Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this article, and in addition the comments you've been making here on top have also been of great quality besides. Thanks you for posting this!
I think you're viewing the issue from a strategic lens, whereas this article is looking at it from a moral one. Obviously, we can't expect a state to be even-handed with its application of violence for the very reasons you state here. But obviously... that doesn't make it okay.
In short, I don't think you're actually disagreeing with the article at all.
This implies that how we react to this will have any bearing whatsoever on how the right will treat us. It won't. They will be as mean to us as they can physically manage, regardless of how we act, because they hate us.
I find comments like these on places like Beehaw almost amusing in a way. It's like watching a drunk person stumble from a bar all the way to a courthouse and getting upset the clerk won't sell them more liquor.
Seriously though, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here. Just about everybody here disagrees and isn't keen on a take like this, and I'd figure you'd have been able to tell as much before posting. So... are you just here to argue?
I'd argue the road to fascism started a hell of a lot sooner than 2016. Capitalism in decay, and all that.
I’m saying that if you think you said “that is a stupid position to take and here is why,” you missed the mark severely, and you should be more careful with your phrasing if you don’t want people to get upset at you in future. It’s not about people “willingly” misinterpreting anything — whether you realized it or not, what you said wasn’t the level-headed response you may have intended it to be.
I saw that one. It's what I was referring to when I said "saying you want to 'avoid alienating people' when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic." Criticizing the maintainer response there was one of the good parts of the blog post.
But the outcome of that doesn't really much change the fact that the sarcastic PR was sarcastic, and thus calling that PR spam is reasonable, whereas claiming they called the trans woman herself spam is not. To be clear, however: I've no issue with the sarcastic PR itself, only the framing of it in the blog post.
It is absolutely a reasonable interpretation to assume you were referring to the people making the decision you didn't like. And even if it wasn't, calling an idea a group of people have "incredibly fucking stupid" isn't much different, as it carries an implication of how you see those people.
If you feel other people are getting offended too easily at what you say, I recommend spending extra time on your posts to ensure you avoid saying derogatory things you don't intend for. Something that looks good to you can be incredibly insulting to others who read differently from you, and since conversation is a two-way street, that's the kind of thing we all need to be aware of.
I've no love lost for the developers in question. But between the original two PRs and associated comments being from over three years ago, and the "trans woman [being called] 'spam" comment being said about a PR that seems pretty strongly to me to be meant as a sarcastic insult rather than a genuine contribution, I can't help but find it a little unconvincing.
It's not without merit by far. I feel that Kling's blog post not addressing the drama was in poor taste and may indicate a lack of self-improvement regarding the initial fuckup, and saying you want to "avoid alienating people" when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic. I also understand not wanting bigots to be able to just bury their past and pretend they were never bigoted. It's just that the fiery response this has gotten still ends up feeling a bit disproportionate given how old the truly insulting issues were. Am I missing something?