

Here’s what I think: The dude is dogmatically dense. Not a literal nazi or transphobe. His response about moderation is part of that. “Ugh, I just want to code, not to babysit. If no one is spewing hate in my turf, they are welcome.” And even though I don’t agree with his stance, I still think he has a point: extremes are bad. And if the far-right is bad (“you’re either with us or against us; death to you!”), the far-left is bad too (“you’re either with us or against us; cancelled!”)

I’ve been there. Even after explaining that I was a transgender rights ally and supporter, and asked a question about sports - a question, as in I was trying to get myself informed, this one mod lashed out at me as if I was the devil, simply because my views didn’t perfectly align with hers before getting answers. It really caught me off guard. And she wouldn’t budge. It’s either her view or “pure unadulterated transphobia,” which I found ridiculous. That’s extreme.

But I’m capable of trying to reach to a middleground, whereas Vaxry stays firm - and that’s fine. Don’t like it? Don’t participate in his community! But don’t demonize him for some imaginary intentions you’re placing on him.

Aw, man. I think Vaxry’s got entrapped here.

He is saying that if nothing can sway you from an opinion, then it is a belief, including being 100% opposed to genocide.

(Please note: I don’t side with genocide!!! But I understand his point. Read on.)

I think he’s the positions armchair arguing type, not necessarily the evil type.

I can totally see him say “If a group of people’s solely reason to exist is to exterminate the rest of the human race, if that’s all they think about, if all they do is to accomplish that - induce terror, kill babies, spew propaganda, castrate humans of all races; then it’s safe to say that that group of people should not exist and it should be exterminated.”

That’s an extremely wild scenario, of course! But I think that’s what this guy is saying. We may find genocide in general heinous, but he won’t say that all genocides are bad because of thought examples like the above one.

Then the other party takes that personally, and extrapolates that Vaxry is in favor of exterminating all trans people - something he didn’t say or mean.

My two cents.

I don’t know, man. I read Vaxry’s response and I think that he has a point. There was an incident, and it was dealt with.

Then someone from redhat (because they e-mailed him with from RedHat address) told him “hey we saw improvements on you moderating your community. Great! But if you break our CoC again, we’ll ban you!” To which he replied “Uh, we don’t have a CoC, we don’t belong to your organization, what’s is this about?” And the person replied “This is not a RedHat position. And again, we’ll ban you!”

He explained this in a blogpost and posted the full e-mail conversation.

He also said that the misrepresentation got to such point that a another transgender coder made a contribution to Vaxry’s project, expecting that it would be rejected, and got surprised that her PR got merged.

I’d say, read Hyprland’s responses linked elsewhere in this thread before making any hasty decisions.

It seems (but I’m not sure, to be clear), that it was a situation that got solved, and people are still hung up on it.

It’s like that “but you fuck one sheep” joke.

It seems like the guy is being genuine here. Or was that pure PR?

The problem for me is not that they implemented this. The problem is that they TURNED IT ON without my consent!

When Chrome asks the user to activate a similar feature while Firefox doesn’t - welp, no. They don’t understand user consent.

Imagine finding a Mozilla microphone under your dining table. “Oh, but you can remove it and toss it. That’s understanding user consent!”

Yes, I remember this. But people have wised up. How do I know? Because Trump lost while being a sitting president, an event that doesn’t happen often. At least in 2015/2016, a lot of people were giving him the benefit of the doubt. And it wasn’t the majority (he lost the popular vote, as we all know.)

You’re assuming Trump will win the election. He won’t.

Jesus, why do people forget that Trump lost an election while being president and while trying to tamper with it? What makes you think he will win this time?