Madison, the victim, told her story online and was met with the vitriolic, violent hatred you’d expect from a woman pointing out the misogyny of the internet’s favorite tech boy. She shared her story mostly to warn other women what to expect from working there as well as a step in her own healing process.

She never wanted to sue them since they are much wealthier than her and she kind of just wanted to move past that part of her life. Linus Media Group isn’t going to sue her for defamation because even if they can win, as they claim (which I personally have my own doubts, but I’m an outside observer with no legal education), it’s still a very bad look.

Since no parties are bringing litigation to a court, the litigation happens in the court of public opinion.

well, their problem wasn’t exactly because of the color of the suit

His skin color.

Hopefully it’s obvious I don’t agree with that statement, but at the end of the day, that’s what this case is really about.

My problem with your stance is that you seem very quick to jump at "bigoted hate speech from LGBTQ+ people" and to defend the so-called progress that religious people have made. You don't seem interested in calling out Christians for the documented facts that they are championing the call to eradicate minority populations they disagree with, or the legislation they are passing in increasing numbers to strip rights away from women, LGBTQ+, and racial minorities.

Firstly, while it may look like "both sides" are hateful and bigoted, it's extremely important to understand that both sides are not saying anything close to the same things. On one hand, you have a population of people who have been directly and consistently harmed for their fundamental identity that they cannot change by people who identify with certain beliefs and their - admittedly, but understandably, quite vitriolic - responses to that trauma. On the other hand, you have a population of people who have not been attacked or harmed directly falsely claiming that the other population is raping their children and destroying the country. This fear mongering is reinforced every single Sunday when they go to their church and get told these things directly by their leadership that claims they are the literal mouth of God. A belief system is much more mutable than intrinsic characteristics like gender identity, skin color, and sexuality - as demonstrated by the shift towards the LG and B parts of the LGBTQ+ community. The oppressed only cry out about injustices they've experienced and plead for equal treatment, which is then equivocated to the calls for the wholesale eradication of their population.

Secondly, you seemed more concerned with the optics of justice than justice itself. Who does trans identity affect other than the trans person? that's a genuine question because I cannot think of a single person except for the trans person's doctor who should ever be concerned with that.

the Trans community lost some PR ground when it came out that schools were intentionally hiding gender transitions from parents.

This is just blatant propaganda that reveals your bias. I'll take the time out of my day to break it down for you. Starting with "gender transitions", I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misspoke and meant "gender identity". How would a minor begin gender transition without their parents knowledge or consent? are they taking school busses to underground, unregulated doctors that prescribe hormone blockers? and that brings me to the next point: there are literally no children that are receiving any irreversible treatments to aid in their gender expression. In some cases, minors below 16 may be prescribed puberty blockers, which have been used to treat various conditions for nearly half a century, are completely reversible, and demonstrably lower suicide rates in trans youth. Once a trans kid has hit 16 and has spent literal years with doctors and therapists, they may be prescribed hormones that help their body develop in a more comfortable way for their gender identity. These treatments are also decades old and again have demonstrably proved to be the most effective way to ensure trans people live long and healthy lives.

Is "PR" (that's actually just more lies and deception from the Christian right that purposely warps perceptions to demonize and vilify the LGBTQ+ community) more important than the literal lives of children? That question will remain relevant as I move onto my final point: if a child is having questions about their gender expression and their parents are vehemently opposed to that, to the point where it would put the child in imminent danger, often times lethal, if the parents were to find out, is it still morally correct to tell the parents based only on the inherently Christian idea that your parents are the sole deciders in the welfare of their children? to give a less politically charged example, let's look at left-handedness. it was a hugely popular belief that left handed people were of the Devil and evil not too long ago. an extremely dogmatic religious couple who already verbally abuse and accost left handed people have a child who teachers discover is left handed. should the teachers be required to tell the parents about their child's left-handedness, which will almost certainly lead to verbal and statistically likely physical abuse of that child? it isn't like the teachers are secretly part of a left handed cabal set to destroy the world with their evil left handed demons.

If you want to make progress on trans issues, I would suggest that the LGBT community take a transitional stance and then move again in the future, rather than losing their minds because they cannot force the whole population to share their views all at once.

this is literally a call to sit back and placate the Christian right. what's the transitional stance between "trans rights are human rights" and "we need to eradicate gender ideology from the public world"? should we only genocide half the trans community? that still wouldn't satisfy the right and there would be less people fighting for justice. "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented after years of riots and demonstrations drawing attention to the rampant assault in the US military. it is not like clinton just woke up one morning and decided that the gays have been quiet long enough so maybe we should give them some rights. the only tried and true tactic when it comes to gay rights is violence and standing up for ourselves and people like us in direct opposition to Christians.

It is true that the Nazi regime was hostile to the Christian church - because they recognized the power the church held and knew they needed to be the one and only source of truth. Nazism needed to be above god (that's the "fundamentally incompatible" part of your argument, since the church argues nothing is above god), but never sought to eradicate the belief in Him. When 95% of the regime identifies as Christian, and uses Christian ideology to suppress and genocide members of every other religion, that is a fundamentally Christian ideology, even if they fought for power directly with the Vatican. With many Nazi leaders wanting to treat Nazism itself like a religion - complete with divine rule - I'd even go so far as to argue that Nazism is a particularly embarrassing Christian sect.

Some Nazis, such as Hans Kerrl, who served as Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, advocated "Positive Christianity", a uniquely Nazi form of Christianity which rejected Christianity's Jewish origins and the Old Testament, and portrayed "true" Christianity as a fight against Jews, with Jesus depicted as an Aryan.[14]

Look Ma, I can cherry pick wikipedia too!

Under the Gleichschaltung (Nazification) process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate political Catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious.

Seems like Hitler had more of an issue with the political power of the church instead of their beliefs and even tried making his own Protestant sect.

But you seem to enjoy taking Nazis at their word (surely they wouldn't lie, would they?) so sure, they were totally a secular organization that definitely treated Jewish people nicely. They were even socialist!

roughly half of US Christians are fine with homosexuality now.

And yet, when you ask about trans identity, they'll show what they really believe. given the chance, even those who are "fine with it" would rather see us eradicated to please their special guy than for us to live peacefully by their side. Since I know how the Nazi comparison tickles you so much: if you asked the 1930s German population what they thought of Jewish people, more than "roughly half" would've said they were "fine" with them.

The shift in Christian attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community is the direct result of opposition to the church - which was considered to be "out of bounds" and "pushing Christians to be radicalized" at the time. The church changed their stance because they seek power and control over any principles they pretend to have. The shift happened in spite of religion, not because of it. I see you didn't even try to respond to how Christians were the main opposition to any and every single push for civil rights. If we sat back and placated them like you believe we should, only white landowning men would be able to vote or have rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_opposition

If Christians are so progressive, why is it always Christian groups that oppose progress? wait, I can answer this one for you: "Those groups don't represent 'real' Christianity". Surely there's nothing fundamental to the religion that makes oppression intrinsic.

The vast majority of Christians have spent your entire life moving more towards the middle.

Huh, dang I guess you're right. I mean, it certainly would be pretty wild for you to say that if the majority of Christians that I've personally met and the ones controlling my government had been organizing and campaigning to take away the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, women, and any racial minority since before my parents ever met. It'd be downright dishonest of you if, instead of moving more towards the middle, christians have spent the last 40 years sprinting to the far right as fast as they possibly could, to the point where a comparison to the Nazis doesn't seem so far-fetched. Do you honestly think the women's rights, LGBTQ+ acceptance, or the civil rights movement was championed by the Christian majority and they weren't the primary opposition to those ideas?

It'd also be insane if the "secular Nazi ideology" was actually heavily Christian and the Catholic Church spent centuries laying the groundwork for Jewish Genocide, helped the Nazis seize power, and continued to protect them long after their atrocities were well known. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

I guess if you are part of the oppressors, they're probably quite nice to you. Sorry if my words are what push you to finally be honest with yourself about what you believe. Didn't mean to radicalize you

"We are all domestic terrorists"

The paradox is literally what's happening with you in this thread, genius. the Christian church has been out of bounds for centuries, and now that people are finally responding appropriately, you kick and scream saying "not like that! you can only respond appropriately if you follow all the rules laid out by the people who oppress you! you need to tolerate our intolerance because our imaginary friend says we need to hate you to stop the end of the world"

There were "good" people who identify as Nazis. should we let that ideology thrive because a minority of its population put flowers on the graves their compatriots created?

I get that you just want to hold hands and sing kumbaya, but I have trouble holding the hands that are covered with the blood of my brothers, sisters, and allies.

To be fair, wasn't the vim codebase entirely committed by a single person? He did that with everyone and, while I don't agree with that at all, it reads less like elitism / stolen credit than this particular story.

I may be wrong about that, so feel free to correct me 😊 either way, people should be credited for the work they do! and preferably not in the footnotes of a commit authored by someone else that didn't fix the bug

"Reps choose…him or her" lol I'd eat my shorts if the GOP ever nominated a woman for their presidential bid in my lifetime

How many people are needed to run an equivalent amount of non self checkouts? Just because they need some employees doesn't mean they aren't reducing the amount of jobs overall.

Surely it's supposed to be Vicar Amelia?

I always interpreted "heat death" as "the death of heat" instead of "a hot death"