Aside from the game community, where developers tend to be a bit more public, you might have some issue simply from the fact most developers are kind of reserved with posting who they actually are.

I wouldn’t be surprised if tonnes of software you use has trans folk in the dev pipeline maintaining it, but you’d never know cuz their github pfp is just a picture of an anime waifu with a link to their contact info and thats about it.

Considering how many lgbtq+ folks tend to post on dev focused discord channels (the main c# channel literally has a perma rainbow on it), and on their discord profile they will be more open about who they are, it stands to reason tonnes of projects probably have lgbtq+ folks involved.

Like I’m pretty sure if I open the chat history of any of my mainstream dev discords right now and flip through the m9st recent 20 posters in the main chats, I’d find someone openly trans in their profile within 30 secs lol

I’ve never seen any sort of aggregate repo of “Here’s projects you can support!” Anywhere though.

On one hand, that sounds like a cool idea in a perfect world.

On the other, a part of me worries about how much certain people could abuse that and weaponize it though :c

Like I could, unfortunately, 100% see a threat actor leverage it as “Here’s a whole target list of projects/maintainers to try and harass/doxx, script kiddies!”

Which sucks.

The 1 seat they got was in the green party stronghold (co leaders home town)

I have zero clue what her platform is, prolly environmentalist tho.

If any vote ever fails in our government, it triggers an instant re-election. It’s called the Vote of Non Confidence

It’s probably one of the most key parts of why our government is a little bit more resistant to clown-showing, because even a small crack in the parliament triggers a new election.

So bills can only be tabled if the gov is 100% confident it will have the votes.

Which means the conservatives could table a bill if they knew the NDP + Bloc would side with them on it, as then they have the votes to pass it.

But since it’s the NDP, a very progressive party, it means they actually hold that fine balance of mediating power between liberals and conservatives.

It’s pretty solid actually, and makes it so everyone the entire term could pass a reasonable bill.

Pretty sure this last term the conservatives and liberals did agree on some stuff and some bills passed with both approving it, iirc.

I think forcing them to occasionally work together like that helps temper the fascism lol.

Sorry. Naive and easily fooled by propaganda and disinformation that feeds into their bigotry

My bad ❤️

Bloc have endorsed the liberals already, Quebec is extremely anti trump.

Bloc aligning with conservatives would be political suicide lol.

Atm we got it, this is the magic sweet spot where we want to be

172 seats exactly with lib+ndp+green

and conservatives can’t even threaten a vote of non confidence with bloc’s help. (1 vote short)

But they could trigger it with that 1 green seat’s help, which means liberals have to stay on the good side of that 1 green seat XD

Not appropriate enough.

Unironically over 30% of people somehow still voted conservative.

I’m ashamed to admit a very large amount of them are from my area.

I don’t know what is wrong with some people. The education system has clearly desperately failed many of the people here though.

The big key is gonna be if we get that sweet 172 seats with Lib+Green+NDP, we are only 1 seat short

If we hit that mark it means, hilariously, the one single green seat is needed to form a majority government without bloc’s help needed

Which will force liberal party to play ball with NDP and Green Party’s more progressive policies.

That’s our ideal scenario, conservatives are told to go kick rocks, and green/ndp get an actual voice on decision making to push the country in a progressive direction.

One. More. Seat!

Wow, that sure is something else.

As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?

You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”

It’s common knowledge. If you refuse to go along with it, you are just bring an asshole abd you will struggle to form meaningful relationships.

People who refuse to just put in the 1% of effort needed to not be offensive are destined to lead a hollow existence, constantly plagued either short term relationships that keep ending early as people get to know who they are and then peace out, or, are also an asshole and they get to “enjoy” each other’s company.

You aren’t arguing in good faith here. If someone tells you something is offensive, it’s nearly zero effort to just go “oh sorry” and just move on.

Only assholes sit and try and debate and argue about how they should be allowed to be an asshole.

You are allowed to be an asshole, it’s not illegal, but it doesn’t stop it from being asshole behavior.

Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?

I think these two go hand in hand, when spoken by a human.

Because if I, a person, refer to your humanity in a detached way, it still is implying you are “distanced” from me (the person), contextually.

And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.

That’s why it only comes across as offensive when spoken by another human, because they shouldnt be speaking about a fellow specific human in a detached way… on account of them being a human too.

However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious

Sure. The context when it isn’t is if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake.

And, yes, I have met people like this. Usually either younger folks, or ELL.

If, however, you become informed of how this comes across and choose to keep doing it anyways now it is intentionally abrasive and will be taken offensively.

Any person who goes “yes I know this pisses people off, and I’m going to do it anyways, even though it’s trivially easy to not to do the thing” is self centered and demonstrating anti social behaviors.

Aka, an asshole.

It doesn’t require much thought, these are implicit rules you already should intuitively know if you have been participating in western culture for a few years.

You should be able to intuitively know that

“You are acting like an asshole”

Carries way different weight than

“You are an asshole”

Clarifiers are much “softer” than nouns, as they are subjective instead of objective

You hopefully got some basic lessons on Facts vs Opinions in early grade school, it’s the same concept.

Fundamentally adjectives vs noun do indeed carry substantially different weight.

Which of these statements would you say will piss someone off more:

“You’re a bitch” “You’re being bitchy”

Anyone with common sense knows the former sentence carries way more weight in terms of a statement.

“Female Officer” is just not rude, because its merely a clarifier, to avoid confusion.

“Female” can be used that way to, but usually its not necessary when referring to people, it only makese sense when used to clarify animals as a whole.

“Female mammals have ovaries” for example makes sense, because it clarifies which mammals we are talking about.

But if you say “Female Humans” now you sound like an alien describing people, because you and I are humans, so we don’t need to specify, it sounds “outer”, like something someone other than a human would write.

The only time itd make sense to use that is when literally distinguishing Female Humans from Females of another type.

IE “Unlike Female Bugs, Female Humans don’t lay eggs”

Then it goes back to making sense.

What about the term ladies…is that ‘socially acceptable’.

It is, yes.

“Female” is the term to refer to the sex of an animal, which does include humans but its usually the term you use when describing a… dog or cat or whatever.

People however prefer when you specifically use any of the multitude of human gender terms for us.

So Woman, Lady, Maam, Gals, Girls, Chicks, etc. These all still are what you call a person

Consider the inverse: When you refer to an animal with those terms, its an act of respect, you’ve humanized it. If you walk up to a cow and say “Hello maam” it’s usually inherently signaling “I like/respect this animal to the degree Im using a human pronoun for it”

Or if you have a pet deg and you go “Lookit this distinguished gentleman” or “How are you today sir?”, same diff, you humanized it via the pronoun, which is a way to signal love/affection/respect.

When you do the opposite and call a woman a female or a man a male, it’s inherently disrespectful. You’ve effectively implied you classify them at the same tier as an animal in a laboratory. It dehumanizes.

If you think about all the classic insults for people, a lot of them just boil down to calling them an animal. “Pig” “Bitch” “Cow”, “Sheep” etc, if you call people by these terms its usually considered at minimum sorta offensive, but often very offensive.

“Female” is the same, when you refer to a woman.

No most people will give you a very weird look if you refer to a man as a male in the pronoun sense.

“How are you doing, males?” would make you sound like a fuckin alien pretending to be a human lol.

Or, only time, use it as a noun in a clinical/scientific sense when you literally are distinguishing “people who were born with ovaries”, IE “Females have higher estrogen levels” or something like that, when you are literally talking about the physical sex, and not gender.

“Female <job title>” isnt at all as bad as just… “female”, the prior is a clarifying adjective, the latter is using it as a descriptive noun.

Like if I say “Female Officers suffer from above average sexual harassment” that statement isnt a big deal.

If I say “You are a beautiful female” to a woman though, it sounds disgusting.

I mean literally just compare these two basic statements.

“Go hand this package to that Female Officer over there” (This just distinguishes the Female Officer from the Male Officers probably standing near her)

vs

“Go hand this package to that Female over there” (this sounds like you are an alien visiting earth and talking to me)

This genuinely made me do an IRL spit take, holy shit.

Same, but they did set up a self hosted instance for us to use and, tbh, it works pretty good.

I think it’s s good tool specifically for helping when you dunno what’s going on, to help with brainstorming or exploring different solutions. Getting recommended names of tools, finding out “how do other people solve this”, generating documentation, etc

But for very straightforward tasks where you already know what you are doing, it’s not helpful, you already know what code you are going to write anyways.

Right tool for the right job.

I hold that liberal goes beyond that, starting to spend extra money and tax extra when the returns are no longer as good and instead it’s less about literally saving money and more about quality of life

Fiscal conservative is “once the returns aren’t as good, stop there”

Whereas liberal goes “nah even if the returns start to suck, it’s better to further tax to even further help people purely for ethical reasons”

Liberal mindset is ethics > money

Fiscal conservative is money > ethics

Current “conservative” policy though is power > inflicting suffering > money > ethics

Which I respect and I’d love to get us towards, but tbh we gotta convince people to get past step 1 first of realizing spending money to actively hurt people, surprisingly, isn’t a good fiscal policy (which somehow genuinely confuses so many people, it’s crazy)

We are still at the stage where too many people think that spending money inflicting active harm is genuinely a good idea and a good use of taxpayer dollars

They think paying cops to go around kicking indigenous teens in the head is truly a solid Fiscal policy. Truly.

They think paying money to fund bombs being dropped on children is good Fiscal policy.

They think paying money to poison our water, destroy our ecosystems, and pollute the oceans is good Fiscal Policy

Getting past that part is step one

Literally just convincing these people to stop stabbing themselves is step 1.

Maybe later we can talk about convincing them to help others after we get them to stop hurting others…