34
The PSF has withdrawn a $1.5 million proposal to US government grant program (pyfound.blogspot.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/python@programming.dev
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/56411678

https://fosstodon.org/users/ThePSF/statuses/115446659188615376

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Calling the python orgs DEI "anti-white" or related to anything else you mentioned honestly seems delusional. As in if you are experiencing real issues in your life I worry that this fantastical thinking maybe hindering your ability to address the real causes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    This is my stance. You are welcome to argue points, but gaslighting is not an argument. And only white people are gaslighted for tribalism, but its ok for everyone else to use identity politics in favor of their tribe.

    If there are other real causes then list them. By presenting an actual argument i might be in danger of learning something.

    You are showing a pattern of using psyche, especially reframing with gamed terminology (anti-inclusion), which then i counter by using the opposite terminology (anti-white). We could play this game from now 'til the end of eternity. This psyche back and forth however is not presenting an actual argument.

    And in case you lack situational/contextual awareness, we are in a programming forum. Not being able to string together a coherent or convincing argument will make world+dog wonder whether you are lost.

    Expect more from my peers. Stop toying with me and win the argument already. The barrier is not high.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Part of my choice of words is because you are describing issues I've seen no concrete evidence of. Especially with the PSF, who DEI actions are things like travel grants for the conferences, encourages local chapters, and having a code of conduct.

    None of those are anti-white or anything to do with taxes or monetary policy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Thank you Thank you Thank you for listing the PSF activities that the PSF feels might violate current administrations executive order (EO) concerning DEI.

    Can completely rule out these as non-issues:

    • travel grants for the conferences
    • encourages local chapters (THIS IS NOT DEI)

    None of these PSF activities run afoul of the EO.

    Would like to add this as also a non-issue:

    • the two year claw back period (just hold the funds for two years)

    As long as the PSF doesn't go out of their way to ensure the code of conduct (1) or their operations or at conferences (2) are explicitly geared towards promoting DEI policies.

    PSF is concerned, correct me if i'm mistaken, so this most likely is the source of their concerns. Increasingly seems like self-inflicted tempest in a tea cup or purposefully shooting themselves in the foot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Those are DEI policies. Those are the types of inivitives this administration have vindictively gone after. The same admin has repeatedly gone above and beyond to legal agreements on orgizations not showing public compliance (and even for orgs that have but were politically convient to attack anyways). Its not worth the risk to stand in front of that gun, even if the first chamber is an empty threat like you propose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    We don't need to agree these are DEI policies. This is a risk vs reward issue. So comes down to the simple question of, where does PSF derive it's funding.

    If PSF feels it's funding is sufficient, then it's safer to not take the funding. Pursuing the funding in the first place therefore must have been a easily foreseeable mistake.

    The West however is in a hyper-inflationary or at least inflationary situation. So PSF traditional base will face financial pressure.

    May have the luxury now to turn down the funding, but sit back and buckle in as the US and EU moves the dial way up to, hold my beer. During that period, securing funding may become super difficult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent