Slashdot Mirror


Linus Torvalds On Linux's Code of Conduct (bbc.com)

Linus Torvalds oversees every line of code added to the Linux kernel, but in recent years the male-dominated community has become increasingly divided, reports BBC. Rows about sexism and rudeness led to the creation of a Code of Conflict (CoC) in 2015 which was short -- simply recommending people "be excellent to each other." That has now been replaced by a more detailed Code of Conduct -- which retains the acronym, but attempts to be more inclusive and eliminate insulting and derogatory comments and behaviour. Reader sinij writes: Recently Linux Community adopted a new controversial Code of Conduct authored by Contributor Covenant also known for authoring the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto. In an exclusive email interview with the BBC, Mr Torvalds shared his thoughts on his decision to temporarily step aside, the controversy behind the CoC, and the defects of the community he set up. His thoughts on CoC: The advantage of concentrating on technology is that you can have some mostly objective measures, and some basis for agreement, and you can have a very nice and healthy community around it all. I really am motivated by the technology, but the community around Linux has been a big positive too. But there are very tangible and immediate common goals in any technical project like Linux, and while there is occasionally disagreement about how to solve some particular issue, there is a very real cohesive force in that common goal of improving the project. And even when there are disagreements, people in the end often have fairly clear and objective measures of what is better. Code that is faster, simpler, or handles more cases naturally is just objectively 'better', without people really having to argue too much about it.

In contrast, the arguments about behaviour never seem to end up having a common goal. Except, in some sense, the argument itself. Have you read the Twitter feeds and other things by the people who seem to care more about the non-technical side? I think your 'hyped stories' is about as polite as you can put it. It's a morass of nastiness. Instead of a 'common goal', you end up with horrible fighting between different 'in-groups'. It's very polarising, and both sides love egging the other side on. It's not even a 'discussion', it's just people shouting at each other. That's actually the reason I for the longest time did not want to be involved with the whole CoC discussion in the first place. That whole subject seems to very easily just devolve and become unproductive. And I found a lot of the people who pushed for a CoC and criticised me for cursing to be hypocritical and pointless. I could easily point you to various tweet storms by people who criticise my 'white cis male' behaviour, while at the same time cursing more than I ever do.

So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt. "And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation. What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion. Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad. And don't get me wrong, please -- I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout. So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

378 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

    Coming soon to this thread: Those people.

    1. Re:Coming soon to this thread by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

      Coming soon to this thread: Those people.

      I know, right?

      If only "those people" would just accept their super low status and their incredible wrongness!

    2. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's more like: if only those people could behave constructively even in the face of people who aren't. If only those people could undergo some personal growth, like even Linus "asbestos underpants" Torvalds has eventually managed to accomplish. If only those people wouldn't use the PC gripe as an excuse for their worst feelings and urges. If only...

    3. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Caving isn't personal growth. It's giving up on principals. Linus caved to save the project. It probably won't work.

    4. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know all those times you complained about snowflakes and told Clinton supporters "this is why you lost"?

      Yeah. Linus is right, it's not a debate, it's just people screaming at each other.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Coming soon to this thread by d0ran$ · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo wrong mod

    6. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately we live in an era where we can say the Earth is Round, and Nazi's are bad and have it seem like a political statement.

      But being cavil to each other shouldn't be considered politically correct.
      So in a development community:
      A political correct response to a bad idea: That is a good idea, we will prioritize it. (Then make it bottom priority) The person who made the bad idea didn't learn anything new, and thinks his idea is a good one. However the person who did the respond is not necessarily hated.

      A politically incorrect and uncivil response: Calling the person an idiot questioning his parentage and life style. The person who made the bad idea still didn't learn anything, and he is just pissed off at the community.

      A politically incorrect yet civil response: We don't agree or like your idea, we find such faults in the design that we find unacceptable. The person has learned the reason for the rejection, and while may be angry that his idea and work didn't get the praise he feels it may deserve. The civil and rational response gives them the opportunity to learn and try again, perhaps with the direction the community is trying to follow.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Coming soon to this thread by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You are not helping the situation.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they scream something constructive, I am glad they do because then I can hear them.

      If they scream something destructive, I'm glad there's a mute button right next to their name.

      Yes, it actually IS that easy on the internet to get rid of someone obnoxious. It has never been easier to ignore someone you can't stand.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Coming soon to this thread by js290 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't hurt to be nice and civil, but it also seems like Torvalds caved into Guilt By Association and Equivocation fallacies. If someone confuses Torvalds with "white cis male privilege" nationalist nazi, then it says more about that someone than about Torvalds.

      Wittgenstein’s Ruler (@joyousandswift’s Maxim): "Most of the time, people’s observations about something else reveal more about the observer than what’s being observed." http://bit.ly/2KYABXT

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    10. Re:Coming soon to this thread by tbird20d · · Score: 2

      Maybe the generality of "a lot of the people..." threw you. But I think it's pretty clear that Linus doesn't want to be associated with white supremecists and Nazis. Who can blame him? I realize this plays a bit into the guilt-by-association tactics often used by the political correctness crowd. And the tactic should be resisted. But it should be done with calm and reasoned rhetoric. Nobody, including "those people" (whoever that is) has to accept a "super low status", but some people could certainly back off the rhetoric, and they would actually convince more people of their case. Well that and it's true that some people would be better off if they did accept their incredible wrongness. Can you honestly think of no one that would be better off if they changed their mind, or their tone?

    11. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      I don't think that all forms of criticism should be conflated with political incorrectness. In the context of a contribution to a software project, "This idea won't work" is politically neutral. "This idea won't work, and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" is politically incorrect.

    12. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All or nothing, black and white arguments are the fave among practiced hypocrites who like to whine about hypocrisy (and that is something we see too much of on all over the political spectrum).

      Torvald's argues that his essential stance and values have always been the same, but how he promotes his position has changed because circumstances have changed. Maybe that is right, maybe that is wrong, but I am not going to take your snowflaky opinion about Linus without you baking it up with...anything. Linus has an argument to back up his position. You have whining.

    13. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There's usually no reason for foul language. Except when it comes to flat earthers. Being uneducated bears no shame. Not wanting to learn does.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Coming soon to this thread by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      They aren't angry, they are offended

    15. Re:Coming soon to this thread by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      But I think it's pretty clear that Linus doesn't want to be associated with white supremecists and Nazis.

      Were there ... a lot of those, in kernel development, before?

    16. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the "Nazis are bad" statement is only a political statement because "Nazi" has been redefined to "People I disagree with". If people would keep to the original definition, it wouldn't seem so political. And if you disagree with what I wrote, think about how many times Trump has been called "literally hitler" and how many times his supporters have been called "nazis".

    17. Re:Coming soon to this thread by laurencetux · · Score: 5, Funny

      and my response to that is basically

      " To those i have not offended yet please stand by i will get to you shortly"

    18. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If Linus hasn't already been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, this missive should put him there.

      I completely agree with him on this, even though I've often been on one side or the other in a flame war. For the most part, the reason flame wars break out on the Internet is precisely because neurotypicals don't realize that text is an autistic media- that all emotion is stripped out of any given text transmission. Any emotions you feel when reading text were likely never intended by the author, and come from your own neurosis and inadequacies. Add to that a topic that is not objective and doesn't have a common goal, and you've got all the ingredients you need for a first-class flame war.

      XKCD had a great cartoon on this many years ago: https://www.xkcd.com/386/ and repeated the theme just yesterday https://www.xkcd.com/2051/

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Listen, I've been doing *this* a lot longer than most people in the industry (but not as long as some)
      and certainly longer than Linus. It's how the industry has always been - polarized ... about anything
      where sides can be taken.

      Whether it's about C vs. C++, Makefiles vs. build systems, /bin/sh vs. csh, or tabs vs. spaces in source code.
      I've seen a lot. I remember asking a very smart person (no, I do mean a highly qualified person) a Makefile
      question. He became so upset that I would ask such a thing -- I'll never forget it! His wasn't a unique situation --
      many had "odd" personality quirks, but were / are fantastic engineers. And after work, completely different.

      I got upset with bad code,

      It's not unique to software. Medicine certainly was the same way - amazing doctors usually had terrible, terrible
      bedside manner. Bedside manner has improved, but I sometimes wonder if the "newer" doctors are as gifted.
      I'd much rather have an AHole save my life than die by the care of a nice doctor.

      I picked the medical profession as an example I think most can relate to, but in other industries that I've been
      involved, the same thing happens. It's just our nature. I think today's generation is taking things too personal
      and are not being taught properly by well-paid educators (this goes back to even elementary schooling) and
      all of this PC stuff is at the expense of our ability to excel.

      Guess what, not everybody is Linus, or one of the many pioneers of the industry. These are whiners who
      can't compete at that level and this is how their jealously is expressed. By attacking the very human flaws
      that make these individuals the amazing contributors to our industry that they are. I used to work for a team
      lead who had the wonderful philosophy - "I don't care about the crying, just show me the baby!"
      (And you know what, I don't care that you think that was a sexist remark!)

      Just my HO...

      CAP == 'antidote'

    20. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But maybe the reverse?

      Ban all political rants from both code and comments. Have a list of politically incorrect terms, have GIT automagically reject any code with those terms in the source code text.

      Hmmmm....that would be a nice improvement to slashcode as well. Expand the lameness filter.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    21. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your dichotomy is false. There is no requirement that the "political correct" response include accepting the idea. Your 3rd example is also "politically correct".

      The insistence that being "politically correct" requires the equivalent of handing out participation trophies is something those opposed to the idea came up with in an attempt to discredit it.

    22. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mr307 · · Score: 2

      I completely agree, for the average person some of the effects will appear to be an 'unintended consequences' somehow, as in 'how/why did that happen?' but its not unintended, that COC was expressly designed that way on purpose to sound good on the surface but have all the tools built in to control whatever it was aimed at via 'any means necessary'.

      If people were pushing for more 'Common Decency' then I expect there would be much less kerfuffle.

      Political Correctness is a gross totalitarian tool, its main utility is to shutdown people who dont conform to the dictates of whichever semi random totalitarian asshole feels like abusing for the day.

      So a COC much like what was adopted by the linux kernel can be easily (inspite of how it appears to an average person who just unknowingly parrots the 'but it just says to be nice' line), can trivially be used as a cudgel to beat contributors into submission and I dont think it was more than 24 hours before the first person was already being cudgeled in this case like every other I assume.

    23. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      So much this, it hurts to not have mod points to apply here.

      I would suggest that its not by accident people cave to PC pressure, dynamic taboos are a powerful tool when you are not aware they are being used against you. On the surface they can clearly reveal the other persons 'agenda' or intentions but for the average person on the receiving end its difficult to see and respond to unless they are aware of the tactic.

    24. Re:Coming soon to this thread by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's usually no reason for foul language. Except when it comes to flat earthers.

      "Flat earthers... and conservatives...libertarians...Republicans...cis-gendered white males...those who have more money than me...or anyone I dislike or disagree with for any reason."

      The problem here is the list of those it's PC to hate and abuse is fluid and changes with the political expediency and 'feelz' of the moment. This is intentional. Political correctness is a tool, a weapon really, for destroying a relatively cohesive society and turning groups against each other. It's a part of Post-Modernism which includes identity politics, whose entire goal by those who created it from the beginning was destroying Western Enlightenment principles and the modern West itself.

      It's working a treat, too. Just look at the division, hatred, and destruction it has brought. Even Linux is being destroyed by it. This ideology is pure poison and it and those who promulgate it need to be stopped.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    25. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This ^^^^

      Let's limit the calling of Nazis to those who call themselves Nazis, who attend torchlight marches shouting "The Jews will not replace us" and to those people and their supporters who make excuses for them or call them good people, all the while claiming not to actually be them, despite agreeing with them on virtually everything.

    26. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      That sounds like you agree that snowflakes and the reasoning why Clinton lost.

      I do understand why, I'm just a bit surprised you admit it. After all, when you get down to it, they're all bigots screaming at each other. The rest of us would like to have it agreed that it is never okay to act prejudiced against somebody ever. Seriously, it's like being stuck with two roommates who keep having screaming matches over where the pile of rotting garbage goes, with 'disposed of (trash or compost, as appropriate)' being right out being the one thing they can agree on--of course you're probably going to prefer the one who doesn't switch screeching targets to you when you ask them to STFU or at least go scream elsewhere. (This is actually why I don't like SJWs--especially since that screaming tends to also include calling me by the wrong slurs, because clearly I am not allowed to simply find the behavior in and of itself offensive and anxiety-inducing.)

    27. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Gannoc · · Score: 1

      He basically summed up the problem. You canâ(TM)t complain about PC culture because youâ(TM)ll be lumped in with Xists.

    28. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I for one find it blatantly absurd for him to claim he's gonna try to stop being a raging asshole, and then come out and call concerns about accessibility "political."

      News flash, asshole:

      *) Complaints about swearing are not the complaints that causes people to request a Code of Conduct.
      *) Complaints about access are not "political" complaints
      *) Just write out the words "Code of Conduct" instead of calling it a CoC as if you're still a giant dick-head.

    29. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      fuck if you can't take a bit of foul language i suggest you fuck off to a convent..

      In the context of what you replied to, I can say, it isn't that you said "fuck," it is that you said "fuck off."

      It has nothing to do with the "foul" part, it is the "asshole" part that is bothersome.

    30. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't think that all forms of criticism should be conflated with political incorrectness. In the context of a contribution to a software project, "This idea won't work" is politically neutral. "This idea won't work, and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" is politically incorrect.

      Why do you interpret intentional pejoratives as "political?" You don't even notice that that is an absurdity on the level of the Sunday comics, do you?

      And neutral would be, "This idea is optimized for certain use cases." Or "this idea would work, but hasn't yet been analyzed to see if it fits in the system."

      If you're saying it won't work, you're opposing it.

      So I don't agree with either side of what you're saying; opposing something isn't neutral, and pejoratives are not political.

    31. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you consider X-ism to be just a matter of "political correctness," guess what? I found the X-ist!

    32. Re:Coming soon to this thread by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> There's usually no reason for foul language.

      Bullshit (a euphemism for "I disagree"). Why are some words special? I argue they are not. It is only idiotic brain-washing as a kid that makes you think some words have the status of "Foul". There is no objective reason to single out particular words. Sorry, you just don't have a legitimate argument beyond "what you prefer".

    33. Re:Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 2

      That happens when your leader can't bring himself to call a group of people who self-identify as Nazis wrong.

    34. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 2

      I interpreted the pejorative as politically incorrect because it denigrates women. Perhaps this is a better example: "This idea won't work, and only a woman would be stupid enough to suggest it."

      You can oppose an idea for apolitical reasons. "This idea won't work because the algorithm needs to be O(n) to meet our performance requirements." The algorithm is either O(n) or it's not. There's nothing political about it.

    35. Re:Coming soon to this thread by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Expand it without making it work first? Pointless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Has "politically correct" come to just mean not calling the other person a fucktard now? I'm really struggling to see how we got from "maybe don't call gay people faggots any more" to "maybe don't criticise anymore".

      I think some people think it's gone way further than it actually has. The third response was a bit abrupt but not politically correct.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if I decided I don't like Linus' tone I can just mute him and still contribute to the kernel, right? Someone will re-write his critiques of my code and forward it on to me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re: Coming soon to this thread by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted â" and you create a nation of law-breakers â" and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    39. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      In TFA he is talking about not wanting to sound like the Nazis and white supremacists on the internet, always complaining about snowflakes and telling people to man up while they spew vitriol and anger at them.

      Like it or not, that "just be less of a wuss, snowflake" attitude has become associated with some pretty awful people. Ironically by exercising their freedom of speech to say that sort of thing it's apparently discouraged (or "censored" in newspeak) Linus.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      And yet, when Torvalds conflates substantive complaints that are worth addressing with non-substantive complaints he didn't even need to bring up, then it seems instead he has something to feel guilty about right there.

      That much is true without even trying to cherry-pick which particular complaints to complain about their having been made in hopes of signaling virtue to some faction.

    41. Re:Coming soon to this thread by malkavian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can fork it and add your code, sure.
      If your code is actually superior, it may catch on. The probability is that Linus was right in adopting a his stance, so you'll have not added anything beneficial (and perhaps something actively detrimental).
      Options are always there.

    42. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It's more the people lining up to oppose the code of conduct than those it would actually apply to. The people you cite aren't going to be on LKML, but they vehemently oppose a code of conduct applied to it.

    43. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      that all emotion is stripped out of any given text transmission. Any emotions you feel when reading text were likely never intended by the author

      Um.....no.

      If I write, "You are a fucking moron and should never reproduce your shitbag of genes", it is quite obvious that I am intending to convey emotion.

      The difficulty with text is that text can not convey the secondary cues that indicate emotion - me yelling that quote indicates a different set of emotions than me laughing while I say it.

      Which means everyone reading it is somewhat autistic in that nobody gets those secondary cues, not that the author can not convey emotion.

    44. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, this is incredibly stupid. Using his "logic", if there are white supremacists out there who also happen to be programmers, then Linus should stop programming so that he's not associated with those people.

      It's an insidious type of capitulation.

    45. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mr307 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.

    46. Re:Coming soon to this thread by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Guess what, not everybody is Linus, or one of the many pioneers of the industry. These are whiners who
      can't compete at that level and this is how their jealously is expressed. By attacking the very human flaws
      that make these individuals the amazing contributors to our industry that they are.

      In my opinion, the issue isn't Linus himself. It's the people who aren't actually "amazing contributors" who take their cues from him.

      In my experience, around 50% of coders think they are the top 10%. One of the few ways to maintain that illusion is to exclude others. This can be through things like closed source to not documenting anything to hurling insults and slurs at those with questions to refusing to collaborate in various ways. They need to keep people out so that they can't see exactly how the sausage is made because then people will figure out it's not that great.

      Now, in open source you can't just hide your shitty code. So that requires more gatekeeping by those who are "merely competent" but need to maintain the illusion of superiority.

      And let me be clear, "competent" is still really good. You're not going to fundamentally change the world, but we need a hell of a lot more competent developers to actually implement the insights of the brilliant.

      If someone who actually has fundamentally changed the world acts in a particular way, it gives a degree of license to act in the same way.

    47. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Troll

      Nah, but I can see how someone who's already convinced that he's a Nazi would interpret his words that way. You see what you want to see; reality is secondary.

    48. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      I admit, "bimbo" isn't a great example. I was trying to avoid words that I'd have to censor like c**t or b***h.

    49. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Like it or not, that "just be less of a wuss, snowflake" attitude has become associated with some pretty awful people

      So has the "ohmagawd, I'm OFFENDED!!!" attitude. Hopefully we'll see Linus start distancing himself from them as well.

    50. Re: Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    51. Re:Coming soon to this thread by mlyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe that's part of the problem. We can all create (or have social media companies create for us) tailored experiences that just give us exactly what we expect, confirm all our biases, and keep us in our comfort zone.

    52. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The irony you've missed here is that the term "politically correct" was originally coined to describe behaviour that was agreeable to the Nazis. For example, in 1934 the New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting permits "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct".

      That political correctness is now also cast as an ideology of the left should come as no great surprise: conformity is essential for a collectivist society, whether fascist or communist. But it should be anathema to a liberal democracy that prizes individual freedoms.

    53. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me post an example of a politically incorrect response.

      Really interesting thread to read! However, allow me to disagree *slightly*. I dont believe the issue lies in the MMORPG genre itself (as your wording seemingly suggest). I believe the issue lies in the contraints of the Living Story's narrative design; When you want the outcome to be the same across the board for all players' experiences, then yes, by design you are extremely limited in how you can contruct the personality of the PC. But, if instead players were given the option to meaningfully express *their* character through branching dialogue options (which also aren't just on the checklist for an achievement that forces you through all dialogue options), then perhaps players would be more invested in the roleplaying aspect of that particular MMORPG.

      Nonetheless, I appreciate the insightful thread!

      The author of the above was condemned for this response all over the gaming press. It was considered unacceptably sexist and rude. A number of journalists have expressed their distaste in it.

      So please, accept the reality - THIS is what politically incorrect looks like nowadays.

    54. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let it find false positives- because after all, who wants code that uses shitake as a variable name?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    55. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, used to work.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    56. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "it is quite obvious that I am intending to convey emotion."

      Not to me it isn't. You could just be expressing mental illness. You might just be joking. You might be angry. There's no way to tell.

      But otherwise, yes. All secondary clues are gone from text. Hint: this is how I experience people talking to me as well. Yelling or whispering, it's all the same to somebody who has no filters on their ears and has to buffer everything for 20 seconds just to get it to make some sense.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    57. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In practice people just get pissed off and walk away to work on something else, and the Linux project loses good developers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The fallacy fallacy is the fallacy of our age.

    59. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When "those people" speak up they are just as bad as Linus can be.

      Some who cry racism or sexism follow up with racist and sexist remarks. And yes, you CAN be racist towards a caucasian person; and you can be sexist towards a man.

      Calling someone a white-cis-male is just as offensive to me as I'm sure calling someone an African woman who is gay " a black gay woman" is to someone of that persuasion.

      Stop being goddamned hypocrites. Or at least own up to it.

    60. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      I don't recall anyone calling it politically incorrect. The objections were not with the message itself, but the notion that it was condescending to give unsolicited advice to a woman in her area of expertise. She responded brusquely and got fired for it. If you're looking for examples of political correctness running amok, this is a bad one.

    61. Re:Coming soon to this thread by zmooc · · Score: 1

      the people who complain about excessive political correctness

      You bet. Here we are. Oh no we aren't. Because who's complaining about excessive political correctness in this regard? I don't think anybody is. Because the code is not about "political correctness". It is about something much simpler: treating people with respect. Nobody is challenging that. Nobody on the LKML that feels uncomfortable about this code complains about excessive political correctness. What is being complained about is excessive Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct does not add anything - it is actually narrower than what the code used to be - "Be excellent to each other" - while it does explicitly include a list of examples of what NOT to do. A list so obvious that it can only be meant for people that are REALLY stupid. At the same time it is oddly specific. That makes it have an extremely passive-aggressive tone and it is very difficult NOT to read as an accusation and insult addressed at those it is about, even if it was never meant to be!

      On top of that, this code fails to address the problem, which has nothing to do with a lack of a proper code. The code was perfectly clear but it simply was ignored, even by Linus himself. He has now made the change, which should be more than enough to start holding other people to "Be excellent to each other". No new code needed for that. Because the code was fine already.

      And if now that we could finally start uphold the code and found it lacks in areas, then that would have been a perfect reason to update it from within the community. But we didn't even try and immediately came up with a CoC created by an "outsider" that clearly lacks support from those that should uphold it, even if those people totally agree on what it says. It's all so counterproductive...

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    62. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And there it is, Double down: Trump is a Nazi same as all R presidential candidates back to Dewey.

      It's just old, tired and stupid at this point. Not convincing anyone.

      'This time it's real' is part of the derp.

      They told me Nixon was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Nixon was no Nazi.

      They told me Reagan was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Reagan was no Nazi.

      They told me George H.W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George H.W. Bush was no Nazi.

      They told me George W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George W. Bush was no Nazi.

      Now they're telling me Trump is a Nazi, and I'm ignoring them, because for all his many glaring, egregious faults, Trump is no Nazi.

      I hope a real Nazi doesn't ever get close to power, because the people crying NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! at every Republican since Eisenhower have long since lost every shred of credibility.

      (No, I didn't vote for the SOB, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to think he's a Nazi.)

    63. Re:Coming soon to this thread by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Incredibly easy to defeat...Bold, unbold tags in the middle of forbidden words.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    64. Re:Coming soon to this thread by lexman098 · · Score: 2

      I don't think he caved exactly. I get the impression he was so disgusted with the "politically incorrect and proud of it" people that he signed up to the opposite just to make sure he wasn't lumped in with them (and I can easily see how he would be).

    65. Re:Coming soon to this thread by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your teachers failed you. You've clearly been deliberately miseducated.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    66. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      https://aeon.co/essays/where-d...

      There's some interesting philosophy behind swearing and where the words get their power, and moreover, how one can use normally inoffensive words to be thoroughly offensive.

      Whether you happen to like it or not, society places certain emphasis on words, and you can't claim that this doesn't matter. Indeed, I'm sure that you wouldn't swear profusely in front of your boss, or tell a police officer to go fuck themselves when they're giving you a ticket, or let loose on a judge in a courtroom. There is context to this propriety, of course, but there's something to be said for extending the courtesy you give to someone that has some power or influence over you to someone that is merely your colleague, or someone new that is relatively powerless.

      Anyway, the article is interesting. :)

    67. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about a quote from Linus right in TFS?

      "I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."

      If you are claiming that isn't caving on his principles out of fear of unjust association I can't imagine what you WOULD consider caving...

    68. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, he is facing the same injustice we all are, you have two groups of extremists and if you fall anywhere in the middle both will equate you to the other. As a consequences more and more people are shifting to the extremes. Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it and while the other has mass numbers and will immediately associate you with it if you start to point out their message is hate thinly veiled as a plea for tolerance.

    69. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as you're stuck in your own little world, that's exactly how things happened.

      Meanwhile, back on planet earth, he was asked to comment on the violence and he rightly condemned violence on both sides. Later, after several days of jackasses like you pretending that condemning violence on both sides actually translates to "I love Nazis", the guy came out and specifically stated:

      "Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups"

      And yet still you morons continue to pretend that he's never criticized nazis and is aspiring to be the next Hitler.

      As I said, reality is secondary; your narrative is all you really care about.

    70. Re:Coming soon to this thread by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Flat earthers...

      The problem here is the list of those it's PC to hate and abuse

      I don't hate flat earthers. I doubt a significant number of people in the entire world actually hate them. I do however know they're reality denying idiots of the highest degree.

      I don't hate you either.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    71. Re:Coming soon to this thread by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Bullshit (a euphemism for "I disagree"). Why are some words special?

      That's a very interesting question. There are aspects of human psychology where...

      Oh I just realised. You're not interested in the actual answer. You're posing a rhetorical question in the hope that you can deny reality.

      There is no objective reason to single out particular words.

      There's no objective reason for doing anything either.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    72. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I do not agree that a change in a "public stance" (from Linus' words) necessarily has anything to do with a "principle" (your word), especially in this case.

      I do not claim to know Linus' heart, but I would guess he is a guy who is very focused on his work, and he sees amending the normal style of communication in the org has a small cost that might even have a larger compensatory gain. He probably does not see his style of communication as so important that it defines who he is as a person.

      Is being a freewheeling fellow who feels license to tell people to kill themselves in a public forum something worthy of being proud of? I feel pity for anyone who would think that is the case. Apparently Linus would say "no", FWIW.

    73. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it

      The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups.

      If you actually listen to the most prominent "white supremacists" these days, none of them advocate violence. Their followers certainly do, but as far as the official ideology goes it's all about "separation of the races" via nonviolent means. Obviously any remotely fairminded person would disagree with that objective, but calling it "overtly evil" seems a stretch. There are plenty of other racial groups which seek to maintain a distinct population in which they are a majority, and nobody calls that "evil".

      On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals. Even worse, they don't just target actual Nazis; they're perfectly fine with using violence against anyone whose politics lean even slightly right of Stalin.

      There's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to condemn Nazis and white-supremacists as unredeemably evil, due to the history of those movements. However, putting aside the historical context for a minute and just looking at the words and actions of the two sides in the here and now, it's pretty hard to justify applying those labels only to that particular side.

      I guess what I'm really asking here is how are you drawing that line? Is the historical context the important thing? If so, why wouldn't we consider Muslims to also be "so overtly evil that no sane person would want to be associated with them"? Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens. What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?

      I hope you'll give this some serious consideration, and provide a serious response. It's something which has been bugging me for a while, and I'm honestly curious about how people draw these lines. Outside of a kind of ingrained cultural disgust for white supremacy, I'm not seeing any actual difference.

    74. Re: Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 1

      Considering that one side had a couple misdemeanor charges filed and the other a few felonies and one felony terrorist action, he did indeed waffle.

      Later, with a great deal of guidance to the point that the press practically wrote a statement for him titled "say this to not be a Nazi", he managed to say something approaching the right thing. The next day, he walked that back a bit.

      >p>That dosen't necessarily mean he's a Nazi. It could just mean he's dumber than a brain damaged goat.

    75. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Ah, makes sense. It's really the criminal charges that matter to you. So if a bunch of Nazis have a nonviolent protest and a girl-scout punches one of them and is arrested for assault, you would, of course, condemn the girl scouts. Or if the Nazis clash with BLM, they all beat the fuck out of each other, and then a BLM guy runs over some Nazis with a car, you would condemn BLM and would insist that anyone who condemned both sides must be evil.

      Glad I understand your position now. You're still all kinds of fucked up, but thanks for clarifying.

    76. Re: Coming soon to this thread by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Getting old is not "caved". It is but it is not.

      Everything ends

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    77. Re:Coming soon to this thread by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.

      The poor dears don't have a lot of other options when they have no facts or logic to refute with but, feeling 'triggered', *must* respond somehow.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    78. Re:Coming soon to this thread by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      >> human psychology

      Yeah, I'm going to base things on the pseudo-scientific clap-trap that is "Human Psychology" and "Religion" and other non-sensical fantasies. The only good use I've ever found for psychology or religion is the books make a good source of emergency paper in a diarrhea situation. Psychology and religion are something for people with little ability to accomplish anything of value to run their mouths about.

    79. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      From an extreme male viewpoint, all autistics look female. From a feminist viewpoint, all autistics look to have a bad case of toxic masculinity.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    80. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Most compilers would interpret that as garbage.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    81. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No. I don't get emotions that way. My emotions come from internal to myself and are generated by my own experiences, not other people's.

      But I'll take your word for it that neurotypicals have that kind of emotional telepathy.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    82. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Eh, I don't see cunt or bitch as being denigrating of women either. If I call someone a dick, nobody in their right mind will say I'm denigrating men.

      This is what people mean when they complain about political correctness. It's perfectly fine for a black comedian to talk about cracker ass crackas, but if a white comedian talks about nlggers everyone loses their fucking minds. It's fine to call someone a dick, but call him a pussy and ohmagawd you're a misogynist. It's hilarious and insightful to talk about how the Catholic church is full of pedophiles, but link Islam with terrorism and you're just an evil islamaphobe.

      I vehemently oppose the language police on principle, but if you're going to do it you should at least be consistent.

    83. Re:Coming soon to this thread by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A significant minority of /. readers are smarter than compilers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    84. Re:Coming soon to this thread by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Didn't learn history from propaganda books, like your dumbass did.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    85. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if only those people could behave constructively

      They want to. They just want to create good software.

      Yet they constantly get bombarded by political activists who call their jobs and their hobbies sexist, racist, misogynist all day. Even creating "good" software is evil these days because it excludes bad coders.

      You can't be constructive when others whose only contribution is strife, politics and ideology insert themselves into your projects.

    86. Re: Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't act as if both sides were equally guilty. I might make a statement to the effect that as heinous as the Nazis are and as galling as their hate speech is, it was wrong to punch them when they weren't being violent.

      But then, we know that while there was violence on both sides, one side acted distinctly worse.

    87. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do. One side decided to have a peaceful rally, while the other side showed up with the express purpose of picking a fight. It's pretty clear which side acted worse. Unfortunately some people seem more concerned with the consequent violence than with the original intent. I suspect it's the same kind of idiots who watch a woman repeatedly hit a man for a good 10 minutes, and then scream at him when he snaps and knocks her out.

    88. Re: Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those clergymen are well known for their violent ways (snicker).

    89. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      In the context of contributing to a software project, you probably shouldn't call someone a dick either. I'm not saying dick is more acceptable than bitch or cunt. I'm saying that they're all unacceptable, and bitch/cunt have the additional overtone of attacking a group that's been historically disenfranchised.

    90. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      One more point: things comedians say are not relevant to this discussion. Andrew Dice Clay says insanely misogynistic things in his shows. That doesn't mean they should be acceptable in the workplace.

    91. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You can say whatever you like but, at this point, your argument boils down to "these words are wrong because I say so". That's not very persuasive.

      Of course you're not unique by any stretch of the imagination. You've joined a proud human tradition spanning many thousands of years, of religious fundamentalists declaring certain words and phrases to be heretical. We managed to reverse that kind of thinking to some extent back around the time that The Enlightenment swept through Europe, but we still have some remnants here and there ... and you'd be right at home in the Islamic world! They're all about pronouncing random shit to be Haram.

    92. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      That's a hilariously false dichotomy. There's a huge difference between asking for civil discourse in a mailing list and declaring a fatwa over a word you don't like.

    93. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No more so than all the boy scouts on the other side.

    94. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      People aren't willing to leave their own country? That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Black Panthers don't want to move back to Africa.

    95. Re: Coming soon to this thread by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, the first to show up to protest the Nazis and KKK were LITERALLY clergymen.

    96. Re:Coming soon to this thread by piojo · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought before I knew anything about psychology. (That swearing is just like any other word.) But when you read that swearing reduces pain or increases pain tolerance, argument falls flat in the face of empirical results.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    97. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, it's not whether you like the tone, it's whether it's constructive. If it's constructive, you need it. If it's not, you don't. It's not about feelings, it's about content.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    98. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, I use "Bullshit" as a short version of "this is wrong in a way I didn't even remotely expect anyone to be able to be wrong". Whether this is because it is so far away from reality that it is hard to imagine someone actually thinking it could be true (it's mostly religious arguments that fall into this category) or because I disagree with it strongly enough that I consider it impossible to be true (mostly connected with arguments including invisible hands and other rape instruments being actually beneficial for the general public) is another issue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    99. Re:Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe the trick is to not treat all external statements as coming from "they" and instead evaluate who is actually saying these things and the case they make to back it up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    100. Re: Coming soon to this thread by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Notice how he sights misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic behaviour as examples of things he considers bad. And note how he also states that he regrets some of his past public statements, not because of how they are perceived but because he recognizes the problems with them.

      The latter part you quoted is just him talking about how he was reluctant to openly state that such behaviour was unacceptable previously because people would accuse him of being a politically correct SJW, but that equally not saying anything is a statement in itself and that statement has associations with nationalists who think their views should be more widely accepted and tolerated.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    101. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      God just shut up Jesus....

    102. Re:Coming soon to this thread by houghi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we live in an era where we can say the Earth is Round, and Nazi's are bad and have it seem like a political statement.

      The two examples are two different things. One is a fact, the other is an opnion. It is one that I agree with, but still an opinion. And even if I do not agree with the other, it is still a fact.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    103. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You need some serious help with reading comprehension.

      "I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour."

      He is most definitely saying he wants to stop being unfairly associated with these groups and those who support their behaviors when he expresses his opinion but has given up hope.

    104. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "without a good grounding in himself"

      Not very many autists can tell themselves from others enough to have such a grounding. I know I don't.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    105. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are. But an update to source code that won't compile will never be accepted into the main thread anyway.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    106. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups."

      Fair enough but as you later go on to point out one side has views which have historically lead to the systemic murder and enslavement of millions of people on the basis of what we now know to be largely arbitrary and baseless criteria. Racial supremacy has no valid logical support, most won't admit that there was a reason to believe it might at the times these views dominated and these horrible acts occurred though such reason did exist, but the simple fact is there is no valid logical support for these ideas today. Since the concept is invalid, there is nothing to gained by these movements.

      The opposition isn't basing their arguments on support for racial supremacy but equality. The assumption of equality carries many logical benefits and has not been proven out by history to result in systemic murder and enslavement. That said the practice of these opposition groups isn't consistent with their argument. Consistently their methodology starts with a conclusion and then goes in search of a solution. That is no different than religion and is a poor way to establish valid results. Most of the ideas pushed by this group actually depend on the same invalid and arbitrary concepts and ideas that are the foundation of the same groups they oppose.

      "What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?"

      I would classify the idea that you can label millions of individual people based on criteria which is not objective and make any meaningful assertion about "them" as irredeemably evil. No person lacks the potential for redemption especially from "evilness" because "evil" is a relative concept and people do things based on opinions and beliefs which can change over time.

      "Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens."

      Which is no different than Christians or what the Israeli people are doing now. One could simply blame all of this on religion. But then Christian and Muslim culture is also responsible for math, sciences, arts, and technologies that has arguably had a greater impact on mankind's future than those historical deaths. Christ or Mohammad could return perform a miracle on every doorstep tomorrow and prove one of them right, just because they don't have a valid logical basis for their beliefs doesn't mean they won't turn out to have been correct in the end. Profiling, Stereotyping, Racial, and gender supremecy on the other hand are all ideas which lack any a history of good or potential good. Any benefit that can gained along these lines would also be captured by simply EQUALLY opposing these concepts and judging individual merit with a normal healthy skepticism of individual motives, ideas, and abilities.

      "On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals."

      Yes and they are obviously misguided but they are misguided in equating some rebellious Prince Harry at a costume party with agents of a group that murdered millions of men, women, and children. They are misguided in thinking their violence is justified. But they aren't misguided in the idea of racism and eugenics are faulty concepts.

      You are misguided in your implied concept that violence can never be the answer, without violence the real Nazi's of history would not have been stopped. I would hope that we don't ever become a culture so sensitized to violence that we lack the conviction and

    107. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The key thing to remember about your statements is you are speaking of the Nazi's that were not the kids that make up the neo-nazi's that are.

    108. Re: Coming soon to this thread by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I do recognize "kill yourself" as snark. The question in my mind is whether there are any boundaries on playing the man instead of the ball whatsoever. A little snark can have positive value in quickly communicating how strongly held a position is. But a lot of snark is a distraction and an indulgence. If someone cannot make their point adequately in a technical subject area with a technical argument, that seems like a problem with the person making the argument.

    109. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      Your post was excellent.

      Until-

      Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens.

      This isn't wrong. But why single out them? That statement is equally true for most Christian nations. You can argue that today's contemporary Christian ideology is a bit nicer (see: Under more control of atheists) but that's about it.

    110. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      The only good use I've ever found for psychology or religion is the books make a good source of emergency paper in a diarrhea situation.

      A problem the language composition portions of your brain seem to suffer from frequently.
      Perhaps a psychologist could help you figure out why you seem hell bent on denigrating things you lack the intellect to understand. Some kind of childhood trauma? Did your father constantly make fun of you for trying to ram that square peg in that round hole?

    111. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "But if the kids today are "different" why are they using one of the most well defined & villified terms in human history? Why not rally around some other term?"

      Because the kids today are just like the kids of any other time. They give society and their elders the finger, they shock and awe, they do whatever upsets mother and gets a rise out of dad. They think are smarter and know better than others, they lack the experience it takes for actual death and suffering to become real. This has always been the case in my lifetime and somehow I doubt it has ever been different. What do you think the Salem witch trials were all about?

    112. Re:Coming soon to this thread by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I find his argument specious.

      It's perfectly possible to disagree with something without representing other views of other people that also disagree with it.

      Anybody claiming otherwise is a fuckwit, and yes Linus, that sadly appears to include you.

    113. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      No, friend. This is what arguing looks like nowadays. Pure horse shit.
      There was nothing politically incorrect about that, and nobody with any weight claimed it was.
      The complaint was that it was someone explaining a trade they know nothing about to a professional woman in that trade.
      I don't take sides on whether that act was in itself offensive, and I tend to support the man who posted because I don't think he meant harm.

      However, you're the shit who rewrites events to fit your narrative in order to make an argument.

    114. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Trump's no Nazi. But I'd like to hear you argue that he wouldn't fellate him on international television and talk about how he was strong and really doing a great job for his people at his campaign rallies.

      At which point, it is valid to ask... who exactly are the people at his rallies?

    115. Re:Coming soon to this thread by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      Ah, morons. I love morons.

      You may be the most consistently dishonest person I have ever seen on this forum. I dont recall you ever showing any shame about it whatsoever and no doubt will double or triple down on your nonsense.

      That is attacking a person rather than their argument. He didn't spell out how he was dishonest, his point was that the argument was moot since the person was dishonest and without shame for the accused dishonesty, and then said there was no point in making a valid argument since he would simply double or triple down on his accused dishonest.

      Anti-PC people can't fathom a world where they aren't the victim. Therefore, everyone else is a fascist trying to police their thoughts and take away their freeze peach.

      That is in fact the opening point in an argument, he is in fact a hypocrite, and you are in fact a fucking moron.

    116. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      But why single out them?

      Because I needed an example. Apply it to whatever other similar groups you like; it doesn't change what I was saying. On the contrary it rather reinforces the point that there are many groups which historically were just as bad as the Nazis, or worse, yet we don't paint them with the same brush today.

    117. Re: Coming soon to this thread by jd · · Score: 1

      Objective truths are not patriarchal, neither is good code.

      Good code just is. It's a mathematical thing and mathematics has no gender.

      Attacks against those who seek true objective societies, where it is the content of the code and not the gender of the coder that matters, show that the trolls really do not understand the argument.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    118. Re: Coming soon to this thread by jd · · Score: 1

      Why? Why should anyone have to do anything, merely to please you and those like you? Give me one good reason why I should change how I am to suit you. How I am doesn't affect you.

      But if how you are affects me, that's when we talk. You don't get to impose, I don't get to impose. We decide what change causes least harm and maximum gain.

      And if you won't talk? Too bad. You don't get to impose your standards or your language on me.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    119. Re: Coming soon to this thread by jd · · Score: 1

      Different cultures have different languages and different values. What is true for one may not be true for another.

      Also, no psychology study other than the Stamford Prisoner experiment has ever been successfully replicated. Be wary of psych research.

      Nobody has the right to impose their standards on another, no matter who they are or how righteous they think they are. Everyone has the right to set their own boundaries.

      Now, if you join a community where you know swearing is common (such as the Linux kernel mailing list) then that is the boundary you are setting. It's like a firewall. You can't connect to an address you block and if you punch a hole through to connect then it's no longer blocked.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    120. Re: Coming soon to this thread by jd · · Score: 1

      I'd argue something slightly different. There are several cases here that need considering.

      1. The code doesn't work and the person is told so and maybe given some basic factual information on why, in a neutral way. Not sure anyone could seriously object.

      2. Ditto, but in a slightly more biologically improbable/infeasible turn of phrase. Not necessarily as constructive, but still perfectly ok.

      3. Ditto, but in a way that is specifically intended to not solve the problem and is also specifically intended to drive off a category of developer. Elitists do not believe in free as in freedom, they believe in power as in theirs. They have no business being in the community and can (see 2) off.

      4. The code has no problems, the problem is purely the category of developer. Again, elitists who have no interest in freedom and wish to deprive others of that which the free community has given freely.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    121. Re:Coming soon to this thread by dddux · · Score: 1

      How do you know they're good developers?

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    122. Re: Coming soon to this thread by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you enjoyed the post but I'm curious why you think I "tossed logic out the window for that one". As i said, many other grouos could have fit the criteria, but muslims were the first group to come to mind and are doubly suitable because the same people who lose their minds over white supremacy are topically more than happy to jump to the defense of Muslims and call you an "islamaphobe" when you use much less inflammatory language to criticize Islam. How is it illogical to point out that the same language can be used to describe both groups?

    123. Re: Coming soon to this thread by DaTroof · · Score: 1

      Instead of a false dichotomy, call it a bad analogy. Either way it was garbage.

    124. Re: Coming soon to this thread by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      You choosing not to use certain words are your standards for you. You preventing me from using certain words because you don't like them is you imposing your standards on me. I'm not forcing you to use words you don't want to use. Why do you insist upon saying I can't use certain words? Who is imposing on who in this equation? You are limiting someone else's speech by wrongly claiming they are imposing on you. That is the same kind of BULLSHIT argument that leads to being against gays, abortion, etc. You are against being gay. OK, don't be gay. That's for you to decide. You don't get to decide that someone else should or shouldn't be gay. You don't believe in abortion. Fine, don't abort your progeny. You don't get to decide for someone else though. That is the problem with "morals" they are all about you imposing your will on someone else. That makes you the aggressor and you are in the wrong. I will fight you until the end. You do not get to decide for me what is and isn't right unless and until I try to interfere with your ability to exercise your rights. It's as simple as that.

    125. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophical+principle+of+charity&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS810US810&oq=philosophical+principle+of+&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.10845j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Learn it, love it, share it. The great thing is that if another doesn't deserve it, it won't matter, your argument will stronger along with theirs and what you are willing to concede will become more compelling.

      Currently you are doing the opposite and assuming the worst argument and intentions of others.

    126. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was unintentional and just the first example that came to mind. But it did sound like you were singling out Muslims when your statements and logical argument applies equally well to the people they are in a state of holy war with, Christians and Jews. Religion is dangerous because assuming "God" means "God" can't come back and revise the rules to something more sensible as humanity and society grows and matures.

    127. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "No matter how many times you say there are good/bad people on both sides it doesn't change the fact that fascist violence is meaningfully different to anti fascist violence. Fascists want a genocide and anti fascists want to stop them doing a genocide"

      Genocide is bad only in that it justifies large scale violence. Advocating large scale violence for some other reason is just as bad.

    128. Re: Coming soon to this thread by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Organizations? Mormons knock at the door on the regular along with Jehovah's witnesses. Other Christian churches have ongoing missionary efforts around the globe. The US government has an incredibly powerful religious right element and much of what the US does oversees is a thinly veiled pursuit of their religious agenda on behalf of both Christians and Jews. You don't think the hyper religious Texan christian presidents went to war in Babylon and tossed down our own puppet just for fun or because anybody actually believed they had WMD's do you? Or maybe you think the people fighting the holy land are armed with US weapons by accident.

      "I get that it's still considered edgy to toss Christians under the bus as somehow being "oppressive, "

      Edgy? To group Christians, Muslims, and Jews together and paint them all with some brush is preposterous. That said, there are Christian groups pushing an agenda to eradicate birth control and health care for women, to torture children in 'conversion therapy', to pretend there is some kind of legitimate connection (or conflict) between religion and science, to hypocritically deny homosexual couples the legal rights granted under a legal marriage contract. A couple Christian managers in my workplace actually had a mandatory gathering for thanksgiving at work and required a group prayer... that doesn't just force people who don't believe in your religion to engage in your religious ritual it creates the impression you'd advance people who share your religion and hold back or outright repress those who don't. Timothy McVeigh was part of a Christian para-military organization, there are no shortage of such in South America and in some cases even in the ruling positions, it goes on and on and on.

      My step-father is a minister. I grew up in a Christian church, literally helped build it. I studied at a small Christian college in Illinois. I was also a member of the local militia group in my small town in Illinois in the 90's. While organized legally as a volunteer firefighter group, it was most definitely a christian paramilitary resistance group with full penetration of the local national guard, especially full access to the guard armory. That group was about being ready to act, not organization any kind of preemptive offense so most of us separated from it in response to Oklahoma city. Myself, I was a dumb teenager who got to shoot and blow up just about anything you could imagine on the weekends. What's your excuse?

  2. So much for that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation.

    Oh, yes you are, yes you are ... you may not know it yet, but you are ...

    1. Re:So much for that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you have any examples of people apologising for people white or straight? I'm both (kinda) and never apologised for it, or felt guilty for it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So much for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      check you tube for boogie, prime example, and he still got yelled at by anita...

    3. Re:So much for that by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, there are certainly people that will accuse you of being white and straight and try to make you feel guilty for it. (I am both and male in addition...)
      Personally, I just put these people in the "fuckup" class and ignore them after they have made such an utterly stupid and despicably manipulative accusation.

      I have seem people apologize for being male of for "their gender" while being male. I don't get that either. It is not a club that you were ever asked to be a member of or not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:So much for that by lgw · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about the "It's OK to be White" posters that were briefly put up as a few colleges as a prank? Do they trouble you?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:So much for that by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sorry that I'm white, but I know that people who are white have done some pretty shitty things to ensure that white people remain the dominant race in many societies.

      Is that apologizing for being white? If so, I guess I'm apologizing for being white.

      Really all this comes down to owning your beliefs and not adhering to labels. I think it's wrong to call people who are gay "fags" in most circumstances*. If you want to say I'm a terrible human being because I think that word can be used in certain contexts, then I'll own up to being a terrible human being. If you want to say I'm a terrible human being because I discourage other people from using that word, then I'm still a terrible human being.

      I really don't care what people call me so long as they don't misrepresent my position or beliefs.

      *satire, comedy, etc. -- you shouldn't attempt to offend

    6. Re:So much for that by Mr307 · · Score: 1
    7. Re:So much for that by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      Any links to these dubious claims?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    8. Re:So much for that by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Of course, so have black people:
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-farmers-south-africa/

      But of course, by the left wingers at snopes, murders of white people don't matter.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:So much for that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, there are certainly people that will accuse you of being white and straight and try to make you feel guilty for it.

      So people keep saying, and apparently there are lots of them everywhere, so perhaps you could tell me specifically whom. From the way they are described I presume they are running some powerful organizations.

      How about one name I can google? Just one person who thinks people should feel guilty for being white and straight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:So much for that by xvan · · Score: 1

      Could you point of people advocating Nazism, shaming homosexuals or throwing Jew as a slur on the linux mailing list?

    11. Re:So much for that by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, the "lots of them" and the "powerful organizations" comes from you, so the onus to provide links is squarely on you.

      As I said, I ignore these people and I certainly do not keep them on a list.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:So much for that by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:So much for that by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      GP> Got any examples?

      You> Yes. It totally happened once.

      IOW no. You have no actual examples you can point to of your claim.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:So much for that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Right. On the one hand they accuse people of being Nazis and destroy them, forcing them out of high profile projects that adopt a CoC. On the other you don't know a single one of them, don't know the projects affected, don't even know what to google to find out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:So much for that by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Just fucking read the AC posts in this very thread.

      Multiple posts demeaning people for being white and male.

      But hey, Google has answers too.
      https://goodmenproject.com/fea...
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
      https://broadly.vice.com/en_us...

      How about all of those authors fuck off with their racist bullshit.

    16. Re:So much for that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous posts on a thread like this are unconvincing. For all I know you posted them. A few links you googled that have little to do with the request I made also fail to bolster your argument.

      In fact, all this shows is that the best you can do is clutch at straws, and the claim is most likely false.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:So much for that by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Then do your own fucking google searches, you're not worth more of my time.

    18. Re:So much for that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Just Google my imaginary does for me! Keep going till you convince yourself!"

      LOL.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:So much for that by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Shrug. I didn't make the claim you're challenging, I just found evidence for it. Your response of "I'm going to ignore your evidence because it annihilates my idiotic argument" doesn't make it imaginary.

      But fuck it, you hate me anyway. I can handle that.

  3. The trolls have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We gave them too much attention, took them too seriously, and now we have to alter our own behavior, 'least we be associated with their scum and villainy. What a truly awful time to be alive.

  4. It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it?

    1. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he does have a soul. Maybe he does have actual empathy. Maybe the meritrocracy is just another word for brutality in Darwinism.

      Lots of haters. Not enough lovers.

      Linus may be having his Zen moment.

      But the community will survive. Lots of great people in it. The forces of real evil that divide people will benefit from the charades, but it's my belief that the community will continue to mature. It's done more for computing than any other single energy in software.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      All of your statements are provably wrong.

      Indeed civilized society is built on the capacity for empathy. Differing movements you cite have elements of empathy, but to disambiguate them for you is probably a waste of time.

      Bigotry is fear. As in: bigotry==fear.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Balance is everything. Excessive empathy can lead to some truly awful results, a kind of "suicide by guilt" in individuals as well as in society. Feminism was a fine movement 50 years ago, but isn't about equality anymore, not in the developed world at least. Social justice is now a term so broad that it means absolutely nothing, and is mostly used for rationalizing emotion-based decision making and censorship.

    4. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obvious? No.

      Does the meta narrative have a SJW theme all over it? Maybe.

      I'd be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that Patricia had a huge rule in convincing her father to do a 180 but I think we need more facts to determine that though. Speaking of facts, there are few that rather stand out to me after reading Tiago's perspective. Paraphrasing:

      Interestingly enough Linus' daughter, Patricia Torvalds, activist of "Guerilla Feminism, supports the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto which was created by Stupid Juvenile Whiner Coraline Ada Ehmke, the latter who also created the Code of Conduct.

      Ruby's CoC is simple and to the point. It is summarized as "Matz is nice and so we are nice," commonly abbreviated as MINASWAN.

      But Ruby's simply CoC "wasn't good enough" for Coraline though. After Coraline's attempted hijacking of Ruby's CoC was 100% shot down by Matz ...

      We have set our Code of Conduct.

      https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/c...

      I hope it works. We may upgrade it if something happens.

      Matz.

      ... Coraline continued being a shit stirrer. Notice how the community basically told her to "fork off". (Pun intended.)

      Matz isn't alone. Other have voiced their criticism of her CoC:

      Given a choice between only two extremes, I'd far rather have Linus Torvalds telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, then exist in an offense-taking culture where various forms of criticism are re-branded as "harassment."

      Back in 2013 Stupid Juvenile Whiner Sage Sharp targeted Linus. Failing that, she is now targeting Ted Tso calling him a "rape apologist".

      Funny how these people love to play Judge, Juror, and Executioner, all at once without any evidence, and want to their CoC to be inclusive even when they aren't, but I digress.

      What do these examples have to do with Linux, Linus, and the CoC ?

      Eric Raymond pointed the dangers of meritocracy back in 2015. with his Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs article. The example he brought up was about djangoconcardiff lying about patch rejection in the django community.

      I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour).

      rosarior shut that down.

      The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

      There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn't been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

      I'm not white and please don't make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

      Now I hate conspiracy theories with a passion but does the "recent" rash of CoC changes seem to be politically driven? Maybe. There SEEMS to be a larger narrative at play.

      Regardless, I still think it is too early to tell but this inclusion of meritocracy is definitely something to keep an eye out for in the future.

    5. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      After all, it's open source, there's no reason why we can't fork the kernal into Technocrat, SJW, and Neo-Nazi flavors.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "excluding the people who don't."

      A bigoted statement if there ever was one.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    7. Re: It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Will Linux be a shadow of itself in a decade?

      Maybe. People lack inertia to learn new things. Unix is a progenitor of most of what we have in computing today, coupled to SmallTalk. Linux removed the non-free aspects of Unix in a way that BSD had stronger DNA. Linux survived. In a decade, something else will be happening. Some of its DNA will remain.

      The reason that older versions of operating systems are gone has to do with the end of Moore's Law, new devices, and stuff we can't predict today with certainty. The address space of the 64bit processor is a huge change. But security problems will continue to force changes in how operating systems evolve.

      These are random thoughts; IBM is a shadow of itself. The revenue in operating systems is diffuse. At the root of Linux, the business model has evolved but not in predictable ways. A subsequent operating system dynasty will probably have different values. One of them, I hope, is not the constraints of meritocracy.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Indeed civilized society is built on the capacity for empathy.

      Keep dreaming. Society is run by sociopaths.

    9. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Social justice is about recognizing how the mechanisms of privilege influence outcomes in our society, if you are a cishet white male, you have benefits that are denied to others simply for their sex, skin, color, etc. and these things need to be accounted for in order to achieve a fair society.

      SJWs have no interest in lifting anyone up. They are only interested in shouting down. They serve no constructive purpose.

    10. Re: It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's a cool idea. And just to make it SJW compliant, every 28 days it could execute sudo rm /* -r

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Where did I mention Muslims???

      Methinks you are replying to the wrong thread / post.

    12. Re: It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by liefer · · Score: 1

      This is your brain on identity politics. You are not a person and your post is irrelevant. You do not subscribe 100% to the current SJW-groups manifesto which means you belong to the Nazi-group. Nazis are evil and hate Muslims thus justifying the comment that was just made

    13. Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You better hope it survives. Personally, I can see this destroying the quality of code in Linux resulting in Linux being regulated to the trash heap of history.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  5. Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?

    There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?

    1. Re: Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shhhh. You're either with them or a Nazi.

    2. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      That which purports to be non-political is only passively reinforcing the misogynistic, white supremacist status quo and therefore no better than the enemy.

      There is no neutrality towards progress, you are either for it or against it. If you don't support women and minorities you can only be a sexist and a racist, end of story.

    3. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That which purports to be non-political is only passively reinforcing the misogynistic, white supremacist status quo and therefore no better than the enemy.

      There is no neutrality towards progress, you are either for it or against it. If you don't support women and minorities you can only be a sexist and a racist, end of story.

      I have no problem supporting them as long as they're not trying to destroy me in the process for the "crime" of being born as a "white cis male blah blah blah..."

      The all or nothing attitude is why I won't vote Democrat, I'm not going to support your issues if you're going to insist that I need to give up rights that we already have that I value but you don't. Not everything needs to be a trade-off.

    4. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?

      I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?

      We clearly lost the thread when it comes to basic freedoms in America, and it didn't happen by accident. Just like it's no accident that there are young people whose complaint about "make America great again" is "America was never great". It's pernicious education.

      Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America? People who imagine themselves your future rulers. People who want to achieve that "by any means necessary".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Oh come on by swb · · Score: 1

      There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?

      It strikes me that any code of conduct sufficiently well defined to be useful will carry the biases and values of those who craft the code of conduct. Those biases and values can certainly be judged to be "political agendas" by people opposed to them.

      I'm probably mis-paraphrasing it, but there's some kind of statement about "all laws are political" because they arise from a political process. Some laws, like those prohibiting murder, seem apolitical but my guess is this is just because murder is widely accepted as unacceptable.

      My guess is a code of conduct made up of purely shared values which have wide agreement would be as free as possible of agendas, but it would probably also not be very useful since it would only cover small amounts of conduct on which there was wide agreement.

    6. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When "muh freeze peach" is being used by privileged white cishet males to silence women and people of color, you can bet we're going to rethink our values.

      I am so very sorry that you're no longer allowed to abuse oppressed peoples with impunity and that those dirty women and inferior races are now being allowed into your privileged space... oh wait, no, I'm not sorry at all!

      AC is just trolling, but I think there are people now who really believe it. Spend enough time where everyone around you repeats stuff like this, and it starts to sink in.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Oh come on by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?

      I think it's just a very small, but noisy minority (and I wouldn't label anyone who's against free speech a progressive regardless of what they might like to call themselves) that appears to be much larger or more important because the internet makes it easy to propel such occurrences to a front-and-center position where everyone can engage.

      I recall hearing that enrollment at Missouri (where that one professor shut down a student reporter at some protest and was captured on video calling for "some muscle") and Evergreen (where students tried to have a no white people day) are way down. It seems that people are generally aware of this and seem to be steering clear. Just because the silent majority isn't screaming back, doesn't mean that they aren't acting on their beliefs.

      Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't. There's a certain sense of the paradox of tolerance in that, but at the same time if people aren't forced to confront their beliefs about why free speech is important, they probably won't hold them dearly. I almost think that it's necessary for there to be a continual opposition to freedom of speech for it to have any chance to survive. If no one bothered to question it for sufficiently long, I suspect that people would take it entirely for granted and it would be much easier for that liberty to erode.

    8. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Politics is the way in which people intract and make decisions.

      Software development with more than a few people has politics. Because people interact and make decisions.

      If you say "I don't want politics in my group of people working together and making decisions", you want your cake and you want to eat it as well.

      You can have political harmony, where the politics align. You can have niche politics, where the local politics are unrelated to non-local politics. Maybe you want only niche politics?

      In which case, you want any problems outside of the local situation to have zero effect on the local situation?

      The "political agenda" in question is "not being verbally abused" and "not being attacked for being a woman or a member of a minority group". If you don't want that to be in your community, defeat it and disagree with it directly.

    9. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 2

      Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.

      Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't.

      "Argue"? Of course. Riot through Berkeley smashing windows and starting fires? That's a different thing. And just in general, I'm not OK with public funds going to teaching that the US was never good, or that the basic rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are a bad thing. If you want to make a career of teaching such things, just the hypocrisy alone of doing it with tax dollars is pretty bad. (Those are very different than criticizing the current state of the US, which is our national passtime.)
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Oh come on by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?

      This is things like saying "That is a bad idea because of (insert reason here)" instead of "you are fucking retard".

      What, exactly, is the horrible political agenda with that?

    11. Re:Oh come on by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think progressives really do believe that

      Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America?

      I'm going to have a hard time trusting your analysis of other people when you don't even know what free speech actually is.

      Free speech is you can't get arrested for what you say. Everyone else also has the free speech rights to say you are a fucking asshole for saying it.

    12. Re:Oh come on by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Associating your enemies with a greater common enemy has always been a tactic, the nazis themselves did that too.

      Now you have a group of people who are demonising those who simply want to get on with their work, who is the real villain?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts.

      Since when is "do not insult/harass" a political agenda?

    14. Re:Oh come on by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      Completely true, see the Overton Window:

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

    15. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Free speech is free speech, irrespective of your race or gender.
      The whole point of free speech is that everyone has the same right.

      Free speech is not being used to silence anyone, it is those advocating against free speech who are attempting to silence others.

    16. Re:Oh come on by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.

      Eventually people will collectively realize that social media explosions are stupid and that they should be ignored. It's something new and society just doesn't know how to deal with it yet. And once we get this figured out, something else will be new and people will react badly when it comes to their interactions with perceptions of whatever the new thing might be.

      If you're going to fund public education at all, I don't think you can reasonably restrict what someone wants to teach at such a micro level. Is it okay if someone can teach that the US was almost never good, expect for one instance? Go far enough and eventually you end up with you can only teach that the U.S. is the best ever and you get something that looks like North Korea. Further, anyone taking such a class with half a brain should be able to realize that the U.S. must be pretty good if you can stand up and declare that it's all shit without the government coming down on you. I suspect that a course like that is pretty useless and that the people who take it aren't going to amount to anything. In the long run everyone starts to recognize the pattern and people stop enrolling, just like the universities I mentioned previously.

      If someone wants to proclaim that the U.S. is great and teach others about all of the good stuff it does or has done, then someone should be just a free to do the opposite. There are all kinds of sites that let students rate or discuss professors or courses these days. Eventually people will avoid the useless courses. And if there's someone who really just wants to hear what they already believe, they pay taxes as well and it's their own life. It's not any of my business if they want to live it in a way that I disagree with.

    17. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not merely "not being arrested": the "hecklers veto" prevents free speech. Creating a "chilling effect" prevents free speech. If you ant to call someone an asshole, that's fine, that's alsomore speech, though actually presenting a rational argument might be more useful than name calling.

      Violent protests to prevent speech from happening stand in the way of free speech. The government is supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and it's that threat of violence that makes government suppression of speech so bad, but any violent suppression of speech is bad, not only governments.

      Also, universities might as well be the government for these purposes. Universities shutting down free discussion of ideas simply cannot end well. Restricting free speech to tiny "free speech zones" cannot be a good thing. Universities teaching, explicitly or by example, that free speech is bad needs to stop.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re: Oh come on by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      The Nazis spent their time cultivating ENVY. Js were in power by trickery, they don't deserve their wealth, they cost Germany WWI, they only allow their own people to power, they don't care about people like you! Please help us take them down, it's the right thing to do! It's the same arguments and methods, right now it is a nebulous "straight white male" which shifts definition when seeing an Asian and again when seeing a South American. They are refining the hate engine and seizing institutions through single points of absolute control. I don't like stage 2.

    19. Re:Oh come on by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait, wait, slow down cowboy. Which is it, twitter storms, which a protected speech, or smashing windows?

      You seem to be a little confused about what you're against.

      So to be clear, you stand up for the rights of people to twitter-storm against you... right? That's what you're trying to protect when you're talking about free speech... right?

    20. Re: Oh come on by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      It's easiest to snipe a busy person who is too busy getting things done to see the trap you've laid for them while producing nothing else. Don't ever mess with someone who has more free time than you, and talentless SJWs have plenty of time.

    21. Re:Oh come on by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Gosh darn hippies, what do you mean it is murder if I shoot somebody in front of my own house?!

      What if he looked wrong? What if I promise that his presence frightened me? What if I promise that when I saw him bend over to fix his hair in the side mirror of my parked car, I thought he was gonna steal me radio?!

      Murder isn't any less political than other laws.

      But are all rules equally as political as a law? I would say no. If I am allowed to shoot you for saying something I don't like while in my living room, that is political. But is it political for me to ask you to leave when you say something I don't like? That part doesn't get political until you have to call the police to remove them, ie, invoke a law. Or in the workplace, if I own the business, is it actually "political" if I make rules? Or is it only political once there are accusations that my rules violate the law? If my rules merely suck, but everybody agrees I own the business and my rules are legal, then where is the politics? There isn't any.

      Cut the grass to exactly my specifications, and quit making excuses, or I'll find somebody else to do it.

    22. Re:Oh come on by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      [Citation Required]

    23. Re:Oh come on by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Associating your enemies with a greater common enemy has always been a tactic, the nazis themselves did that too.

      Now you have a group of people who are demonising those who simply want to get on with their work, who is the real villain?

      If they're going out of their way to ambiguously appear as if they might be supporting nazis, but they're hedging, then I'm definitely concerned they're a real villain.

    24. Re:Oh come on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The old "don't make it political" argument is just dog whistle. State exactly what part of the CoC you disagree with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Oh come on by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is always another generation of kids with simplistic world views, that think they discovered 'X' and are going to fix things 'right now'.

      Most people do realize that social media explosions are fucking stupid, but have jobs to do.

      You can ask for reality based education, except there are large number of idiots in higher ed that actually believe 'everything is socially constructed'. They just need to go.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 1

      Twitter lynch mobs, like Stormfront, are both protected speech and a horrible social phenomena that we'd be better off without.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re: Oh come on by malkavian · · Score: 1

      So that makes you complicit in most of the evils of the world that you don't know you're against. Bit of a silly argument; I call false dichotomy.

    28. Re:Oh come on by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if you understand the term. The "heckler's veto" refers to disrupting an event so that no speech can occur. Preventing speech is not free speech (what could be more obvious?).

      Public universities are the government. Private universities are not, and retain their rights of association.

      Depends how much government funding they take, but more generally "people with government-like power over you" need the same restrictions as government for our rights to be protected. Universities have fairly extreme power over their students, much more so than most other situations adults are likely to encounter (maybe airports, but hat's government now).

      Your free speech rights do not trump other's rights of association. They have the right to exclude you from their club, even if said club has university approval.

      Sure, but what does that non-sequitur have to do with "free speech zones", which prevent speech in common areas? I'll assume you also believe that clubs who host a speech by a free speech advocate have the right to exclude hecklers.

      After all, you just launched the goalposts into orbit to avoid discussing.

      To avoid discussing what? You haven't clearly explained the strawman that you want to argue against. My OP simply stated that suppression of free speech is bad, and that it's a sad state of affairs when college students, of all people, protest free speech.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Oh come on by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?

      I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?

      The FSF/OSS/hacker communities have spent 20-30 years debating the relative merits of "free as in speech" or "free as in beer" as philosophies in the technology space. Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is that those arguing "free speech is hate speech" do not deserve a seat at that table.

    30. Re: Oh come on by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right not everything need to be a trade-off, there is no acceptable middle ground between tolerance and bigotry.

      If you criticize Muslims for throwing homosexuals off of buildings, are you being tolerant of homosexuals or are you being bigoted against Muslims?

      The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.

    31. Re: Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      woosh.

    32. Re: Oh come on by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And the reason you're being excluded is your utter unwillingness to actually discuss ideas.

      That's hilarious. On the one hand you defend the hecklers veto, where a group of idiots mindlessly shut down someone trying to have a conversation. You then turn around and pretend that it's also OK to exclude the person because he didn't really want to have a conversation.

      This is the state of the "progressive" mindset these days. It's OK to shout down and exclude anyone who disagrees with you because they don't REALLY want to have a discussion. After all, if they wanted to have a discussion then they would agree with you!

    33. Re:Oh come on by Mr307 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those simplistic utopian worldviews normally/historically dont survive long into adulthood but 'we' made the world too soft and easy for too long, many of these people genuinely believe they are victims and are oppressed while living in the most free and advanced civilization ever in history.

      They will seriously try to 'save us' for our own good because they believe their ridiculous nonsense, and in that way do real evil.

      All the while completely satisfied they are doing good as CS Lewis described: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

      Completely warped.

    34. Re:Oh come on by swb · · Score: 1

      If my rules merely suck, but everybody agrees I own the business and my rules are legal, then where is the politics? There isn't any.

      That's just it, nobody agrees your rules are legal. Since we have to refer to the law to establish the legitimacy of your rules, now we're back to political in some sense.

      Hell, establishing that you own your business may be a matter of SEC regulation regarding stock ownership or a question of contract law.

    35. Re:Oh come on by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?

      Are they a thing or is it just a nice little straw man for you?

      Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America? People who imagine themselves your future rulers. People who want to achieve that "by any means necessary".

      Keep dreaming Dinesh. No one is secretly plotting to become your monarch (except maybe this guy).

    36. Re:Oh come on by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you want the benefit of free speech but none of the responsibility to be held accountable for it

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    37. Re: Oh come on by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      No, if you are aware of them and don't denounce, you're complicit.

      This is not what the word complicit means.

      Crips how hard is this to comprehend?

      Next time consult a dictionary prior to clicking "Submit".

    38. Re: Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you check history, that really is how it works with Nazis. People not against them are for them.

      Yes and? If you're not actively against genocide then you know what, fuck you. You're still scum even if there's even nastier scum out there.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re: Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.

      Oh jeez, you've literally only just discovered the paradox of tolerance? You're going to be insufferable for your whole freshman year. My advice to you: read the wikipedia page, talk about it while wasted with your college buddies for like 6 months. Then it will be out of your system when you find a girl or guy, have to do some actual work and need to chose a major.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    40. Re:Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many sub threads have terminated on a near enough identical comment of yours recently. It's almost like you have a point or something...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    41. Re:Oh come on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your signature is very apt. All these arguments come down to the same nonsense - you haven't read it, it will be abused by the SJWs who definitely exist, there's a conspiracy and they got to Linus... Of course everyone knows this, so no evidence is required, which is lucky because we don't have any. Stop asking about it, troll.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re: Oh come on by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi is not the paradox of tolerance. Advocating violence against nonviolent bigots is not the paradox of tolerance. You arw way out of your depth.

    43. Re:Oh come on by lenski · · Score: 1

      In a rational world, individual words should not have the power to break people who have confidence in themselves. But I have been near people who, having been targets of violence, could not break free of those earlier experiences.

      Out in the public sphere, particular words delivered in particular contexts are capable of inciting violence. The words themselves may not break bones, but the manipulation of attitudes in those who are predisposed to believe the worst almost inevitably produces violence. Generally the violence is perpetrated against those least able to defend themselves, arises rapidly enough to catch the targets unprepared, or is perpetrated against groups that have a history of being weakened by structural impediments.

    44. Re: Oh come on by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It only sounds intolerant to people who can't grasp that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group with the same ideas and ideals.

      Neither are Nazis.

      Now what?

    45. Re: Oh come on by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Your argument is misleading. If Nazis are using their ideological beliefs to justify killing jews, those Nazis should be condemned. That is not, however, justification to condemn all Nazis just those who are engaging in such behavior.

      Although I'm not aware of White Seperarists killing anyone, they did some pretty vile things in the name of their beliefs. They professed to be conservatives and used their beliefs to justify some rather offensive speech. They're also a fringe element of conservatism, but even if their membership was substantially larger, it wouldn't be representative of all of conservatism.

      Is it reasonable to condemn conservatives because of the White Separatists and other groups like them? Or should we perhaps take a more intelligent view of conservatism and recognize that most conservatives consider them to be perverting the ideology?

      You've presented a false dichotomy. Even the rampant genocide in the Nazi Party is hardly representative of the views of all Nazis. The Nazi Party has actively covered up some disgusting abuse and shielded the abusers from justice. This can and should be condemned, but there's a difference between condemning that and generally condemning Nazis.

    46. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'll bite. Here's the first 3 standards that's been added, and I have a problem with all of them:

      * Using welcoming and inclusive language

      A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.

      * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences

      Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.

      * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism

      How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?

      Besides those points, the entire thing reeks of SJW influence and reads poorly because of it.

      We ... pledge to making participation in our project ... a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation

      There's absolutely no reason to have this list. It's not only overly broad in certain areas, but also incomplete. What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding? On the other hand, what if someone is being ridiculed for having pink hair? Hair color isn't in the list. Why bother making a list when you can just say "We pledge to make participation in our project a harassment-free experience for everyone"? Is it any less clear? Can someone say "oh but I only harassed them due to their gender" and get away with it? No!

      And then we have this gem:

      Maintainers have the right and responsibility ... to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

      So the rest of the CoC talks about harassment, which has a commonly-agreed upon definition, but now suddenly it's taken to a new level of stupidity with "inappropriate" and "offensive". Well everything can be inappropriate or offensive. Wearing red on St. Patricks day is inappropriate. Maintaining eye contact with a stranger for longer than 2 seconds is inappropriate. Smoking is offensive to nonsmokers. Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists. Discussing Emacs is offensive to Vim developers. Using spaces is offensive to tab users. Running non-free software triggers RMS. Need I to go on?

      This entire CoC is pointless. It says very little using a lot of words. Including SJW terminology unnecessarily triggers the anti-SJW camp and generates internet drama. At best it drives away a few devs who don't want politics in their software. At worst it can end up splitting the community.

      And frankly, I can come up with a better CoC in 2 words: "Be civil."

    47. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You know, it takes quite a bit of time to type up a reasonable response to the question (which I did just now). By asking the other side to do a bunch of work that is sufficiently tedious that most don't bother, he's able to shutdown the discussion temporarily. I suppose that is a victory of sorts for you SJW types.

    48. Re:Oh come on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.

      So, before the CoC, how did people address each other on the LKML? I can see a lot of pronouns like "he" and "her", but somehow now it's worse because..?

      Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.

      So when Linus said that the Gnome preferences panel was crap in his experience, re-wrote it and submitted a patch, that was wrong? His personal experience and views on it's usability should be ignored, the only thing that needs evaluating is the technical merits of the patch?

      How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?

      Okay, say it doesn't have merit... You could offer some constructive meta-criticism. I'm not sure what your problem is here, the CoC is saying you shouldn't be hostile to genuine attempts to provide helpful criticism, it doesn't preclude disagreeing.

      What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding?

      Note how it doesn't say "if you have some kind of disability the rules don't apply to you".

      Having said that this CoC only applies to people using official Linux Foundation channels, so it's not clear how such a person would ever gain access to an official email address or social media account.

      Perhaps you have a point about the list. You could submit a patch re-wording it to a more general statement.

      Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists.

      But note that there is recourse beyond the project maintainer and that punishing someone for eating shrimp would doubtless be a violation of the CoC itself and result in sanctions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      A waste of time. It makes people learn everyone else's pronouns instead of learning the patch they're submitting.

      So, before the CoC, how did people address each other on the LKML? I can see a lot of pronouns like "he" and "her", but somehow now it's worse because..?

      It's worse because previously if you used the wrong one, there's no consequence. Now if you screw up, you're liable to be kicked from the project.

      Simply wrong, no one should take personal viewpoints and experiences into account when evaluating a pull request. It should be evaluated purely on its technical merit.

      So when Linus said that the Gnome preferences panel was crap in his experience, re-wrote it and submitted a patch, that was wrong?

      No, when did I say that?

      His personal experience and views on it's usability should be ignored, the only thing that needs evaluating is the technical merits of the patch?

      Yes. The fact that he's Linus should not factor into the decision at all. In fact, if I were him, I would consider submitting the patch anonymously so as to avoid unintentionally using my fame to influence the Gnome maintainer.

      How about checking first whether the criticism has merit?

      Okay, say it doesn't have merit... You could offer some constructive meta-criticism. I'm not sure what your problem is here, the CoC is saying you shouldn't be hostile to genuine attempts to provide helpful criticism, it doesn't preclude disagreeing.

      The CoC states "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism". To me, that means taking it to heart and acting on it. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, in which case it should be rewritten to use words like "acknowledge" instead of "accept".

      What should the community do with a mentally disabled person? Should they be made to feel welcome despite spamming every discussion with kindergarten-level understanding?

      Note how it doesn't say "if you have some kind of disability the rules don't apply to you".

      Right, but nowhere in the CoC is there any wording requiring community members to have the ability to communicate above kindergarten level. Making someone feel welcome does mean catering to their needs to a large extent, whatever those might be.

      Eating shrimp is offensive to wahhabists.

      But note that there is recourse beyond the project maintainer and that punishing someone for eating shrimp would doubtless be a violation of the CoC itself and result in sanctions.

      You missed my point.

      There are no limits when it comes to "offensive", which means the person who caused it has no way to modify their behavior so as to avoid being offensive in the future. Listening to the offended person might placate that one person, but your modified behavior may now be offensive to another. So what do you do? Well any reasonable person would do what they think is right and ignore those conflicting suggestions. But if that's the result, you might as well just ignore the offended people right from the start and just always do what you think is right.

      However, that's not allowed according to the CoC. If someone is offended, the maintainers should ban the offending person. If an argument between tabs and spaces occurred and both sides are offended, the only way to adhere to the CoC is to ban both sides.

      Now perhaps that's not the intention, but then why is that kind of wording included in the CoC in the first place? To confuse people?

    50. Re:Oh come on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what this really boils down to is your extremely pessimistic interpretation of the CoC, e.g. that a single honest mistake with pronouns will get you in trouble.

      There is probably nothing I can say to convince you that it's not that bad. All either of us can really do is wait a while and see what happens, or doesn't happen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You're full of shit, mate.

      "your side" is making the claim that the CoC is crap yet refuse at every turn to say whic hbits are crap. If you make a cliam damn right I'll ask you to back it up. If you can't that's your flaw not mine.

      I suppose that is a victory of sorts for you SJW types.

      SJW: n. Someone who maintains that claims must be backed up with evidence.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    52. Re: Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Blah blah random tangent instead of addressing the actual point.

      PS you're way obsesed with Nazis. You should get therapy or something.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    53. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I can accept that interpretation. Though I still have to ask, why settle for "not that bad" when it could be "great" instead?

    54. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Ah sorry, I forgot you're just a troll and can't form an argument better than strawmen and cursing. Please disregard my previous post.

    55. Re:Oh come on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it is great. It's short, it covers pretty much everything, it's got a reasonable procedure for dealing with any issues.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    56. Re:Oh come on by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So you making unfounded claims is now me trolling.

      Mmmm you keep telling yourself that buddy.

      And don't worry, I already disregarded your previous post since it contained nothing of value.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    57. Re:Oh come on by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      So you making unfounded claims is now me trolling.

      Oh? Where? Can you quote the comment?

      Like I said, you're a troll.

    58. Re:Oh come on by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We didn't really need an example of a kid with a simplistic world view, but good job anyhow.

      None of your complaints are new. Your just butthurt the crookedest candidate ever didn't win. Go to the proctologist and get over it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Non-Binary by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Non-binary people can't fathom a world where the "Us vs Them" extremist thinking is bad. Therefore, if you don't care about PC language, and cowering before the LGBT Crowd's demands, you MUST BE A NAZI!!!!!!!

    This isn't about Linus being a Nazi, because I don't even think he is, but when that is HIS fears(being called a Nazi), because he doesn't retreat at being labeled a "white cis male", that is really telling to where we are as a society. And only a few of us find this to be actually frightening?

    I don't care what people are, really. I just don't want to be told what I must do, what I must say, especially when it is being backed by the full power of government. This is nothing more than Nazi like bully tactics. People should take a long look at how Nazi's actually worked. The Political Correct Left is more like Nazis than anything.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Non-Binary by sinij · · Score: 1

      Drink! AmiMojo right on time with the whataboutism!

      With this thread, we will all end up in a rehab.

    2. Re:Non-Binary by Mr307 · · Score: 2

      You may be the most consistently dishonest person I have ever seen on this forum.

        I dont recall you ever showing any shame about it whatsoever and no doubt will double or triple down on your nonsense.

      Political Correctness is totalitarian, it is gross, it is evil, and people who engage in it ought to be publicly ridiculed.

    3. Re:Non-Binary by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even read TFS? Linus adopted the CoC to avoid being called a Nazis.

      I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Non-Binary by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      My interpretation of that line is more like "I don't want people to think I'm associated with the Nazis." or "I don't want people to think I sympathize with the Nazis."

      Compare that to your interpretation, "I don't want people to think I'm a Nazi."

      English is funny like that, and I suspect that OP interpreted it the same way I did.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    5. Re:Non-Binary by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Are you looking at "association" as a very loose concept? For example, say an international bank accepted deposits from Nazis, therefore they are associated with Nazis, but we can recognize that the bank isn't a Nazi organization?

      To me that's much looser than "in the same camp." Your interpretation seems more like "in the same continent."

      Would you agree that Linus is saying people "in the same camp" as the Nazis must think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi? Because I think that already shows he's using a closer scope of "association" than the international bank example. I don't think people assume that any business that engaged with the Nazis were morally approving of all of the Nazis behavior. (Though there are plenty of crazy people who do think exactly that.)

    6. Re:Non-Binary by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Everyone is a victim. So nobody can be a Nazi?

      Nazi's were victims as well, at some point and that's the reason they became Nazi's. Germany wasn't great after WW1 and most of their people were being victimized by brutal Russian, European and US sanctions. Hitler ran on the platform that the German people were victims.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Non-Binary by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I am non-binary. I'm very against the us-vs-them extremist thinking, but admittedly that's because my family made sure I knew the history of past movements like this well enough to know where they end.

      That said, I also do not feel represented by the LGBT* activists and would like them to at least stop acting like I am a vile heretic to be burned at the stake for daring to think thoughts and have wants other than the ones they approve of. My gender and sexual orientation do not dictate everything about me--I am more than my gender identity and whom I might wish to have sex with. (And, actually, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that they should dictate every bit of my life.)

    8. Re:Non-Binary by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's why he's still tilting at strawmen; he's still worried about being associated with bad people, instead of worrying if his own behavior was bad.

    9. Re:Non-Binary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give the whole quote and it will make more sense:

      Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Non-Binary by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's a very creative interpretation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Non-Binary by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      So fork the kernal and have a non-bianry distro. That's the whole point of open source.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re:Non-Binary by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.

      That's a very creative interpretation.

      No, no it is not. It is an extremely literal interpretation. Which word did you find unclear?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Non-Binary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I also do not feel represented by the LGBT* activists and would like them to at least stop acting like I am a vile heretic to be burned at the stake for daring to think thoughts and have wants other than the ones they approve of.

      Which thoughts and desires do you believe the LGBT* activists want you burned at the stake for?

      I am more than my gender identity and whom I might wish to have sex with. (And, actually, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that they should dictate every bit of my life.)

      Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.

      To the extent that those people are angry at heterosexual white males, it's a backlash against the way they have been treated by heterosexual white males, who throughout history have tended to fall into two groups: the group that actively oppresses everyone else, and the group that doesn't do enough to stop their fellows from doing that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Non-Binary by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      when that is HIS fears(being called a Nazi), because he doesn't retreat at being labeled a "white cis male", that is really telling to where we are as a society.

      It doesn't sound to me like his fear is being called a Nazi or that his intent is to retreat from those that would call him a "white cis male". It sounds to me like he's so appalled at the real white nationalist movement that he wants to distance himself any way he can.

      the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too

    15. Re:Non-Binary by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Which word did you find unclear?

      The bit where it offends his worldview.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Non-Binary by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.

      They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.

      Here, since your search engine skills are not good enough to type in a phrase like 'biphobia in the lgbt community'--here are some of the top results (out of ~176,00) that I got when I did it, you can get more easily: HuffPo LGBT Sentinel Pride Bi Resource Center.. Switching to transphobia from biphobia, I get: The Independent (about the transphobic protest at the 2018 London Pride parade that got to lead the parade for a bit, I honestly wish I was making this up) Syracuse Peace Counsel The American Prospect; I will admit that the filtering on Google means I don't get quite as narrow a focus so some of the ~742,000 results it spit out are not necessarily relevant. Non-binary discrimination within the LGBT* community is primarily discussed in academic sources, though on occasion you will see things like this article from HuffPo.

      You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.

    17. Re:Non-Binary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.
      Here, since your search engine skills are not good enough to type in a phrase like 'biphobia in the lgbt community'

      I don't need search engine skills for that since I know that there are plenty of LGBT*s who don't like bisexual people (I know lots of 'em) but so what? They still think that bisexual people should have the same rights that they have, and they're not out bi-bashing.

      You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.

      Well, good for you. I for one do not "get" transexualism at all, I think that as long as it isn't a perfect swap it's ridiculous, but I still think that trans people deserve the same rights as other people. Just in case you were wondering where I sat. I mean specifically that as long as people are allowed to say with a straight face that you should get a personal trainer and try getting thin before you get liposucked, people should also be allowed to say in all seriousness that you should get a therapist and try to be happy with your genitals before you get a sex change. It might require moving to a liberal location, but these days it's okay for men to act "girly" or for women to act "manly". Don't even get me started on trans people who want to refer to their genitals as the opposite of what they are. They can call them whatever they want, and I'll call them more or less whatever they want, but I'm not calling a penis a vagina or vice versa.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Non-Binary by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Give the whole quote and it will make more sense:

      Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi

      In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.

      And this is your brain on SJW. Kids, don't do SJW, not even once.

  7. My problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

    Since the centre left is not criticizing these folks, they are opening the door to some godawful policies being put in place to police our thoughts and words when/if the next time they get voted in.

    1. Re:My problem by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can criticize them 'til you're blue in the face, they're fully resistant against reason and logic. It's like the religious right wing nutjobs found their pendant on the other side of the spectrum. Same rhetoric, different agenda.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:My problem by mangastudent · · Score: 1

      My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

      "No friends to the Right, no enemies to the Left" has been a guiding principle of the Left for over a century. One reason they've swept the tables during that period.

    3. Re:My problem by autarch · · Score: 1

      My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

      Since the centre left is not criticizing these folks, they are opening the door to some godawful policies being put in place to police our thoughts and words when/if the next time they get voted in.

      This definitely isn't true. I suspect that this criticism doesn't get as much "air time" because it's not nearly as exciting as clashes between neo-nazis and antifa.

      Two places where you can read criticism of this sort that jump to my mind are Heterodox Academy and Areo Magazine. While both of these sites are explicitly open to authors from all parts of the political spectrum, they do both publish critiques of social justice politics from a progressive standpoint.

    4. Re:My problem by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      You can criticize them 'til you're blue in the face, they're fully resistant against reason and logic. It's like the religious right wing nutjobs found their pendant on the other side of the spectrum. Same rhetoric, different agenda.

      I interpreted the GP post differently than you did. The political parties are too concerned about losing a few votes at the extreme end of the spectrum to renounce their behavior. This allows the extremists to control the narrative.

      It's not about changing the extremists minds, it's about the vast majority in the center being ignored.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:My problem by sinij · · Score: 1

      You can criticize them 'til you're blue in the face, they're fully resistant against reason and logic. It's like the religious right wing nutjobs found their pendant on the other side of the spectrum. Same rhetoric, different agenda.

      I much prefer old times, where a ritual sacrifice or two and the issue was considered resolved and we all could go back to minding our business. Now even if you get sacrificed, they are not done with you.

    6. Re:My problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      For the record, I will condemn that attitude here and now. If I ever meet someone like that, I'll criticise their argument.

      What's weird is that people tell me I'm on the far left, practically a communist, and yet I don't know any people like that. You would think I'd bump into them all the time, given how prevalent they are and how they apparently run everything.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:My problem by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'They' (both of them) have always run to the extreems for primary season, than to the center for general elections.

      This is just the longest primary ever, that and the commies are really butt hurt. They thought they had the supreme court locked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:My problem by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's actually really hard for any group to criticize the angry part of their group.

      Jordan Peterson really hits on something when he says, we have finally reached a state where we draw a line on the right. Anyone who speaks on superiority of people just on the basis of their race... has crossed that line and must be publicly denounced. We really do forget that globally, people cross that line all the time.

      It's actually very unique for a group to criticize it's 'crazies'. The reason is simply their crazies do the dirty work.

      I grew up Muslim. Whenever you get free speech issues, like say the cartoon thing. The vast majority of my family in Canada (and we're like 2nd/3rd pretty moderate generation) will say something like the following. Killing people is wrong, but they shouldn't be saying stuff about Islam anyways. Or you have like my family in the UK, where the crazies are one's who try to get rid of various ethnicities in their neighborhood. Now, no moderate person would voice their support of it, but they're just glad the community is now safer and better.

      You had the same thing with the KKK back in the day. Not every white person liked the KKK or wanted the violence, but the KKK did the job they wanted. They kept blacks out of the neighborhood. They were on 'your' side. So most white people wouldn't go out there and really take on the KKK. It really took a lot to push that fight.

      The far left isn't going to do it either. They enjoy that the threat of punch a Nazi or shame you out of the job keeps people in line. They will throw the same token rejection of violence or whatever that every other group days... while letting their crazies do their thing because it benefits them.

      Blacks won't do it either. They will never fight black extremists because they're on their side. You see it happening in South Africa today. The government working alongside what is the black equivalent of the KKK, led by Julius Malema. It's really strange just to see the language and how the groups work. The ANC says it's not racist... but really can't go against the black KKK. Coded threats. Outright violence. All the while, the government sits backs and says: what's the problem, we're not racist. Let's just work it all out, while they work with people who openly chant kill whites, kill farmers.

      Anyways, the long and short of it is. Very few people actually take on their crazies of their group that fights for them and their interests. Probably because no one is playing to lose. The weird line the West drew so cohesively and broadly against Nazis is actually kind of unique. Everywhere else in the world, the alt-right or whatever is pretty much regular behavior.

    9. Re:My problem by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Reminds me a *lot* of the crazy religious people who infested the Lannisters on game of thrones, you have to be pretty impressively evil to make the Lannisters look sympathetic.

      Wrong think is punishable.

    10. Re:My problem by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

      So centre left people don't criticise a figment of right wing imagination? Fancy that!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:My problem by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Actually the centre left folks ARE criticizing the far left crazy "I hate cis white!!!!!" people, they do it fairly often.

      It's just they are then put 'in the pit' of far right trolls, nazi sympathisers, white supremacists. A good portion of the 'alt-right' are infact, simply left leaning people with some common sense.

      Doesn't stop people shouting at them though, for being evil!

    12. Re:My problem by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Is that even necessary? Isn't it obvious that they're nuts and not the majority?

    13. Re:My problem by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It's like the religious right wing nutjobs

      Because the SJWs are religious nutjobs. It's just that it's currently more beneficial to not identify as a religion, as it allows funding and laws from any subjugated part of the government (incl. education) -- compare to Scientology going the other way.

      Same rhetoric, different agenda.

      Not even that different. They merely bear different labels, but want the same: control, power, getting rid of unbelievers, etc. And both use the same methods. Racism/etc is also the same, merely with preferred skin color having changed.

      As a kid, in early elementary school I was forced to go to a 1st May parade. Haven't even finished the elementary school before being forced to go to a Corpus Christi procession, with the same people bearing banners that looked like they had the same frames as before, just the content changed; so did words spoken through the loudspeakers.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  8. What does this have to do with Kernel development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet is the great anonymizer.

    There is no way for someone to know that a contributor to the linux kernel is of a certain color, race, gender, or sexual orientation unless they volunteer that information.

    And why would they? What does it have to do with Kernel development?

    In my experience, this is the battle cry of the incompetent. When they don't get their way, suddenly it's because of your discrimination against their $trait that you couldn't have possibly known about in the first place.

  9. Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by gweihir · · Score: 1

    There simply is no other choice. It saddens me to see the Linux kernel community has given up the goal of producing a really good kernel and is apparently satisfied with being mediocre in the future. A pity.

    The larger problem is of course people that value form over function, politeness over intent and generally want people to be as fake-friendly and as conformist as possible.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's sad, but really it was inevitable. The larger any organization, the shorter the half-life before corruption sets in, and the original goals begin to fade. I'm impressed Linus held it together as long as he did!

      After all, the various Unices that Linux replaced were all originally focused on making a great kernel as well. Of course, being corporate properties, that didn't last nearly as long.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      What would be that path forward do you think?

      Does the kernel get forked, one with an non meritocracy COC and the other without such an thing? People who want to contribute to the 'best code' version slowly migrate over and add more support over time and outperforms the PC (Politically Correct) version?

      And 'conformist' is the exact right characterization as well, everything else will come second to that totalitarian dictum.

    3. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Due to how long Linus held out, it will also take quite a while for the SJW destroyers to do their evil work.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by gweihir · · Score: 1

      We will see. Personally I think that since the kernel is in an excellent state and it takes a while to destroy that, we will see a fork in the next 5-10 years and the PC original becoming slowly irrelevant in the 10 or so years that follow. Fortunately, the Unix kernel API is small and very much respects KISS. It may even happen that the SJW fuckups will try to break the kernel API and that triggers the fork.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The SJWs just want the money. As long as the sweet sweet money flows to them, they'll be fine if someone forks the kernel and does all the 'dirty man work' for them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, let's have a separate CoC for *each distro*, and see which one wins on features by the developers they include.

      My guess is that the most inclusive CoC would win, and it's not likely to be the "White men are icky and asian men oppress women" distro.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. Why does a code of conduct have to specify people? by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do we even have to know the sexual orientation, gender or race of programmers and engineers? Other than language difficulties from non-english as their first language speakers causing misunderstanding, here really shouldn't be any drama. Even stupid jokes should be excluded, its a technical list.

    But when a code of conduct lists people to protect, it starts a once side argument. How about don't be an asshole to everyone, why does the CoC have to state a list of people that you shouldn't be an asshole too? This is is nothing but political propaganda and those politics should stay off technical lists.

    All this "cis white males" are the enemy being pushed around is no better than someone pushing "color hair LGBTQ+" stereotypes need to be protected.

    This "Us vs Them" is what these types code of conducts promote. If you have to list people to protect instead of language, you picked out a group of people as offenders and make the others victims. The Tribal nature of silicon valley that whites straight males are the enemy and then put into code of conduct is wrong, and it's being spread around projects is petty and a way to try to get back at people.

      "Be Excellent to each other" shouldn't be written to imply "This means you, white cis males!".

    Just because the world is divided in left vs right, worse than ever, we in tech should be above this tribal nature, not going towards it at full speed.

  11. just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    what a bunch of disruptive bunch of bullshit... talk about walking backwards

    this is the only COC any project needs... https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

    1. Re:just wow by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      this is the only COC any project needs... https://github.com/domgetter/N...

      From the self-proclaimed NCOC:

      2. We accept everyones contributions, we don't care if you're liberal or conservative, black or white, straight or gay, or anything in between! In fact, we won't bring it up, or ask. We simply do not care.

      Which rather ironically sounds like a code of conduct. In between all the bullshit where they whine about code of conducts they are in fact mandating certain standards of behaviour.

      So all they have is a really whiny CoC.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. Kant's second formulation by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of the Categorical Imperative:

    Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

    Emphasis mine here: acting ethically doesn't mean you have to cripple yourself by focusing solely on other peoples's rights. But they're part of the constraints you actually operate under, so it's best not to ignore them.

    This isn't just an ethical prescription, it's practical advice. Treating your coworkers with respect doesn't precluding fighting over technical details. In fact, if you've never tried it you'll be amazed at how much more productive a heated but respectful argument is over one where everyone's objective is to beat the other guy by any means available. That's the difference between the best ideas winning and the loudest dickheads winning.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Kant's second formulation by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with the CoC is not that it sort-of advocates Kant's imperative. The problem is that it can and will be used to push people out of the project for purely power-related reasons. This is an attempt at a hostile takeover. Sure, it looks benign, but it is anything but.

      On the plus-side, any ambition I may have had to contribute to the kernel is now thoroughly dead.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Kant's second formulation by Nidi62 · · Score: 2
      Here's a simple code of conduct that anyone can follow that only has 3 rules:

      1. Don't be an asshole

      2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole

      3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole

      Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Kant's second formulation by sinij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...objective is to beat the other guy by any means available.

      The problem modern political discourse is that both sides act out belief that they are oppressed side and are under attack, while in fact neither is. In turn, they justify their questionable behavior as self-defense or "they did it first".

      How do you explain behavior of two groups of predominantly white, middle to upper class and educated, heterosexual people fighting each other over "oppression" of minorities? SJW are modern age puritans, this culture war isn't about LGBT or visible minority rights, rather these are co-opted. It is about undoing 60s sexual revolution and replacing Christianity with some alternative form of religious-like behavior.

    4. Re:Kant's second formulation by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole

      Just because someone says you're an asshole, doesn't mean that you are.

    5. Re:Kant's second formulation by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole

      Just because someone says you're an asshole, doesn't mean that you are.

      Calling someone an asshole when they aren't being an asshole would be breaking rule #1: don't be an asshole.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Kant's second formulation by hey! · · Score: 1

      However it does mean you should give serious consideration to the possibility.

      Everyone's an asshole some of the time. If you accept that, you don't have to feel defensive about it. It's maintaining the false pretense that your behavior is utterly assholery-proof that's the problem. As long as that's the basis from which most people argue, an argument is all about who argues for the fantasy version of themselves most effectively.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Kant's second formulation by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the steps as written leads to the circle where both sides tell the other side that they're being an asshole. Yelling ensues.
      You missed a key part of #3: If someone says you're being an asshole, stop and analyze your behavior and theirs and figure out why they're upset. Do an honest analysis and don't assume the problem is with them. Then either "change your behavior" or "share your analysis back with the person who said you were an asshole and engage in dialog until you can both agree on a standard of behavior."

    8. Re:Kant's second formulation by stdarg · · Score: 1

      That's how virtually all codes of conduct work, because human behavior is subjective. GP's code of conduct is just more clearly subjective than most, due to its brevity.

    9. Re:Kant's second formulation by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You dont understand power.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Kant's second formulation by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oppression is like gluten sensitivity. It's a real thing, and a huge problem for the people who have it, but there's a lot of people that have latched onto it as an explanation for things they're unsatisfied with in their lives.

      This includes people who bellyache about people bellyaching about oppression; they show a startling lack of irony-awareness.

      The fact is that people are just a PITA, and we all have to just learn to live with that, and doing that means recognizing someone can be an asshole without necessarily actually harming us. Our problem is we've lost all concept of that vast middle ground between an innocent slip and outright harmful behavior. We went though a kind of cultural revolution in the 1960s in which concepts of graciousness, politeness, and decency were thrown over for the romantic cult of authenticity.

      This has stripped our working vocabulary of words like maladroit, rude, and indecent, leaving us only with the vocabulary of harm.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Kant's second formulation by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      4. If someone makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their jobs, they are an asshole. It is not an asshole move to remove their access.

      5. Net negative workers are assholes, no matter how 'nicely' they fuck things up. Hence, anybody who proposes any formal CoC is an asshole.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Kant's second formulation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Here's a simple code of conduct that anyone can follow that only has 3 rules:

      1. Don't be an asshole 2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole 3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole.

      Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.

      That only works if when you start yelling "asshole" at each other, your mommy comes and spanks somebody.

      For other situations, you're going to need some process.

    13. Re:Kant's second formulation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So as long as you succeed in excluding people, they have nothing to complain about. How convenient that that somehow means there are no oppressed groups!

    14. Re:Kant's second formulation by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Here's a simple code of conduct that anyone can follow that only has 3 rules:
      1. Don't be an asshole

      2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole

      3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole

      You are an asshole. Please stop being an asshole.

      Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.

      Things suddenly get a lot nicer when people stop judging others and instead learn to tolerate them.

    15. Re:Kant's second formulation by JD-1027 · · Score: 1

      This would make life so much better. The key step you have in there is the very first step... analyze yourself first. Self awareness just isn't a thing for some people. I know I fail at it a lot.

    16. Re:Kant's second formulation by gweihir · · Score: 2

      There is no "clear policy" here. There is lots lots and lots of room for interpretation and manipulation. If you do not see that, then you are either completely unaware of history and how this has been done countless times before in one form or another or you are in on the evil.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Kant's second formulation by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No surprise there. Valerie Aurora is also a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks she is a lot smarter than she actually is (not very) and who as a hugely inflated sense of entitlement end self-worth. Classical destructive people.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. Middle Ground by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative
    Why not take a better middle ground and create a separate code that isn't mired in controversy or authored by a group that clearly has a political agenda? It doesn't seem unreasonable for a man who decided to make his own operating system to make his own code of conduct for that project.

    Linus points out that there are plenty of people on the other side of the political correctness line who are every bit as nasty as some of those who are against it. If your desire is to avoid being associated with the worst sort of people from side A, it seems that you should also want to avoid the same from the other side as well. I think that line of reasoning itself is terrible as you can find plenty of awful people who believe in anything. You can broadly use the same argument for free speech itself (and you often here it used) and why it should be limited. Hopefully most people can see the issue when framed this way. However, that's my own argument, not Linus's and I don't know if he'd agree with me it to begin with.

    I think that Linus actually had a pretty good take on all of this years ago:

    So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire" . . . Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.

    I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes. Yes it's vague, but any precise set of rules to govern behavior is going to be incomplete and subject to all manners of pettiness.

    1. Re:Middle Ground by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes.

      I recommend a small update: Don't be a massive dick to anybody who doesn't deserve it.

    2. Re:Middle Ground by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Is there honestly anything in the document that is a political agenda?
      The Linux Code of Conduct
      All it asks is that people not drive others away from the project by being hateful. It's not a particularly political stance. And it lists some particular examples -- no doxing, for example. There's nothing political about it to my eyes.

    3. Re:Middle Ground by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      All it asks is that people not drive others away from the project by being hateful

      Suppose you want to drive people away who can't write code worth shit, how would you do that in a nice way ?

    4. Re:Middle Ground by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem unreasonable for a man who decided to make his own operating system to make his own code of conduct for that project.

      I imagine the fact that he checked himself in for some therapy after realizing what an ass he had been probably made him question his own ability to write a Code of Conduct.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Middle Ground by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Put him in charge of a 'new important project'. The WinME/Linux compatibility layer.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Middle Ground by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Is there honestly anything in the document that is a political agenda?

      The Linux Code of Conduct

      All it asks is that people not drive others away from the project by being hateful. It's not a particularly political stance. And it lists some particular examples -- no doxing, for example. There's nothing political about it to my eyes.

      In the phrase "politically correct," the politics is that they're against anybody complaining that something is hateful. You're not supposed to throw shade on their hate, because it might hurt their feelings with needless empathy or compassion.

    7. Re:Middle Ground by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Keep rejecting their code in a polite way. They'll either get better or go away.

  14. Lack of pragmatism by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I stopped arguing after my first (and only) coding style war. Life's too short for that kind of nonsense.

    1. Re:Lack of pragmatism by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I really really wanted to start flaming about how many spaces to indent code, but then I remembered that I refuse to stop using GNU make.

      But then there were some nazis who were trying to say that excluding people based on demographics is fine, because it is no different than a flame war about coding style.

      That was when I realized you're probably just saying that because you're a nazi. Life is not too short to fight nazis; it is too short not to! Never forget.

  15. Why the hell is this relevant? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?

    And if so, WHY?

    How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Why the hell is this relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a nonbinary demimale goatkin, I demand that you shower me with personal attention
       
      Captcha: unaware

    2. Re:Why the hell is this relevant? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?

      And if so, WHY?

      How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?

      I don't know, but there are some people, you might even know one, who say it is such a big part of their work that they refuse to agree not to exclude people on that basis. That guarantees it is (eventually) part of any related work, because labor laws.

    3. Re:Why the hell is this relevant? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You somehow managed to answer your own question very angrily and not even realise it.

      Why the hell is this relevant?

      How the fuck is any of [race gender etc] relevant to their work?

      It's not. But some people think it is. And that's why there's a CoC to tell them that it isn't.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Why the hell is this relevant? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My attention identifies as anvils. Shower away.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Why the hell is this relevant? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If your main concern when working is the gender, sexual orientation, race or pretty ANYTHING but a person's qualification for a job, I don't want to work with you. What I ask for is whether someone can do his job. As far as I'm concern it can be a green-yellow striped tri-gendered alien from plant Zrbt, provided said alien has the legal permission to work here and the qualification for the job, I'll hire him/her/it/them/xrbt.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by lgw · · Score: 1

    In an ideal world, Linus would have written such a code of conduct, one that mentioned no special groups, and it would have become an inspiration to other projects. But, hey, the man gave us Linux and Git, I'm certainly not going to criticize him for falling short!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  17. Most viable fork by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    What is the most viable fork of Linux for when the Merit-based contributors rescind their copyrights from this now Diversity-based project?

    1. Re:Most viable fork by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For people like you who believe that Merit comes to rest on the Contributor themselves, I would hope you find your fork at /dev/null

      Keep your argument-from-authoritay away from my kernel, please.

      Also, GPL. "rescind" away, in the end you only lose your right to try to enforce your copyright.

    2. Re:Most viable fork by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD :-)

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    3. Re:Most viable fork by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      What merit-based contributors? The Code of Conduct was signed-off by the most meritorious contributors: the top Maintainers. The whining so far has come from people with no significant contributions.

      Fork away. We'll be glad to see your whiny asses gone, and in two years we can point and laugh at the fact that you're so mediocre you're making even less progress than Devuan.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  18. Go Linus!!! by bferrell · · Score: 1

    Can I be like Linus when I grow up?

  19. Linus ducks, gets hit in face regardless by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

    > But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

    The same people associating you to Nazis are the same people who will always view you as a Nazi no longer what you do Linus. That you think asking them for forgiveness, and pandering to them, will in any way have them stop hating you is a complete waste of your time. You only end up hurting yourself by giving in to their hatred of you.

    Be yourself. Be nice to those who have no bad intentions toward you. Don't ask for forgiveness for not doing anything wrong.

  20. Post-Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Post-Meritocracy

    What succeeds merit? What I mean is; since merit is now obsolete, what replaces it? I'd like to know what to expect.

    1. Re:Post-Meritocracy by Mr307 · · Score: 2

      Nothing successfully succeeds merit.

      But many things can tear it down for a while.

      Currently its the resurgence of the post modernistic, identity politics, which if boiled down to the most simplistic concept maybe could be described as artificially constructed power wars for furthering utopian totalitarian fascism.

      It (merit based competence hierarchies) will come back in every area, the only question is how much damage has been done to that particular field in the meantime.

    2. Re:Post-Meritocracy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      What succeeds merit? What I mean is; since merit is now obsolete, what replaces it? I'd like to know what to expect.

      Idiots with loud voices.

  21. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    The problem is the virial CoC being spread around projects. The CoC is already being used as a weapon against people in a "Wrong Think" and making news.

    The "For the Children" nanny mentality that a CoC needs to be in place to protect people from a group of people, when its being used as a club against immediately after Linus accepts it, shows the problem with it. The CoC is already a problem and being reported on, this is already way political. We are talking about it because its political.

    Less than 24 hours after passing the CoC, a person tried to get a contributor removed.

  22. The dark office by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    No cause is so great that it isn't supported by idiots. Unfortunately the idiots seem to have the most time to yell and scream. They also ruin many chances at having a reasonable discussion. I've been having a number of discussions with female programmers and they all have more problems with SJW than I ever have. But that isn't to say there aren't issues they face. Women are different from men. (This may be a shock to some SJW) They do, on average have different goals, priorities and risk tolerances. There are fewer women in crypto currency work than men, not because they can't do it but because that isn't something most women are interested in. And guess what? That's fine.

    There are some real issues that women face for example:
    Being back stabbed by other non-technical women and having no means to fix it.
    Not arguing in a way that ends. When I call someone an idiot for checking in code that breaks the build, I expect an apology, donuts for the team, and then the issue is over. Women don't argue that way with other women though so you get friction when two women are on the team. My ex, who makes Linus seem like a pussy cat, can manage the most dysfunctional men on the planet but can't manage other women without making them cry
    Dark offices - given the chance many men will work till 2am in a dark office and then sleep in till noon. The guys that do this are often responsible for some key part of the company's product. Women don't feel safe in a dark office or going home at 2am. Once your key component is developed in this way, you have mostly excluded women from the team.

    The last point, dark offices, is something I had never thought of. I don't have a good solution for it and I'm sure there are other things that separate men from women at work that aren't sexist but are personal preferences that differ between sexes.

    1. Re:The dark office by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If the existence of idiots somehow prevents you from reasonable discussions, you're probably facing a different problem than you think.

  23. CoC by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Basically sensitive snow flakes should be hugged, given a warm cup of tea and told their failure is really just excellence.

    1. Re:CoC by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Basically sensitive snow flakes should be hugged, given a warm cup of tea and told their failure is really just excellence.

      I'll keep that in mind next time the snowflakes whine that the Code of Conduct is melting their perfection.

  24. Re:He didn't address anything by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    It wasn't just that he didn't like white nationalists. His position was empowering the white nationalists. They were using him as political cover. He felt he had to step away from his position to stop inadvertently supporting them.

  25. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by Mr307 · · Score: 1

    And it was all predicted and expected in advance as well, but to the average person this COC seems reasonable from a common decency perspective, they just dont have any clue its fully weaponized and was intended that way from the beginning.

    "thats no moon!"

  26. So, then, what about by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    >> it isn't that you said "fuck," it is that you said "fuck off."

    What if he said, "Bugger off to a convent"? Or "Sod off to a convent"? Or "Take yourself without haste in a most aggressive fashion off to a convent"? Are they any better? If not, then the issue isn't "Foul Words" but "Foul Intent", right? It is what I've always argued. There are no "Foul Words", there is no "Cursing", there is only being decent and cordial and not. The specific words matter little. Many consider it a form of art to insult someone while seeming to be polite. I consider those people to be fucking worthless pieces of shit not worthy of not shitting upon.

    1. Re:So, then, what about by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Swearing at someone is the verbal form of might makes right.
      I'm notoriously guilty of doing this; but unlike you, I neither suffer from a learning disability, or crippling self delusion, so I understand its psychological effect on my targets. I understand that it's oppressive and shitty. I make peace with my imperfection in this department by trying to only aim it at fuckwits incapable of even a squirt of enlightened or self-reflective thought, such as yourself.

      I'd cite psychological points regarding swearing down at someone, and certain personality disorders like codependency and narcissism, but you'd simply reply that you don't acknowledge any authority other than your own.

    2. Re:So, then, what about by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      Please, stop sucking your own dick. It's nasty. Go suck your boyfriends' dicks instead.

    3. Re:So, then, what about by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Homophobic as well.
      Perhaps being made to feel stupid by pops wasn't all he did to you.

    4. Re:So, then, what about by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      Where's the phobia? I didn't say it was anything bad. I just said you should stop sucking your own dick and suck your boyfriends' dicks. It's nasty for you to be sucking your own dick. Do all gays suck their own dick? Is that your assertion. Who's homophobic? Look in the mirror you useless prick!

    5. Re:So, then, what about by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. The old 'I called you gay as a pejorative, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad' trope.
      You're a sad little man. Maybe this is why she left, chief.

    6. Re:So, then, what about by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      YOu're a fucking fool. You assume so much without evidence. You've proved yourself incapable of any sort of logical, rational thought. You just spout off assumptions without evidence. You're a fucktard.

    7. Re:So, then, what about by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      5 sentences starting with "You".
      You literary genius, you.
      You know what they say, "must have struck a nerve"
      Cognitive behavioral therapy may be helpful for you. Read about it.

  27. Re:What does this have to do with Kernel developme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ever committed a patch to the kernel? You have to sign off with your real name and email address.

    With that info, you are very far from anonymous.

    And there are certainly people that can use that info to cross-reference your goings all across the internet
    and learn lots of personal details.

  28. Bad attitudes got us here by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    This post-meritocracy BS is a direct response to people *claiming* they run a meritocracy when they really don't. Linus was an exemple of this. Over the years he has made non-technical ad-hominem attacks on very smart people just because they disagreed with him technically. For example, Linus called C++ programmers "insane" and said that C++ code is "utter crap." If he chose not to use C++ that's fine, as there are valid criticisms of it. But to dismiss millions of high IQ people as "insane" and all their code as "utter crap" was not the act of a meritocracy. It rewarded single-mindedness and disenfranchised smart people who could have positively contributed to the project.

    The resulting backlash has swung the pendulum to the complete opposite extreme. They now say there is no such thing as merit. And if there is no objective measure of success, then clearly all this is important is that we be inclusive. Success and quality are now irrelevant. I fear this path, and I will fight it, but we have to acknowledge how we got here or we will fall into it again and again.

    If you don't want your project to become like this, treat people with respect and keep the discussions technical not personal. Apply real merit, not merit based on who you like and don't like.

    1. Re:Bad attitudes got us here by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      *facepalm*

  29. Re:What does this have to do with Kernel developme by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You make it sound almost as if you don't know that most linux kernel work happens by people who are... at work.

    And that even if they're not at work, they might want to gain professional benefit in the future from having done it, so they would need to tell people who they are.

  30. Re:Those nazis by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Any post that is anti-[some race] is racist, duh.

    Duh.

  31. Re:This discussion is weird by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    They are clearly on the autism spectrum and don't understand nuances or how they can be off putting to the general public. Their world is absolute. I've met some of these people in real life and they are frightening.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  32. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    In 2001 he gave an interview where they asked him where he saw linux in 10 years, and he said he hoped he wasn't even using it in 10 years and people had moved on to whatever the next step forwards was.

    I definitely see him as falling short of his predictions.

    Git exists because SVN refused to take offline commits seriously until a few months after Linus released Git and everybody started switching. I'm somewhat grateful for that because I need the feature and the work-around was mildly annoying, but it didn't exactly replace sliced bread.

  33. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Why do we even have to know the sexual orientation, gender or race of programmers and engineers?

    It can be hard to avoid knowing it unless you mandate blindfolds at all Linux events, and ban anyone submitting patches who also happens to have photos or social media online. Contributors will have to be careful to avoid letting information leak, e.g. when they can't work on something this weekend because it's their brother's bar mitzvah.

    Oh and of course anyone using a language that has gendered pronouns, e.g. Spanish, is banned unless they agree to always speak English at all times. And of course English speakers should be careful to use "they/them" at all times too.

    Anyone with a work address in the format firstname.lastname@ had better sign up for an anonymous hotmail account with gender, race and age neutral username. Ideally just numbers, 6847631@hotmail.com won't reveal any potentially problematic info about you. Just remember not to sign your mails off "Regards, Linus" or something stupid like that.

    Maybe you could write all this up into a Code of Conduct.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  34. Re:This discussion is weird by sinij · · Score: 1

    They are clearly on the autism spectrum and don't understand nuances... I've met some of these people in real life and they are frightening.

    So we better ban them wholesale, so we can build more inclusive space, right?

  35. It's a brave new world by bblb · · Score: 1

    It's a brave new world where everyone's a nazi if they maintain any adherence to traditional values or facts above feelings... Sad times. Your code doesn't suck because you're a woman or because you're gay or transgendered or white or black, it sucked because you wrote shit code and hiding behind your gender or some other facet of modern identity politics to escape criticism is a cop out. I, for one, miss the good old days where you could tell someone who didn't know what they were talking about that they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about, you could discuss it, and then go grab a beer and have a good time. Now, anyone telling someone else they're wrong or full of shit turns into an identity issue and a virtue signalling standoff.

  36. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by lgw · · Score: 1

    SVN made it hard to get merges right before Git came out. Their official stance was against "hand holding" on merges.: if you didn't write down the branch number when you made a branch (or have a 3rd-party tool for that), that was hardly their problem. SVN also wasn't distributed, and sucked for cross-WAN traffic if you had remote teams.

    There's a reason everyone switched.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  37. Sanitise the input? by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Why not just sanitise the inputs by assigning a random number to code contributions? That way Linus cant be sexist or racist, etc..... as he doesnt know who wrote the code.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
    1. Re:Sanitise the input? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Because it's not REALLY about sexism or racism. It's about power dynamics and control of the community.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  38. Re:Those nazis by Z80a · · Score: 1

    If you go by the academic and sociological definition of racism yes.
    But by the definition of that book that is used by the SJWs, you can't be racist against a white, because racism is privilege plus power, so they do a shitton of low brow racism against whites on most media platforms without punishment.

  39. TLDR Summary by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

    Mainstream Leftwing Tweet: Stupid cis white cracker!....... Mainstream Leftwing Tweet: Die heteronormative scum!...... Mainstream Leftwing Tweet: U suk whyte males!...... Linus: Oh thats not nice...... Random Altright Tweet: Stupid n word!....... Linus: OH NO WHAT HAVE I DONE??? HERE PROGRESSIVES TAKE EVERYTHING YOU WANT I WAS WRONG YOU WERE RIGHT TAKE THE KEYS TO THE CASTLE DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!

  40. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    The moment you start specifying protected groups as opposed to unacceptable behavior (that will be unacceptable no matter the people involved) you start embedding prejudices and bigotry into the rules.

    This is a major reason to go with a CoC whose tl;dr is "Be civil to everybody, no exceptions; demands for more specificity will be treated as an admission you are incapable of doing this."

  41. Code of Conduct Already Being Abused by SJWs by Ashthon · · Score: 1

    The problem with introducing a Code of Conduct to appease the fringe social justice crowed is that, if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. The abuse of the Code of Conduct began almost immediately with Sage Sharp accusing Theo Ts’o (member of the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board and Google employee) of being a rape apologist:

    https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

    The Twitter rant goes on to demand further concessions on the part of the Linux community to push the social justice agenda. Sage Sharp's Twitter Profile says:

    Diversity & inclusion consultant at @ottertechllc. @outreachy organizer. Explorer of the kyriarchy. Hufflepuff. Non-binary (agender trans masculine). They/them.

    Clearly they have no interest in Linux and are instead intent on hijacking the project to push their political agenda. Introducing a Code of Conduct empowered this small fringe of social justice harassers, and they immediately started to use this power to derail the Linux project. Linux contributors just want to focus on their work, but now they have to deal with aggressive harassment by vile social justice bullies. The toxic environment that the Code of Conduct has brought about will cause contributors to leave the community to avoid harassment, thus Linux will go into decline.

    When it comes to aggressive social justice bullies, you simply can't give them anything. If you apologise, if you bend to their will, if you even respond to them, then you've lost. With the introduction of the Code of Conduct things will likely proceed downhill and I now fear future of Linux, as it's quite likely it has no future.

    Well done Linus, you've destroyed your own work.

    1. Re:Code of Conduct Already Being Abused by SJWs by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is entirely possible that Linux is destroyed here, as the goal is naked power nothing more. 'Give and inch they'll take a mile' is exactly correct and they wont even stop there.

  42. Everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi by melted · · Score: 2

    Linus fell prey to "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" ruse. It goes like this: SJWs exaggerate the numbers and influence of "nazis" in the anti-PC movement, and make everyone else in it "guilty" by association. That's a fallacy, and one someone smart like Linus should have seen right through.

    I'm afraid Linux is fucked now. I'm in favor of weighing people's opinions by the amount of work they contribute to the effort. SJWs very rarely contribute anything: they spend most of their time "resisting" and "fighting the oppression", there's simply no time left for any productive endeavors. Seen it at least half a dozen times in my time in the industry. When real grievances (if any) are addressed, they will come up with even more esoteric ones, or demand preferential treatment for "minorities" or some other self-defeating bullshit. And by then it'll be too late to pull back, because you don't want to be a cis white male patriarchal Nazi transphobe bigot, do you, Linus?

  43. Well that's Linus lost for sure. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    > "I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad"

    The question is Linus, which you've missed, sadly. Is what percentage of these people are ACTUALLY white nationalists, Nazi, sexist etc?

    You need only question these people, try and discuss something with them. Any dissent = YOU being labelled Nazi. It's been demonstrated over and over and over now. (and over)

    Take an issue with a workplace opening a role ONLY for women? Sexist.
    Got a problem with "no whites" for a job? Or famous blue tick people on Twitter saying "euthanize white people!" You must be a white nationalist! Nazi!, Nazi!

    Linus, you will come to regret this, you will see.

  44. Fuck the CoC. by Chas · · Score: 1

    This has the potential to outright destroy Linux.

    Sometimes, people need to be told, bluntly, why their code is crap.

    And the proper response to that is NOT "You're a NAZI!" or "You hurt my fee fees!"

    And, if this crap is allowed to go forward, and developers have their projects essentially STOLEN from them because of this, you're GOING to see GPL copyright killswitchhes DEVASTATE the Linux platform.

    If people want to see more women/minorities inclusion in the Linux developer community, STEP UP AND WRITE CODE!
    Don't like the rampantly meritocratic community?

    TOUGH SHIT!

    Most of the people agitating for this crap are people who simply see the Linux developer community as a source of POWER.
    Therefore, they MUST co-opt it. They don't give a shit about Linux, or code or any of that. They simply want control, and don't care what they destroy or whose careers they have to fuck up or which bodies they need to climb over to get it.

    So, when someone starts bitching about CoC, tell them to go eat a bag of dicks.

    Unless you're one of those deviants who's TRYING to push this CoC, intersectional social justice crap on a bunch of people who just want to be left alone to develop their projects and not have to put up with stupid people.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Fuck the CoC. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I kind of hope it does destroy Linux. It deserves to be destroyed if they start putting political correctness and quotas above the quality of code.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Fuck the CoC. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > This has the potential to outright destroy Linux.

      Exactly, which makes me REALLY wonder how many of the more radical SJW idiots behind the new CoC are not actually paid shills of Microsoft, who have finally found a tactic that at least potentially could destroy Linux.

    3. Re:Fuck the CoC. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I agree, however if it even starts looking like that, all that will happen is that Linus will loose control because people will just start new branches and continue.
      The real threat is the subsequent battle for which branch would be the one "true" Linux Kernel, especially if Microsoft see it as an opportunity to further muddy the water and make their own.

  45. COC should be illegal by lorinc · · Score: 1

    Under most democracies where most developers come from, there are laws. If a behavior is infringing any law, go to the police, talk to a lawyer.

    Codes of conduct are a parallel set of rules that have no legal basis and are there to be enforced by bullies on twitter, just like any other set of parallel laws enforced by some crazy militia. They should be illegal.

    An angry mob never has and never will be synonym for justice.

    If you don't like the law, vote for a different candidate next time. If you don't like democracy, then maybe you are the fascist.

  46. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by lgw · · Score: 1

    The current CoC doesn't mention any "special groups". Why do the detractors feel the need to lie about this thing?

    Quoth the CoC:

    age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

    15 special groups right there. "Level of experience" seems inappropriate - if you're new to kernel coding, that is certainly relevant.

    And we all know that while good coders disassociate their egos from code reviews, bad coders don't, and will view commentary on their horrible code as a personal attack.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  47. Regarding non-binary people by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I guess the question for me is, what if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm a dude, and it would feel really really weird if everyone referred to me as "She" and "Her".

    Put another way, imagine if you showed up to work everyday in pants and a polo shirt and everyone looked at you funny because you weren't wearing a dress. Now imagine if you bowed to pressure and started wearing dresses to work everyday. How would that feel?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Regarding non-binary people by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If someone used the wrong pronoun, it would take a few seconds to figure out that they're referring to me, but wouldn't bother me otherwise. There are languages out there that don't have gendered pronouns and people get by just fine with them. The dress thing wouldn't bother me either, though it sucks to have to buy significantly more expensive clothing. Women aren't being pressured to wear dresses in any case so it's a moot point.

  48. Re:snowflake hypocrite by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Well, yes. Doesn't everybody want the world to cater to their disability? Isn't that the whole point of identity politics in the first place?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  49. Except when other people listen to them by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and they start to develop a kind of cult like following, often not because they're shouting something useful but because charisma has a powerful effect on people. Me, I'm more than a little autistic so charisma just falls flat with me. But it's like porn, I know it when I see it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. Yep, that's right, by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    fictional things are often funny.

    Outside of hacks like Al Sharpton (which the left isn't exactly too keen on) who, exactly, on the left attacks the person not the argument. Be specific.

    If you'd like to point to somebody like Nancy Pelosi, I'll refer you to her very, very right wing voting record. If you'd like to see somebody with an actual left wing voting record I'll refer you to Bernie Sanders & Liz Warren and ask you to show me them attacking the person, not the argument.

    Finally, if your only example are a few bitchy chicks from your local community college's woman's studies program... well. If the best you have is the left wing equivalent to the pastor of a run down church in Alabama you're just gonna have to do better my friend.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  51. Huh? How is Linus Tovalds being polite by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    destroying Linux? Did it ever occur to you that for every person who quits kernel development because he can't belittle the other developers they'll gain another (or two) who join because they don't have to put up with what can best be described as high school level bullshit?

    Ever notice that company's have had code of conducts as far back as the 40s? Could it be that a civil workplace is an asset, and not a liability. The the sort of person who can consistently produce useful work is rarely the sort of person that would spout off at somebody. Yeah, Linus got by with it for a long, long time. But I'll say this, Linus is probably more clever than just about everybody on this forum, and he pretty clearly has just one goal: Write good software. He's come to the conclusion that this is the best way to do it. And I find it difficult to fault him.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  52. systemd is already bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that Patricia had a huge rule in convincing her father to do a 180 but I think we need more facts to determine that though. Speaking of facts, there are few that rather stand out to me after reading Tiago's perspective. Paraphrasing:

    Interestingly enough Linus' daughter, Patricia Torvalds, activist of "Guerilla Feminism, supports the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto which was created by Stupid Juvenile Whiner Coraline Ada Ehmke, the latter who also created the Code of Conduct.

    I don't care who Patricia Torvalds is.

    Systemd is already bad enough.

    Linux cannot, and MUST NEVER be tainted by political freaks.

    1. Re:systemd is already bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too late. Patricia is Linus' daughter, and a rabid, radical feminist who believes being good at your job doesn't matter, only your gender and skin color matters. She has signed the "post-meritocracy manifesto", which is filled with hate-speech against people who are good at their job. Diana Moon Glampers would be proud!

  53. Yeah, right.... by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    I'll consult a "Psychologist" for guidance on what is an what is not appropriate, intellectually interesting, and worthy. NOT! That is the problem with psychology, religion, etc., it wants to set itself up as the judge of what is and what is not right without providing any evidence for its conclusions beyond a constant self-flagellating, circle-jerk of circular logic. No, psychology is not something to be held up. It is garbage.

    1. Re:Yeah, right.... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That certainly is a very simplified, but somewhat accurate description of a well known problem in psychology, well known by psychologists.
      However, conflating that with the goal of psychology is either ignorance, or delusion.

      I'm still pretty sure I'm looking at the words of someone with some serious psychological damage.

      Your claim basically amounts to: In the study of the human mind and human behavior, only that which can be empirically measured can be considered anything but flatly wrong.
      In order to refute that terribly broken logic, I would have to talk to you like you were 5.

  54. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Hard to avoid recognizing the gender.

    These days it's the opposite. I've lost count of how many genders people claim there actually are, and that doesn't include the attack helicopters.

    Hell, most people would look at how I act, talk and look and assume I'm male. I'm nice, so I don't complain when they do this, but it's not the gender I'll be putting on my next job application.

  55. No, you believe that. by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    You believe that the nonsense that the psychological "profession" advocates actually has some merit because you specifically made a judgement of my character calling it "psychological damage". Damage with respect to what? Not respecting and honoring your nonsense? More circular logic. You fail again.

    1. Re:No, you believe that. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You believe that the nonsense that the psychological "profession" advocates actually has some merit because you specifically made a judgement of my character calling it "psychological damage".

      Because? In addition to whatever trauma you're dealing with internally, you seem to also have trouble comprehending basic cause and effect.
      A psychologist can probably also help you understand why that is. From the hip though, I'll say it's probably just really poor reasoning skills stemming from a bad education.

      Damage with respect to what?

      I already hypothesized. Daddy making fun of you for trying so hard to fit that square peg in that round hole.

      Not respecting and honoring your nonsense?

      No, for denigrating things you don't understand.

      More circular logic.

      The only circular logic here is the logic you invented to defend yourself. Frankly it makes ones brain hurt. It's very Trumpian. You must have the biggest IQ.

      You fail again.

      Yes, I'm sure that's the conclusion our readers will come to ;)

    2. Re:No, you believe that. by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious that you were molested as a child and now have become an abuser yourself, right?

      You see how that works. No evidence required. Just a proclamation. You're an idiot.

    3. Re:No, you believe that. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I already explained how you were fitting the psychological profile. You did no such thing. "You see how that works?" ;)
      We're going to have to add reading comprehension to your list of deficits. It's not looking good.

  56. Yes, and your point? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    More circular logic. Psychology says ... so, you are wrong...., so psychology is right.

    Here's the thing. It is obvious that you are a fearful coward who has a need to feel intellectually superior by creating a sandbox of your own design and playing in it and declaring it to be the one true playing in the dirt hobby. You are wrong. Your persistent need to feel that you are intellectually superior, based on your own declarations (unlike your unfounded speculation about my background) proves you are a cowardly, weak, person who fears life and other human beings and you are desperate to controls other's thoughts about you and your so-called "profession". Have a little back-bone man. Don't be so fearful of disagreement. Everything can't be the way you have fantasized it to be.

    1. Re:Yes, and your point? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You are terminally stupid. You really are.
      Psychology doesn't say that, your inability to logically address a claim, and then to make equivalences that are in fact non-equivalent says that.

      Let's take a look at the facts.
      I said you appear to fit the psychological profile of someone who was ridiculed as a child for being stupid.
      You then said, "It's pretty obvious that you were molested as a child and now have become an abuser yourself, right?"
      Only- you didn't actually say why you came to that conclusion. That differentiates us. There is no circular logic here, there is only your raw lack of intelligence.
      You are too stupid to see how badly you're being mocked, and now I just feel bad about it. I'm sorry, kiddo. I get why your dad did it now, though. This has been educational.

    2. Re:Yes, and your point? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      Coward. You run fearfully from an argument you can't win. Your world falls flat and crumbles around you. You retreat to your "safe space" to covet your "Intellectual Superiority"! Yay for you! What do you want? A cookie? Here have cookie my friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?....

      Have a cookie. You'll feel better. Don't worry, no need to curl up in the fetal position, rock back and forth, and tell the bad man to stop.

      Just have a cookie. You'll be ok.

    3. Re:Yes, and your point? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You also seem to make up events that never happened to fit the narrative you use to prop up your self confidence.

      Let's talk about that retreating to my "safe space".
      Is slashdot.org my safe space? Is it yours?
      "Intellectual Superiority"? Why the quotes? Do you *actually* doubt that? There's simply no way someone like you grows up thinking you're smart. People have been ridiculing you your entire life. Why do you think you react so violently to things with answers to questions you can't figure out?

      You weave this reality around you, where you pretend that some guy on the internet being an asshole to you and ridiculing your intelligence is afraid of you. It's fascinating.

    4. Re:Yes, and your point? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      You invent a "safe" reality you can live in and deny anything that contradicts the safe space you've built for yourself. Psychology is crap science. Plain and simple. You haven't done anything or provided any argument to show otherwise. All you have done is run your mouth and be insulting. You started the personal attacks, not me. That show that you are intellectually and emotionally insecure according to your own "profession". I challenge you to provide any evidence for anything you have claimed. You can't. Because you are a hack and a charlatan. You probably feel the need to attack others intellectually because you have a deep-rooted insecurity due to the fact that you are a coward and have never done anything of merit or built anything of value in your life. While psychologists sit around and navel-gaze about how they can "help" someone who is being abused, I kneecap the abuser.

    5. Re:Yes, and your point? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You invent a "safe" reality you can live in and deny anything that contradicts the safe space you've built for yourself.

      Project much?

      Psychology is crap science. Plain and simple. You haven't done anything or provided any argument to show otherwise.

      No, I didn't provide an argument for psychology being anything but a crap science. You're right.
      All I did was discredit your broken logic as to why it was.
      And that's all I needed to do.
      We're going to add debate to your list of deficiencies.

      You started the personal attacks, not me.

      Well, I'd argue they were observations. But you know what they say, truth is treason in the kingdom of lies.

      That show that you are intellectually and emotionally insecure according to your own "profession".

      It could!

      I challenge you to provide any evidence for anything you have claimed.

      I didn't, nor do I need to. I will simply point out, again, that your assertion that Psychology is crap because you say so is a stupid argument.

      Because you are a hack and a charlatan.

      Well, I'd argue simply a superior debater who obviously knows a lot more about pointing out flaws in logic than you, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion ;)

      You probably feel the need to attack others intellectually because you have a deep-rooted insecurity due to the fact that you are a coward

      Wait, I attack your intellect because of an insecurity over my cowardice? Yes, I probably also kick my dog because I once pissed my pants.
      No wonder you think psychology is a pseudoscience.
      I guess I was right, you simply denigrate things you don't understand.

      and have never done anything of merit or built anything of value in your life.

      Again, project much?
      Remember that time you were on the front page of slashdot?
      Me too ;)
      Would you also like me to list my CVEs? Security conferences I've been invited to speak at? The code you're likely using this very minute to impotently lash out at me?

      While psychologists sit around and navel-gaze about how they can "help" someone who is being abused

      No, that's not what a psychologist does.

      I kneecap the abuser.

      No, no you don't. LOL.
      It's a shame you don't believe that the human mind can be studied and understood, because a little bit of education in that subject could possibly offer you a path out from your degenerate existence.

    6. Re:Yes, and your point? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

      Yep. I was right. You want a cookie. Have a cookie. Feel better.

  57. I have no problem with Linus' take by jd · · Score: 1

    He doesn't want to be lumped in with extremists. Sounds fair. Who would?

    Far as code is concerned, the extremists are those opposed to contributors based on who they are and not what they wrote. The extremists are not interested in free as in freedom, they despise the likes of Richard Stallman for being of the "wrong politics" (as if that made any difference to the code) and they reject scientists, academics and mathematicians the world over because of their chromosomes or base melatonin levels.

    Real coders care about the code. They do not live in a post-meritocratic society, they just don't ignore the merit of others because of the language, culture, religion or philosophy they come from. Why should a meritocratic society give a damn which way you part your hair or whether you have a Star Trek fetish? Does it affect the results? Yes/no? If no, then that should be your answer to giving a damn.

    There is absolutely bugger all in the CoC that says anything different. If you're reading something different, that's your issue, nobody else's.

    The difference between boys and girls in STEM subjects is absolutely zero. Except in schools where they're told one or the other is inferior at something. Then you see a difference.

    Since women haven't had the same opportunities, there will be some imbalance. So you shouldn't expect equal contributions just yet. That should, however, be possible. Nothing stops equal numbers of patches of equal quality. Neither gender is impaired.

    In practice, women have left Linux and they have complained that patches have been rejected on the basis of what is between their legs. Far as I know, neither gender uses anything there to type code. (I won't say design, very few Linux coders design.)

    The rabid extremists can froth all they like, but the fact is that they're killing Linux and the Free Software movement in their bid for Ultimate Power.

    Free As In Freedom is not limited to any group. It belongs to everyone. That is what makes it free.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  58. Re:Why does a code of conduct have to specify peop by toddestan · · Score: 1

    SVN absolutely tracks when a branch was made. It also tracks merges and history. Granted, the way it does it is very simplistic which leads to some additional steps and overhead and having to do things like recording a merge (when no actual merge took place) in order to fool its system. The only upside is that the way it does things is simple which makes it easy to understand what's going on under the hood, and once you have that understanding then it's obvious why you have to do some things even if it seems a bit silly.

    The biggest problem I had when using SVN with others is they wouldn't use the built in tools, and instead would do things like checkout the code then check in a copy in order to "branch", and do their merges using some outside tool. Which lead to having to do things like recording the branch number because SVN had no idea what they were up to.

    In comparison, git almost seems like magic sometimes since it just seems to "know" what you're trying to and is built to make branching and merging easy. Until of course it gets it wrong or does something non-obvious and you have no idea why it just did that. And while it gives you the tools to fix it (in theory), in practice using those tools often feels like playing with a loaded gun.

  59. The real risk by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    So here's what I think is actually going on:
    Microsoft are seeing they are making far more money off of Linux than Windows 10 (Android licensing, corporate no-sue deals, and the recent announcement about how even Azure is running far more Linux than Windows Server instances, and the ratio is still increasing).
    So I'm thinking Microsoft are actually the force behind this Linux CoC nonsense (via many secretly paid SJW shills for Microsoft such as Sage Sharp). Why? as a viable strategy to fragment Linux at its core Now that Linus has stepped down even temporarily, control will degrade quickly, so Kernel branches will inevitably start to appear soon.
    Microsoft will simply ensure they become new owners of the most popular Linux kernel branch, both through sheer force of spending giant amounts of money on it, and because they also already have the hearts and minds of many clueless IT managers. Once they have secured a foothold they will dominate and predate on any/all other popular kernel branches, until each competing branch fades away into relative obscurity of only being used by a tiny group of fanbois,
    At that point Microsoft completely control Linux.