Kicked from RubyGems, maintainers forge new home at Gem Cooperative A team including maintainers removed without notice from the RubyGems.org project has formed the Gem Cooperative and created a new gem server called gem.coop, compatible with RubyGems. Martin Emde, one of the previous maintainers, said Ruby developers can immediately switch to the new server, although publishing gems is not …
I actually read the posts by DHH which were supposed to be racist and transphobic. I found nothing to disagree with.
"Educating" primary school children about transsexuality is inappropriate to say the least. They're not old enough to understand the issues and are at a very impressionable age.
It is a problem that just 1/3 of the population of London are native Brits.
The woke mob is out to destroy the man's career just because he spoke the truth. This is wokeism at its absolute worst.
"Educating" primary school children about transsexuality is inappropriate to say the least. They're not old enough to understand the issues and are at a very impressionable age.
We endeavour, correctly and successfully, to teach primary school children English grammar, basic set theory and the rules of association football. Compared to all of these things "Some people are much happier if they live their lives as the opposite sex" is really not terribly complicated, and it ranks about 73rd in the list of "Weird Things About The World Which Children Ought To Know".
It is a problem that just 1/3 of the population of London are native Brits.
Around 59% of Londoners were born in the UK. I shudder to imagine what you mean by "native Brits".
Define "native Brits"
I ask, because I strongly suspect the answer you give will include a group that were at some point in the past immigrants. How far back you need to go is just a matter of degree really. The whole "native Brits" thing is just a racist dog whistle. And I say this as someone who has a British ancestry of at least a few hundred years. Britain has been invaded so many times it's funny, and it built an empire specifically to import the products and peoples of the places it conquered. There is no point, except relatively recently, that "native Brits" was a thing. The British are, and always have been, whoever holds a British Passport. London is certainly not 2/3rds populated by people who do not hold a British passport, therefore the idea that it is only 1/3rd "native Brits" is absurd.
If your definition is "Anglo Saxon" then I hate to break it to you but the Angles and the Saxons were both immigrant groups. As were the Picts, the Celts, the Scots, and the Normans.
Educating primary school children about transsexuality is also an argument I hear a lot that the people making it fail to state what exactly it is they object too, I suspect they do this because they are trying to skirt over the fact that what primary school children are being educated about is "sometimes people are different, and that's ok" but they want to present the idea that kids are being told it's ok to undergo surgery, but that's definitely not in the curriculum. If you object to Children being told it's OK to be themselves, then the problem isn't transsexuality, it's you.
"that were at some point in the past immigrants"
People get all upset when you say that Native Americans are actually from Asia.
So for reference David Heinemeier Hansson is Danish. He's not a Brit. He's not a gammon.
"Britain has been invaded so many times it's funny"
As has the entirety of Europe. Actually more so as the UK has been relatively free of invaders for about the last 1000 years. But the various peoples of Europe all seem to be able to take pride in their nationality and history without the accusations of racism. We all forget that the French, Dutch and Spanish had empires and the French still retain the leftovers of theirs. It was not the English who devastated South America.
"Educating primary school children about"
The most common complaint is the source material that schools, predominantly in the USA, use for this 'education' is essentially p0rn. There is also significant evidence that children, especially girls with autism, are being told that the reason they have issues fitting in or coping with their changing bodies is that they are really the opposite sex and that transition will help them.
Another issue that parents have is the focus on fetish and kink. There has been a huge increase in the number of cases of SA involving choking.
"the idea that kids are being told it's ok to undergo surgery"
Well, its true that kids ARE undergoing surgery. One doctor loved to tictok about 'yeeting teets' of teenage girls and would show off the 'leftovers'. Some of this is more down to parents with serious mental health issues, not just the kids.
The only answer to this diatribe is ....What Utter Bull !!!
Don't state 'there is evidence' then not present it !!!
Social Media, Facebook, pointers to website(s) that make claims 'without evidence' etc etc ARE NOT EVIDENCE !!!
Scientific evidence from people with an accepted background that can be verified and are NOT a single voice shouting against the crowd.
i.e. their views are considered mainstream for the arena they are working in etc
This is what any sane body would be prepared to consider as evidence.
:)
The thing is I know full well that ANY evidence posted on a topic that does not match your worldview will be labelled as false, misinformation or one of the many other terms the left uses to dismiss actual truth and science.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals-are-more-likely-to-be-autistic-and-report-higher-autistic
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32770077/
The facts are that the rate of ASD in 'gender diverse' youth is 3-6x higher than in 'cis' youth.
Really this does not come as any sort of surprise that mentally vulnerable children are falling for the fantasy that their problems fitting into society are due to being in the wrong body. There is also a good amount of evidence coming to the surface again primarily relating to young girls, eating disorders and gender issues.
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/eating-disorder-rates-vary-among-different-groups-transgender-and-gender-diverse
"The thing is I know full well that ANY evidence posted on a topic that does not match your worldview will be labelled as false, misinformation or one of the many other terms the left uses to dismiss actual truth and science."
Once again with the 'Left' attack to justify/validate 5 thoughts in your mind :
1. I have a different view to you, so I must be an 'Other' i.e. Lefty member of the other tribe. !!!
2. I dared to ask for evidence, which you have provided BUT just to be sure, in case it does not support your comments ... Attack first !!!
3. Misdirect to cover the fact that these pieces of evidence are distinct and 'YOU' are 'more than' conflating them to reach your conclusion !!!
4. You're ultimately not so convinced BUT your tribe is telling you that it 'sounds' true, so as a true believer repeat the mantra !!!
5. I might not prove my point so it must be the lefties fault, as I cannot be wrong, the tribe says so !!!
All you have done is proved that you cannot bear ANYONE having a different view to the 'Tribal TRUTHS' !!!
God save us all from this nonsense !!!
:)
"Attack first !!!"
Isn't that exactly what you did? Your very first line of your previous post looked very much like an attack. You had no real defence to the original claim so went on the attack.
"I have a different view to you, so I must be an 'Other'"
Equally applies to you. I have a different view therefore I must be 'far right'. This is exactly the issue with this whole Ruby thing.
"All you have done is proved that you cannot bear ANYONE having a different view to the 'Tribal TRUTHS' !!!"
As have you. You initially dismissed it as BS and then blithered on with a load of projection.
"You're ultimately not so convinced BUT your tribe is telling you that it 'sounds' true"
This can be applied very well to the political left as very often under a very small amount of scrutiny people realise that their belief system imposed by their tribe falls apart. It is why support amongst normies for some of the more radical lefist beliefs is falling sharply.
You've proven, by posting this evidence, that you don't actually understand what is being published. You conflate cause and effect, correlation and causation. Did you know that for the longest time, there were no "left handed" Catholic children? Amazing right? If you ignore the actual meaning of that statement, you draw conclusions like you have with ASD and trans people.
"you don't actually understand what is being published"
Actually I do. The evidence is that there is a pretty strong correlation between certain mental health issues in young people.
"there were no "left handed" Catholic children"
Yup, cos they were beaten by the teacher. I'm fully aware of this as I grew up in a time when this was still a thing.
"like you have with ASD and trans people."
1) didn't say trans.
2) someone else came up with the theory.
Most rational people are quite prepared to read "evidence", determine the creditability of such and consequently place appropriate weight on its veracity regardless of their own personal view up to that point.
The fact that your opening sentence is directed purely at "the left" clearly marks where you are coming from and you have clearly already ruled out anything that someone might provide to counter your argument as coming from "the left ", thus allowing you to rule it out on no more of a basis than your own bias.
The links you've provided are - in my opinion - creditable. They don't however, provide any evidence for your subsequent claims and neither have you provided any links for your statement "There is also a good amount of evidence...". If there is, then please provide and we can judge.
"Most rational people"
True but it was obvious from the opening lines of the previous post that this was not a rational person. Their worldview had been challenged and the initial response was to immediately dismiss with prejudice.
"you have clearly already ruled out anything that someone might provide to counter your argument"
Well so far no-one actually has. All that has been done is several people have dismissed the claim without providing ANY evidence other than 'feels'. Instead of having rational discourse it has been a dogpile.
"There is also a good amount of evidence..."
The study of over 600,000 young people that showed a 3-6x difference? The one I posted a link to. Try that one.
Have an anecdote: I do a lot of work with children. Quite a few of these identify as transgender or non-binary. Every single xx child who does so, in the group with which I work, has a history of abuse, self-harm, eating disorders or diagnosed autism. Of course that could mean many things, including:
* Screwed up kids are more likely to identify as trans/non-binary
* Trans/non-binary kids are more likely to be screwed up
* Both of the above
Since I am not their doctor or social worker, I smile, call them by whatever name and pronouns they prefer and get on with things.
We have pride in our nationality and history, there's all sorts of great things about Britain, from cheese rolling to cider to theatre, our compassion and care for others etc... However, to ignore our negative history and behaviour as a country (colonialism, slavery, sexism, widespread asset stripping of other countries, the millions we as a country have caused the deaths of) is about as un-British as you can get. One of the things British people are known for is our saying sorry. Its part of our national identity to recognise mistakes and own up to them.
Your comments on primary education are ungrounded in reality - how about you actually look at the curriculum, and look at the resources used before basically parroting what right-wing American christian-nationalist groups state. Your comment about "kink" is nonsense. Schools teach about the dangers of things that children see online. The reality is that this stuff exists online, and to combat its prevalence in young people, schools are forced to teach that it is not acceptable, that consent matters, and what the law allows. All these things are done at age appropriate points throughout the child's growing up. No primary school is teaching its children about the things you list.
How about you put yourself through some child safeguarding training? Then you'll see the reality of why schools teach what they do. As, at the moment, you are clearly getting your "facts" from right wing rags.
Your comments about surgery are not even worth talking about - as they are as ignorant as they can possibly be.
You should probably read and understand what people post before going off on one. There is more to the world outside that which you live in.
It is safe to say that from your language you are talking about the UK. I was not. "predominantly in the USA".
"how about you actually look at the curriculum, and look at the resources used"
I have. I know this might blow your mind but there are people that actually do the research and don't just rely on third hand information.
The UK still has some semblance of sanity when it comes to education. How many 'drag queen story times' do UK schools have? I think the number is zero.
"No primary school is teaching its children about the things you list."
Again this might come as a shock but not everywhere does the same as the UK.
There is also significant evidence that children, especially girls with autism, are being told that the reason they have issues fitting in or coping with their changing bodies is that they are really the opposite sex and that transition will help them.
If that is true, how does knowing about transgender people make things worse? Some teenagers are anorexic; is it a problem to teach them about healthy eating?
^^^^^^^^^^ 100000^100000^100000 This !!!
Well Done for saying what needs to be said.
The 'Native Brits' thing is very much alive and well .... as we speak.
It is the favoured 'point of view' that is considered innocent and NOT possibly Racist (!!!???) ... when people try to talk to you about the problems in the UK.
They forget to think in terms of 100s to 1000s of years.
The real problem is people trying to import the attitudes from the US of A regarding race and immigration ... the attitudes that are inflamed by Herr Trump and his acolytes AKA MAGA.
Britain’s unique character is because of its long history of being invaded and the eventual assimilation of the 'invaders' into the populace.
The British Empire [BE] was useful in that it, eventually, forced the assimilation of its many and varied members and in general avoided the problems that the US of A had with race.
The BE 'members' were allowed by law to emigrate to the UK, particularly after WWII when workers were needed, this was maybe not liked but was essential for the growth of industries still recovering from the hit on the economy of WWII.
[Look up the issues that the US Army had during WWII when they tried to continue the racial segregation rules et al in the UK. They tried and failed to get the 'Brits' to 'bend' our laws/regulations.]
[Quote from Churchill War Ministry report: 'US military "must not expect our authorities, civil or military, to assist them in enforcing a policy of segregation. It was clear that, so far as concerned admission to canteens, public houses, theatres, cinemas, and so forth, there would, and must, be no restriction of the facilities hitherto extended to coloured persons as a result of the arrival of United States troops in this country."']
Yes, the UK had problems with some racial prejudice at the time and it did extend to the 70s in a diminishing way ... BUT since them it has been much better ... the problem is it is swinging back towards the level of the 70s as external influences push things backwards, helped by Reform and Far-right influences that are being encouraged in the UK today.
:)
"Britain’s unique character is because of its long history of being invaded and the eventual assimilation of the 'invaders' into the populace."
You are aware that all these 'invaders' were white 'Europeans' of which the ancient 'English' were originally part of before the seas rose and split the two land masses?
All 'Europeans' are white and have only been white ???
Really !!!
Read your history of ALL the wars that the 'European nations' fought and the peoples they invaded/subjugated/assimilated !!!
[Start at the Romans, for ease, and work your way towards today !!!]
I am sure that they fought a lot of people who were NOT white !!!
How long did you think the 'only white' lasted ???
BTW:
You are not including in your 'pure' history that the British Empire (and all the other empires that other countries had) did much the same as the romans i.e. invaded/subjugated/assimilated.
So the pure white wasn't around for long !!!
Historically, all peoples are mongrels ... may not like it ... BUT it is true !!!
Sort of breaks the 'Aryan race' fantasy ... even the British version !!!
P.S.
Do read beyond the 'Britain’s unique character' paragraph as it 'adds' to the British character as well !!!
From the start of the British Empire ... GB impacted other countries BUT it also had an impact in the other direction ... not really noticed but there just the same.
Guess where our love of Curry came from !!!???
:)
Wow, you missed the point of that post by a clear mile!
So, lets jog your memory. The initial claim was "long history of being invaded". InvadED. Not invadING.
"Start at the Romans"
"I am sure that they fought a lot of people who were NOT white !!!"
Well the Roman empire spanned most of Europe, the near east and parts of North Africa. Yes, a lot of the people the Romans fought were not white but the Romans WERE. It was the Romans that invadED Britian.
You then miss out some 1500 years of history and jump to the British Empire. The British Empire did not invade Britian. We invadED other countries.
In that big chunk of history you conveniently skipped over Britian was invaded by, in no particular order, the French, Saxons, various Norse, Danes and of course the Romans. We managed to avoid invasion by the Spanish and a much later attempt by the Germans. We've not been invaded by anyone further away than modern Italy. And the invaders have been either pagans or some form of Christians.
> Well the Roman empire spanned most of Europe, the near east and parts of North Africa. Yes, a lot of the people the Romans fought were not white but the Romans WERE. It was the Romans that invadED Britian.
I suggest that you do some research on diversity in the Roman army. The significant requirement was citizenship. Roman citizens were not just from the city of Rome, or even just from Italy, but the entire empire (as you note, including Africa and the near east). Supplying men for the legions was a central part of the process of becoming part of the empire. Heck, even the emperor Septimius Severus (came to Britain in 208, died in Britain in 211) was born in what is now Libya...
The idea that the Roman army that invaded Britain was entirely what you would presumably consider white is balderdash.
"The idea that the Roman army that invaded Britain was entirely what you would presumably consider white is balderdash."
History indicates that the Roman army recruited a lot of locals. It is possible that some of the soldiers will have been from far way lands but at the end of the day they would still be Roman. They would have been integrated/born into Roman culture, Roman ways, Roman thinking etc. But the numbers would have been small as they'd most likely have used soldiers from say Gaul as its on the way to the channel.
What they left here, before the country fell into the dark ages, was Roman culture.
"emperor Septimius Severus"
He was still a Roman. Roman culture etc. And the historical records indicate that the Phoenicians and Carthaginians were relatively light skinned, not that it makes much difference.
Culture and appearance are not connected. Unless you are an American activist.
Thank you for answering in my stead.
I did reply but it was lost in transit or something and did not appear and I cannot be bothered to type it ALL again.
To expand on your comment, the Roman Empire and its army grew by acquisition ... this was the standard way you grew your empire.
The new citizens you got by war had to provide new men for the legions, their 'colour' did not count in any way.
The armies that were sent to conquer Britain would be an assortment of whoever they had available.
Probably mostly 'White Romans' but not 100% ... this destroys the 'Pure White' genesis point for the 'Native Brits' today.
Since that time the peoples in all the countries that had been part of the Roman Empire had also assimilated the 'not quite white' Romans as well.
These peoples then became some of the invaders who came to Britain later.
At what point did the 'Pure White' genesis happen ???
Yes, I have not included the Vikings and no doubt others who could be argued to be 'Pure White' but are you that desperate to win this debate to claim that 'Pure White' must be from the Vikings !!!
[Remember that the Vikings would have mixed with the locals, who had been already 'polluted' by the Romans, and diluted the 'Pure White' lineage in the process !!!]
:)
" this destroys the 'Pure White' genesis point for the 'Native Brits' today"
Oh sweet child, you are SO dumb! No-one was claiming 'pure white'. Well, except the racist lefties who make everything about race. Seriously, get some help.
The original claim was about the supposed mix from the thousands of years of invasions and comparing it to the 'multiculturalism' of today's mass migration. But this is false.
You're as bad as the Reform Gammonistas. 'Oh you had an ancestor from 2000 years ago that was not white so hur-de-hur the joke is on you'. 2000 years of not having the Romans here would have diluted the DNA so far you could not detect it.
>” Britain’s unique character is because of its long history of being invaded and the eventual assimilation of the 'invaders' into the populace.”
At one level, at another there are key differences between the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Scotland,people(*) that can be traced back to the way both the Romans and the Normans took over (or didn’t) and colonised each of these countries. Ie. Don’t assume “the British” have a single unique character.
(*) Here I am assuming the majority of people who can trace their paternal and maternal ancestry back over several centuries ie. You have forefathers in the 1801 census and so probably have ancestors who were in Britain during the Norman period.
> It is a problem that just 1/3 of the population of London are native Brits.
You say that with such absolute certainty, even going to the trouble to type in emphasis tags.
Why is it? Whatever problem you are alluding to has managed to pass me by in the >40 years I've spent living here. Please educate this Londoner what is wrong with my city (hint: it's you).
On the other hand homophobic bullies who had learned the "appropriate" approach to people who are different than they have been "educated" to be took a horrific toll on my schoolfriend's life and made his struggle to come out significantly harder than it needed to be.
You're racist. Go away.
"It is a problem that just 1/3 of the population of London are native Brits."
Care to prove that? Thought not.
Even if it's true, which it's not, let take some fine "British" institutions.
Marks and Spencers. Shit Marks was Polish....
Tesco..bloody Polish again
Odeon Cinemas...agggh Oscar Deutsch, son of immigrants.
Rimmel, you know "Rimmel London"...ahhh a Frenchie
Topshop? Nope, Lithuanian immigrant.
easyJet....nope
Selfridges...damn
I know Deliveroo....oopsie
Still could always drive an original mini, made in England by a British company....except it was designed by a Greek...
Still gotta keep those immigrants out, so the rich can keep distracting us.
From reviewing my family’s experience, and observations of friends families, I suggest the National Front back in the 1970s had it about right!: namely your parents and grandparents parents needed to have been born in Britain for you to be British.
Obviously, they were using this to distinguish between “natives” and the new (“coloured”) immigrants - which they wanted to “go home”. However, I looked at the differing perspectives, outlook, hopes and aspirations of my great grand parents, grand parents, parents and myself and see distinct differences. To my great grandparents England was somewhere safe, but definitely not “home”, my generation England is “home”, there is no connection with or pull from the grandparents birth countries.
Looking at friends whose parents arrived in England in the 1960s, and seeing the way they, and their children have developed, I see the same changes happening. With tensions being caused by grandparents wanting the grandchildren to adhere to customs etc. from the country of their birth and not assimilating.
All you have done is outed yourself as another uninformed individual.
Primary schools teach the existence of the world. Teaching that transgender people exist is not inappropriate, just as teaching cisgender people exist. The fact that you think it is makes you a bigot.
Then you lurch into Farage-esque drivel about "native brits". You know who a native Brit is? Someone born here. End of the story.
Obsessing over "wokism" is going to make you into an angry and sad individual.
You are missing the sub-text ... 'Native Brits' means born here AND can trace their lineage back trough a line of 'Pure White' ancestors.
The only problem is that the people who originally invaded were not 100% white to begin with, so the lineage is dubious !!!
Also, most often ignored/forgotten, is that the records available are NOT reliable !!!
Records have always been a means to prove 'whatever' you needed ... control the records and you are powerful.
Example of this 'flexibility' is that many people with titles/power would document their lineage on documents that showed their ancestors & titles.
These documents would often be be adorned with all the heraldic decoration of the ancestors/family line.
These were the early documents that proved your rights to titles and land.
As families grew and declined there was often some debate over who was the rightful owner of titles & land, these documents were part of that proof.
As ever, these documents were often 'lost' or 'amended', to order, when more powerful families acquired other families titles & land.
It was not unknown for these documents to be clarified/falsified which allowed families to keep titles & land that should be lost due to the true heirs being dead.
Distant 'relatives' would 'suddenly' find they were in line to inherit titles & land with 'collusion of others' who would then marry into the family via the new heir and gain rights to the titles etc.
In short, all the usual chicanery that people/families performed to 'keep' what is 'theirs' !!!
This means that you cannot trust 100% many of the really old records where 'real' corroboration is not available.
Therefore even your 'Pure White' lineage MAY be subject to debate !!!
It is very hard to prove any type of 'Pure' lineage unless you were part of a population that was isolated from the world for long periods of time and never married outside of that community.
Genetic 'pollution' of any lineage is part of the problem of peoples who mix, for whatever reason.
The world is small and has been for a long time.
This discourse is getting very close to debate about Eugenics and other 'verboten' ideas that drove attempts to 'Purify the people' by the Nazis and still lives in the darker corners of peoples minds.
I don't think I need to go there !!!
:)
They are using software, not marrying him.
I don't care if people wander round at the weekend dressed as Hitler, believe the world is flat or even support Man City. Each to their own. Doesn't stop me buying things from them or selling things to them.
It's a diverse world out there. If you want to entirely isolate yourself from people who don't think the way you do, you are going to have a weird life.
<blockquote>It's a diverse world out there. If you want to entirely isolate yourself from people who don't think the way you do, you are going to have a weird life.</blockquote>
You've fallen into the paradox of tolerance, which dictates that I have to tolerate any behavior from anybody or I'm being hypocritical.
There is, in fact, a difference between people who don't want to tolerate characteristics of others -- how they worship, where their ancestors were from, who they love, how they express themselves, for brevity's sake we'll stop here -- and me not tolerating people that want to oppress others. Want to be different than me? Rock on with your bad self. Want to deny others their humanity or, as you put it, dress up like Hitler? Fuck off with that shit.
It's the "some speech *should* be illegal" argument. We've used it here in the good old USA for years to explain why some objectively bad speech should be illegal. Now an objectively horrid party is in power and now they're using that on what *they* consider speech that should be illegal.
So, I mean, I'm not going to disagree with you (who wants to become unemployable); I am just pointing out that this particular sword has two edges.
You've fallen into the trap of tolerance vs acceptance.
You can tolerate something without accepting it as 'normal'. Those pushing hardest for 'tolerance' really want acceptance (actually its more like demanding affirmation) and will call for the oppression of those who do not submit to their demands.
"It's a diverse world out there. If you want to entirely isolate yourself from people who don't think the way you do, you are going to have a weird life"
Indeed, but equally people are free to have nothing to do with someone they disagree with. I've personally disowned a long time friend that was racist and homophobic. I'd rather lose someone like that, than just put up with him.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to simply copy all the gems from Ruby Gems? Have they got the agreement of the authors of all the gems? It is far from certain that everyone is in agreement on this and I can well imagine that there are some people who don't want to be involved.
