'Politics: This topic has caused serious problems in the past and as such is subject to tight control. Discussion of the politics of open source it permissible in the lounge.
Ah yes, the 2 sexualities: Straight and political
This is the thing that makes me as angry as I am right now. This is exactly what they are doing.
Thanks! I’m going to reuse this.
At least link to the correct thing: https://bark.lgbt/@gimmechocolate/115164408860865811
It seems for the last 5 years or so, Ubuntu has done a good job of making everyone hate them.
I don’t see where the mods made them change it. (Edit: I see it now. If you check the edit history on the post, it shows who made the edits, in this case it was DIscourse mod wild_man.)
Also, why is this a link to reddit?
The post on Mastodon has a screenshot of the post edit history:
And a copy-pasted response from a moderator (the most relevant bit):
So in my opinion, if your intention was to show political support for diversity, you should avoid using this flag. This will allow us to refuse the use of a flag for instance saying ‘non-queer’, If we allow your flag, then we have to admit also other similar political flags, both supporting and opposing diversity.
But why must they also allow bigotry if they allow people to express who they are? That is the biggest load of shit. So if I say “I have a husband of X years,” they must also allow someone to say a bunch of bigotry as a counter view?
Or if I say I like open source software they must allow the trolls that want to call me a dirty hippie and tell me to get a job so I can pay for software? And I agree everything is political, and ignoring it doesn’t make it any less so.
“If we allow your flag, then we have to admit also other similar political flags, both supporting and opposing diversity.”
Consider the following: no, they don’t.
Crazy statement, if we accept the gays we should accept the nazis too.
Our terminal liberalism forbids us from saying one thing is better or worse than another thing !
But there aren’t any political flags on there…
The flag wasn’t removed?
Removed by mod
I take offense at this. I am autistic, this mod in question is just a bigot.
What I want to know now is whether this mod is associated with Canonical in any capacity.On further research, this happened on the official Ubuntu boards, not Reddit as the link here implies. That makes this even more egregious. Canonical employees and official Ubuntu maintainers are responsible for this brazen homophobia. I gave up Ubuntu some time ago over Snaps and other creepy capitalist behavior, but this is a new low I didn’t expect from them.
People, don’t use Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or anything from Canonical. It you need Debian compatibility try Mint or Debian, otherwise try Fedora. Bazzite is also amazing if all you do is play games. Canonical is just as evil and corrupt as the other big companies.
I’m not sure why you’re moralizing so hard. I dont use ubuntu or any of their products.
In the first line I was attempting to make a joke, since I am autistic and the mod - or mods - clearly are bigots.
The post-strikethrough comments aren’t directed at you, but at the disgusting behavior of Canonical. I’m sincerely sorry if I didn’t make that part quite clear. ☹️
I remember earlier this year when conservatives used autism to justify elon’s nazi salutes.
Don’t be like that.
I’m still pissed about this. they didn’t give half a shit about being considerate about autism before
Removed by mod
It’s neat how the surest way to get a drive by internet autism diagnosis is just to do something bigots like.
deleted by creator
That response does not appear on the Ubuntu site. There is no source on the mastodon paste.
The OP on Mastodon shared screenshots of the replies (can’t tell if they were originally in the forum post, or if it’s a DM):
Okay, that’s pretty difficult to read but it’s something.
But I checked the Ubuntu Discourse thread just now, and the statement “I am queer” has been restored by a mod. Hopefully the other mods are reminded of the policies they’re supposed to be following.
Ubuntu is a South African ethical ideology focusing on people’s allegiances and relations with each other. The word comes from the Zulu and Xhosa languages. Ubuntu is seen as a traditional African concept, is regarded as one of the founding principles of the new republic of South Africa and is connected to the idea of an African Renaissance.
A rough translation of the principle of Ubuntu is “humanity towards others”. Another translation could be: “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity”.
“A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.”
–Archbishop Desmond Tutu
As a platform based on Free software, the Ubuntu operating system brings the spirit of ubuntu to the software world.
The original content was restored and a comment made by a mod underneath the profile page of the guy says this :
The original text of this topic has been restored. The moderator action was a mistake and not reflective of the Ubuntu Diversity Policy 6.
As stated within the policy “…we explicitly honour diversity in age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, subculture and technical ability.” The Ubuntu community is for everyone.
Reddit flagged this as inaccurate and the mod added this:
The issue was never with the poster’s self identification. The Ubuntu Community Council have been contacted and have been discussing the issue since Friday it happened.
The Ubuntu Community Council rarely comments publicly when complaints are dealt with, but the moderation team is welcome to do so.
Because I am on the Ubuntu Community Council and have been working on this issue, I am unable to comment further at this time.
So “we’re not taking an anti-queer ‘Don’t say gay’ stance”
It’s inaccurate mis-information, our official policy "We don’t comment publicly about policies and complaints our official stance is ‘no comments’ "
I’m calling this a “big ouf” moment
deleted by creator
:^)
I think this might be getting overblown a bit. I think if this is a communication to an internal community, like in any job, you’d not want people sharing deeply personal information about their sexual orientation and whatnot.
If I started a new corporate job and started just spouting “Hey, I’m [sexual orientation]” around the office or in chat rooms, I’d probably expect to be notified that it’s not going to be acceptable in a professional environment. I think the Furry thing would also probably be advised against because, regardless of the actual nature, it may make people uncomfortable.
This person has every right to be announcing this as part of their identity in social settings, but it’s not shocking if it’s not allowed in a professional setting. The uncomfortable meter goes both ways, same as if someone else walks around the office spouting their cis-straight identity or religious bullshit. If it’s making people uncomfortable, they should also have to curb that speech to stop upsetting people in the larger group. I don’t think anyone has come up with a golden solution to solve for this that I’m aware of.
There doesn’t seem to be any clarifying information on the nature of the list this was part of or anything, so it’s really hard to get the context. If this was a corporate and public communication, it’s not shocking if it was going against some corporate speak no-no bullshit. 🤷
Edit: Christ, I’m not even saying controversial and I’m being brigaded ffs 🤣
You’d be pretty surprised what conversational topics would reveal one’s implied sexuality that no one would probably push back against, because it’s “normal.” For instance, I recall straight people announcing at my work that they’d been trying for a kid or their partner was pregnant. :|
Inferring something from a conversation is way different than someone advertising it. It’s also way different in a social setting with co-workers versus the office, which in this context, it seems like it was an office communication.
It’s weird how you’re moving goalposts in an analogy you created that misrepresented the situation anyway.
Some people clearly don’t see a difference between mentioning a part of a relationship and just stating what their sexuality is. One is appropriate in a much broader spectrum of settings than the other, regardless of what the sexuality of the person in question is, and I feel like people who don’t understand, or refuse to, are likely to be obnoxious to be around in general.
The amount of corporate bios I’ve read that talk about wives, husbands and family is astounding.
But I’m not totally sure what this is. It looks like someone joining the community to work for free? I might be wrong. If that’s the case they should be allowed to write whatever the hell they want as long as it’s not hurtful.
And super weird they’d take out “queer” but leave the furry thing. Not that there’s anything wrong with either.
First of all, this is not a professional setting, he’s not an employee there, and that forum is open for everyone.
Secondly, and way more important, people do that daily and no one cares especially when introducing oneself it’s common to mention stuff like your wife/husband and your preferred pronouns, hell, my corporate slack profile has my pronouns and those of everyone else. I’ve worked with trans people who introduced themselves as trans on the first day, and no one cared. So no, it’s perfectly okay for people to talk about themselves during an introduction even in professional settings.
Last but not least, people being uncomfortable is not a good reason to ban something, members of the KKK might be uncomfortable about working next to a black person, so what? Should the black person hide that he’s black to not make the others uncomfortable? That’s bullshit. If a person is uncomfortable by another one saying they’re queer, then that first person needs to deal with it, being queer is part of who the other person is and he shouldn’t have to hide who he is because someone might be uncomfortable about it. You mentioned religion, which I don’t think falls into the same category because religion is a set of beliefs that many people change through their lives, but still, people wear crosses daily in professional settings and no one cares.
Removed by mod
Trans is not the same as Queer. That’s why there is a “T” and “Q” in LGBTQ.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. You sign on to a company, you follow their HR policy. They aren’t required to employ you, and simply abiding by their policies is either something you choose to do, or you don’t.
The source for this is ultimately a social media post by someone @bark.lgbt.
Not exactly impartial.
Regardless of how impartial the source might be, there are facts there:
- Fact 1: Someone made an introductory post in which, among other things, they mentioned “I am queer”.
- Fact 2: A moderator working for Canonical deleted that part, and only that part, of that post.
- Fact 3: Another moderator re-added that and claimed the first one acted erroneously.
While Fact 3 is a bit of a relief, they still haven’t communicated what they intend to do to prevent this from happening again.
Why does it matter if it’s impartial or not? Just go read the thread on Ubuntu discourse if you want to verify the information? It’s all there. The mod fucked up. Simple as that. It’s good that someone brought this to light.
When can we stop inserting politics into every little thing? I know it’s a big deal at the moment, what with the fascist takeover of our government, but are Linux devs and their moderators really the people we expect to represent all of us in that fight? They don’t have the power to help in that capacity.
We should be able to accept people’s help in whatever realm they are offering it without trying to force them to help with everything else at the same time. These guys signed up to support open source software. That’s an important and helpful thing but it isn’t gay rights activism. That is not their area of expertise. They’re not supposed to be representing LGBTQ interests in anything except the right to privacy. Quit making them the arbiter of morality in battles they didn’t sign up to fight to begin with. It doesn’t help anybody. It only redirects anger away from the people that we really should be mad at, namely our absolute disaster of a federal government.
Saying something about yourself as an introduction is custom. Mentioning that you are queer is not weird or political. It someone sharing a fact about themselves. Me saying that I like girls is also not a political statement. It’s a fact/trivia about me.
The fact that LGBTQ+ people get shit for just existing in society is fucked up and that’s the problem.
The political part is the mod intervention, not someone saying “I’m queer”
When can we stop inserting politics into every little thing?
When I see comments like this, it makes 2 things plainly obvious:
- The commentor is naive and doesn’t understand that fundamentally ‘politics’ is the power dynamic in every relationship, be that between people, groups or with structures or things such as food.
It is in everything and connects everything. It defines your relationship and how you interact with the world and it’s relationship to, and interaction with you.
- The commentor has enough privilege that they don’t have to worry about politics/pet structures on a daily basis.
Some people can’t see the wood for the trees
A fish doesn’t know its wet
How is it political to talk about yourself in vague terms when introducing yourself to a group!? Would it be political if he said his hair is brown? How about if he mentions the color of his skin, is that political?
You make the statement political when you try to ban certain people from talking about who they are, if only white people talk about the color of their skin it’s not political to say you’re black, it’s political to try to block people from saying it. Saying you’re queer is on the same level of mentioning you have a wife/husband, in fact it’s even more vague, it’s in the same level of saying “since I was a boy/girl”, because queer does not necessarily mean non-heterosexual it can also mean non-cisgender so it’s an umbrella term to mean member of the LGBTQ+ community, if being queer is political then being heterosexual or cisgender also has to be, and I doubt people would be okay with having to step on eggshells not to mention anything that could make someone deduce their sexuality or gender. Hell, the same people who claim Queer is political are the ones who have the most problem with gender neutral language.
I don’t think the problematic political part is a person basically saying “Oh, I’m queer btw”, but the mod team redacting it.
I also think that trying to supress political discussion in the forums of an OS literally called Ubuntu is beyond ironic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy
Once again lgbt stealing time from everyone for their inability to understand the context they’re in
No u
Lmao, roasted! Flamed, even!
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
