Human rights and Vivaldi


  • Ambassador

    Note, since it is impossible to clarify this matter in the thread on Jon's blog, perhaps a mod can move messages not related to the new version of Vivaldi to this thread, so as not to further distort the other.


  • Ambassador

    It is certainly not necessary to feed a troll, but it was not a troll, which rages another user, but a person who slandered Jon's article on the Vivaldi blog, for alleged political bias.
    I think to ignore it, it can lead to misinterpretations about Vivaldi's position with consequences that are not at all desirable, being the blog and its articles, where these comments also appear, it is used to spread and promote Vivaldi and for this reason such unfounded accusations cannot be tolerated.
    That is why I have responded to these people to leave a clear position on the matter, which especially in view of recent events may be important.
    It was not feeding a troll, but a necessity.


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear , it is not about imposing an absolute truth, but a message in a blog with which we promote Vivaldi and where an article about MLK appears, not a algae, not in any way, in combination with the latest events in the United States, it is clearly a position against racism, which is justly applauded by us. But a voice appears discordant that defines it as a manipulation by Vivaldi for political purposes, which is naturally nonsense, but we already know that this can also lead to rumors of the "Vivaldi is manipulating users "" It makes political propaganda ", etc. voices that can spread at lightspeed, as has been seen on other occasions, by certain groups that even use bots in accounts on Twitter and others. For this reason it is far from being silsly and that it only leaves 2 possibilities, either to delete these defamatory messages, or to put them in their place arguing.


  • Moderator

    @Catweazle said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    that it only leaves 2 possibilities, either to delete these defamatory messages, or to put them in their place arguing

    The 3rd option is to not respond at all. If you don't respond, you end up with a few one-off comments with a negative message that you disagree with.

    But the more you respond, the longer the argument chains get, and the more spread the original message gets, and the more cluttered & off-topic the original thread becomes.

    No-one should colour their view of something because a few random people left a comment saying something about the zeitgeist. And if someone did choose to not use Vivaldi as a result or take random internet comments as truth, then that is their loss.

    That is why I think it is fine to just leave them as is unless they actually start breaking the CoC - All you achieve by arguing is you keep fanning the flames.



  • This community has been free of the toxicity that plagues other message boards. There is a level of respect here that is welcome and something the inclusion of politics would undoubtedly undermine. So all I will add to this conversation is these quotes,

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect ~ Mark Twain

    The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear Some opinions are facially evil. However, Vivaldi does not regulate opinion - only whether users commit (verbal) violence upon each other.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear What I say is irrelevant to good and evil. Good and evil exist, and are not subject to opinion. Good moves in the direction of the best survival for the most life, and evil moves against the best survival for the most life. Sometimes the results of good and evil acts are not immediately apparent, but they always become evident over time.

    Some are immune to evidence, and are able to embrace evil by rendering themselves blind to its consequences - even when said consequences become manifest.

    It is not true that good and evil are matters of dogma, majority or minority opinion, policy, definition, or regulation. They are pure and absolute values and humanity, if it is to survive, discovers them rather than legislates them. I am sometime bemused (amused?) by persons who embrace evil, having already lived in the presence of its consequences. But such people exist, by a MUCH larger percentage of the population than most people realize.


  • Ambassador

    @Ayespy said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    Some opinions are facially evil.

    As clear as the nose on your face, but perhaps you meant factually?

    There are many people in the world who have no moral standards, no sense of right and wrong. We call them psychopaths or sociopaths. That such people exist does not prove that there is nothing that is objectively evil. Their view and perception of reality is perverted.

    Even without any religious beliefs one can apply the Golden Rule: “I dislike being abused, insulted, or threatened; therefore others probably do not like it either. That being so, I should abstain from abusing, insulting, or threatening others.”


  • Moderator

    @Pesala I meant "facially." As in, "on their face."

    And while the Golden Rule is a sensible way to communicate behavioral standards to kids, it's not objective and therefore may not reveal what's good and what's not. "I love cake" can lead to feeding their family lots of cake, and ruining their health. "I love acid rock" can have a similar result. But as to directly causing another pain, it's at least sensible to refrain from that on the basis that "I would not like that." But it's not the real reason why what you are refraining from would have been bad.

    But, yeah, some people, some groups, some ideologies are psychopathic/sociopathic. They tend to embrace a value of what's good "for me" or "for us." The failure to subsume the welfare of others within their value system places them in opposition to the welfare of others, and a source of evil in the world.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear As an actual student of the latest 3000 years of philosophy, I know enough to realize that objective demonstration of good and evil are the only reliable measures, and that subjective opinions and what "we are supposed to do" lack final authority. The universe passes final judgment on the merit of all decisions. Our books, philosophies, affinities and ideologies are moot in that respect.

    That said, I lay no claim to knowledge of the ultimate truths of things - I only claim that irrespective of our opinions in the "now" concerning what's right, we may learn later that we were wrong. It is the inability to learn whether something was wrong that is what's really dangerous.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    1. I was told this forum is for technical support.

    Actually, you were told it's mainly for technical support. I remember because I said that. 🙂 Plus if you go here and compare the number of threads/posts in each category, then you'll see what I'm talking about.

    @JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    You can "applaude" whatever cause you like or agree, problem is I am forced to "applaude" too, or else.

    I'm glad you've said that about yourself specifically because certainly, it's not the impression that I've been getting. In my experience, it was always possible for someone to politely refuse to support a cause that they didn't believe in. And even if the other party reacts with anger, it's their fault, not yours.

    Of course, if your "beliefs" consist of considering other people as being worse because (for example) they're from this specific area of the country or they're from this specific background, etc. then you might find yourself in a lot of trouble, especially if you express them publicly. That really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

    The fact is, people are even willing to make a lot of effort sometimes, in order to find something against a person they have a problem with. It reminds me of this quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." (I wish I could remember where I heard this - it was recently, but nvm).

    Generally, I think you've got a few valid points, but you're also overexaggerating certain things - and in a big way. Just because you find some of the current views standing in opposition to your personal beliefs does not necessarily mean that it's the end of the world or that the dark ages are upon us... 🤷


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear I can't see how one has to do anything with the other. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that, to help me understand what you mean?


  • Ambassador

    I am amazed at the philosophical path this thread is taking, although the background is not so complicated, it is not good or bad/evil in the center, concepts that can be very relative.
    The core of the issue is that you cannot remain neutral when choosing between coexistence or discrimination and violence. It is about nature itself, and neutrality and disinterest can lead to self-destruction.
    The vast majority of people are good people, but the disinterest and neutrality of injustice, hatred, violence and racism is often exploited by those who are not so good, dragging many who simply lack their own criteria .
    This is why the world is as it is.
    We should have learned from the past, from wars, genocides and miseries that are the direct cause of the thoughts 'it doesn't matter to me, it won't touch me'.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear That you see the two quoted lines as contradictory reveals a flaw in your thinking. You are reading, or assuming, something that is not written there.

    Is it your belief that my stating good and evil exist means that somehow a person or persons are necessarily in possession of the knowledge of what things are or are not good and evil? That if you do what you "know" to be good today, it's impossible for subsequent events to prove you wrong? If I were to state that perfect knowledge of good and evil is possible, I think I could probably be proved wrong about that - as it would require impossible knowledge - ie, perfect knowledge of the future.

    Then, too, a thing may be good for its time, and bad for a future time. Steam and internal combustion provided energy that permitted the advancement of technology. Were they a good way to power things when they came into being? Absolutely. The best means available at the time? Undeniably. Do they remain the best ways to provide energy for further human advancement? Highly debatable. So when an act or decision is taken is relevant as well. The totality of circumstances rules.

    This is why, the less of the totality of circumstances a person is able to appreciate, the greater the likelihood that they will, knowing or unknowing, do evil. It's easy to do evil if your view is so limited that it looks good to you.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear What does God have to do with it? Does God have something to do with not punching babies in the nose, with letting a Down Syndrome possessor to earn a living? Who put "God" into this discussion?


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear Oh yes, I was waiting for the old, classic running-out-of-argument excuse in the spirit of "you wouldn't understand". 🙃

    @JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    All you need is the famous "pair of boots and an uniform", aka the power of sending me one of those nice threats of banning in name of the "Code of Conduct".

    This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to shift focus away from the initial point. As if I ever "threatened" anyone to ban them for violating the CoC (spoiler: I didn't). But that would be expected from someone who's trying to hide their lack of reasonable counterarguments by focusing on the other person or introducing other cheap eristic arguments instead.

    It's quite easy to throw accusations, isn't it? But when it comes to providing some reason, suddenly it turns out to be a thing the other party wouldn't understand anyway, huh? I'm sorry, but this is some twisted logic to me...


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear , if there had been no people who stood up against violence and discrimination, today you may still have black slaves at our disposal, Australian Aborigines were still considered by the English as local fauna (even in the 70s of the last century ). We still lived in a feudal system with internet only for the wealthy.
    We move forward, but slowly, why many think 'I don't care, as long as it's not my turn", but when it's your turn, it's too late


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear I'll elaborate:

    Healthy oceans support the life cycle of all living things, and specifically provide mankind with food and breathable atmosphere.This would seem a good thing.

    Being able to feed 30 people from an acre that formerly only supported 3 people would seem a good thing.

    However, fertilizer runoff into the oceans causes dead zones and the use of poisons against weeds is causing cancer.

    Can we simply pass a law that says "no fertilizer runoff and no poisons against weeds?" This would be seen as an evil against farming and farmers, and would reduce our food output below optimum levels, possibly.

    So, what's good? Within whose zone of appreciation? Chemical companies, who employ thousands, would find such a law to be evil as well.

    That said, are there methods that would allow that same acre of land to feed 25, without poisoning people and the planet? Could we teach such methods to our farmers? Would this not be a greater "good" than the pure numerical value of feeding 30 people? How broad a view can we see? How far into the future can we predict? The broader, the farther, the better our ability to evaluate "good."

    You would not argue that there is no such thing as up and down, light and dark. They are real things. They are understood within the totality of circumstances. But to deny they exist, or to claim their existence depends on dogma would be nonsense.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear I'm not going to discuss the philosophical concepts as it's not something that I'm particularly interested in at this moment, but the fact that you see in other people's comments something that is not there is blatantly obvious. And I'm not talking about this thread only.

    Unfortunately, it's something that I see in a lot of people. Making wild assumptions based on a few words that somebody has said. It's not being insightful, it's just ignorance.


  • Moderator

    @JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:

    I am the only here who wrote something meaningful.

    I, for one, disagree. But that this reflects your belief speaks volumes.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.