Two days ago, the Ladybird Web Browser made quite a bit of news -- with
a major investment and the establishment of a new Non-Profit
organization to build a "from scratch" web browser.
Positive, non-controversial, non-political, very nerdy news.
Unfortunately, within hours of the spotlight being directed at Ladybird,
a group of activists launched an all-out-assault on the open source web browser -- by smearing it as "Transphobic", "Mysoginistic", and (this is absolutely not a joke) suggesting that the Ladybird developers actively support and promote human slavery.
Hundreds of posts repeating such smears (among others) -- with one Tech publication declaring a total boycott of Ladybird because of it.
What vile deed were the developers of Ladybird guilty of, which
necessitated such an intense response, you ask?
Well, I'll tell you.
The Ladybird team stated... wait for it...
... that they were a "purely technical project".
Seriously. That was their crime. Being "technical".
Here's the details.
(...)
On 2024-07-04, RabidPedagog <[email protected]> wrote:
<https://lunduke.locals.com/upost/5823666/ladybird-web-browser-developer-attacked-by-unhinged-dishonest-activists>
Oh boy, we're off to a great start with our source here...
Two days ago, the Ladybird Web Browser made quite a bit of news -- with
a major investment and the establishment of a new Non-Profit
organization to build a "from scratch" web browser.
Positive, non-controversial, non-political, very nerdy news.
Actually meaningful news. Can't wait to see what new developments come
out of the project, and I sure can't wait to see the rest of your
totally noteworthy and in no way idiotic post!
Unfortunately, within hours of the spotlight being directed at Ladybird,
a group of activists launched an all-out-assault on the open source web
browser -- by smearing it as "Transphobic", "Mysoginistic", and (this is
absolutely not a joke) suggesting that the Ladybird developers actively
support and promote human slavery.
Hundreds of posts repeating such smears (among others) -- with one Tech
publication declaring a total boycott of Ladybird because of it.
What vile deed were the developers of Ladybird guilty of, which
necessitated such an intense response, you ask?
Well, I'll tell you.
The Ladybird team stated... wait for it...
... that they were a "purely technical project".
Seriously. That was their crime. Being "technical".
Here's the details.
(...)
...Aaaaannnndddd just like that, you drank the Lunduke Kool-Aid. You
tried your best, but the second you linked to Lunduke's trash, you lost
any shred of credibility. Better luck next time. :)
A progressive, I'm sure. I don't know who you are, but I already know
that I don't care about your opinion.
Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
content whatsoever.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:52:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
content whatsoever.
Truly a statement worthy of Wernher von Braun.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:52:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
content whatsoever.
Truly a statement worthy of Wernher von Braun.
On 2025-03-27 03:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:52:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
content whatsoever.
Truly a statement worthy of Wernher von Braun.
And one which causes the heads of progressives to explode.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:39:51 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-03-27 03:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:52:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
content whatsoever.
Truly a statement worthy of Wernher von Braun.
And one which causes the heads of progressives to explode.
“Progressives” ... didn’t they call them “Reds” back in Senator McCarthy’s
day? And you were supposed to check for them under the bed each night?
Red has become the official colour of the US Republican Party these days.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
Whether you will admit it or not, McCarthy was right. There _were_
Communists around every corner and they were indeed seeking not only to
take over Hollywood, but every other influential establishment in the
United States. They've clearly taken over academia and managed to
overwhelm Hollywood despite his efforts.
On 2025-03-27 9:04 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Red has become the official colour of the US Republican Party these
days.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
The Republicans aren't the ones encouraging people to rid themselves of
their genitalia through the teaching that "gender is a construct."
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:10:56 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Whether you will admit it or not, McCarthy was right. There _were_
Communists around every corner and they were indeed seeking not only to
take over Hollywood, but every other influential establishment in the
United States. They've clearly taken over academia and managed to
overwhelm Hollywood despite his efforts.
It never ceases to amaze me. With all your talk of “liberty” and “freedom
of expression”, that you could shut down your Communist Party, yet at the same time decide that the KKK were not such a big threat to society at
all, just some kind of bunch of good ole boys having a bit of a lark, harmless fun or something bloody stupid like that.
On 2025-03-27 9:04 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Red has become the official colour of the US Republican Party these
days.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
The Republicans aren't the ones encouraging people to rid themselves of
their genitalia through the teaching that "gender is a construct."
Sex is biology. Gender is not.
As for the KKK, they knew that introducing people of what is
objectively a problematic race into their society would result in
its fabric being destroyed.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:08:34 -0400
CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-08-06 1:09 p.m., Sebastian wrote:Racists of the world, unite! (sadly under-represented in some populations)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy tinker123 <[email protected]> wrote:
I can understand being annoyed by such a request.
I probably would have put my annoyance aside and granted it.
A few harmless search and replace operations.
I think people overreacted to the request.
It was a small request.
It wasn't the request itself that elicited that response, but
its purpose: Bringing SerenityOS in line with the left's rules.
Now they're accusing the developers of being SLAVE OWNERS
because they didn't go along with the earlier demand that
all projects rename their master branches. They still call
their master branches "master".
They're cracking down on thoughtcrime. What they're actually
offended by is that the developers don't find it offensive
to use "he" as the pronoun for a hypothetical person, and
they don't think there's anything wrong with the badspeak
word "master", which indicates that they haven't been
thinking what they were told to think.
If anyone ever tells me to rename any of my projects' master
branches or else be branded RAYCISS, I'm renaming it to nigger.
I want to be your friend.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:35:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
As for the KKK, they knew that introducing people of what is
objectively a problematic race into their society would result in
its fabric being destroyed.
The black people didn’t ask to be taken to America, you know.
It was the
very people who became members of the KKK who forcibly took them there.
And had no problem keeping them there, as long as they were slaves.
But as soon as the idea of living up to that “all men are created equal” clause in your founding documents, that you are supposed to be so proud
of, came up, suddenly you began to see the consequences of your own
actions as undesirable, without wanting to admit that it was your fault
all along.
And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...
I ignored it because this one time whites did something to blacks is overshadowed by the fact that blacks do this to white communities and
even their own communities _daily_.
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to
murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just
as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
was the slave trade.
Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...
But you claim to be covered by the same “Christian” brand. I don’t see you
disavowing “Christianity” and setting up another brand that explicitly does not condone such activities in its core beliefs.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:11:43 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I ignored it because this one time whites did something to blacks is
overshadowed by the fact that blacks do this to white communities and
even their own communities _daily_.
Interesting how you see yourself as part of “whites” when it suits you, but then separate yourself out as “Poles” when you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the actions perpetrated by “whites”.
Whites look down on other whites too, don’t they? Seems like the Anglos
see themselves as on top, and other whites as somehow less “white”, and deserving of special derogatory terms to separate them out.
On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to >>> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just >> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
was the slave trade.
People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity did
not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying against
the practice from the beginning and there are lots of excerpts in the
New Testament saying as much. If people calling themselves Christians participated in the trade, that does not mean that the religion endorses
it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses slavery and the practice continues
in areas they control to this day.
Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...
But you claim to be covered by the same “Christian” brand. I don’t see >> you
disavowing “Christianity” and setting up another brand that explicitly >> does not condone such activities in its core beliefs.
There is nothing to disavow. A religion cannot be held responsible for
what people claiming to be its adherents do. The New Testament is clear
in the idea that Christians should be rallying _against_ slavery.
Finally, your opinion of Christianity is of no interest to me.
On 18/04/2025 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created >>>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not
likely to
murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just >>> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
was the slave trade.
People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity did
not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying against
the practice from the beginning and there are lots of excerpts in the
New Testament saying as much. If people calling themselves Christians
participated in the trade, that does not mean that the religion
endorses it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses slavery and the
practice continues in areas they control to this day.
Christianity was the religion of the slaves.
It promised they would be kings in the afterlife, so kept them happy
slaves.
On 4/19/25 06:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/04/2025 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created >>>>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores >>>>> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not
likely to
murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the >>>> other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all
just
as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that >>>> was the slave trade.
People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity
did not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying
against the practice from the beginning and there are lots of
excerpts in the New Testament saying as much. If people calling
themselves Christians participated in the trade, that does not mean
that the religion endorses it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses
slavery and the practice continues in areas they control to this day.
Christianity was the religion of the slaves.
It promised they would be kings in the afterlife, so kept them happy
slaves.
Which slaves are you referring to during Jesus's time and the successive centuries?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 28:21:24 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,231 |