Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (gnu.org)
AmiMoJo writes: Richard Stallman has announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, an effort "to start guiding people towards kinder communication." The Guidelines differ from a Code of Conduct in that it's trying to be proactive about kindness around free software development over being rules with possible actions when breaking them.
These new GNU communication guidelines can be found at GNU.org along with Stallman's commentary. From the guidelines: A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. I hope that kind communication guidelines will provide a kinder and less strict way of leading a project's discussions to be calmer, more welcoming to all participants of good will, and more effective.
These new GNU communication guidelines can be found at GNU.org along with Stallman's commentary. From the guidelines: A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. I hope that kind communication guidelines will provide a kinder and less strict way of leading a project's discussions to be calmer, more welcoming to all participants of good will, and more effective.
Hey richard, light her up dude! Nice job.
I am sick of everyone with more than 10 twitter followers thinking they are now the moral authority of the planet.
I will communicate with people how I feel they deserve to be communicated with.
What makes Rich-shart Stallman any more of a moral authority than the twitter team at Steakums (tm) or the good folk at Firestorne Tyres (tm)?
. . . This ISN'T The Onion?
Most codes of conduct now are being used in the same way political correctness is: to prohibit certain types of thinking, forcing everyone to think in the ways that are left, which conveniently benefit one group attempting to take over what's left of Western Civilization.
Having a positive goal like this, and basing it on civility and not political alignment, is intelligent. It nurtures rather than censors.
Alternative Right.
It's not a CoC, but the next ToeJam joker is going to the gulag.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a
specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't
think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there
is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the
problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out
on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in
demographic D.
It's interesting that a bunch of ideas seem to be floating around the same time now about improving communities - that article yesterday on the monastic code of conduct for SQLLite, this ideal from GNU, and also an article I read recently on Weaponized Empathy - the kinds of behaviors you want to lock out of communities as soon as you see them to keep them healthy.
It seems like between the three ideas you could build up pretty solid community and moderation guidelines that would really make for a lasting peace and a great place to hang out on the internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Asking people to be kind is the right answer.
Zealots and totalitarians won't be happy though.
Please, kindly insert your guidelines and cocs on the round cavities behind you,
Likewise, be kind when pointing out to other contributors that they should stop using certain nonfree software. For their own sake, they ought to free themselves, but we welcome their contributions to our software packages even if they don't do that. So these reminders should be gentle and not too frequent—don't nag.
By contrast, to suggest that others use nonfree software opposes the basic principles of GNU, so it is not allowed in GNU Project discussions.
A: "Hey B, just my weekly gentle reminder that you should use free app X instead of the Y app you already paid for".
B: "X doesn't have feature M. If you need feature M, you have no choice but to buy Y".
A: bans B for violation of the rules.
fucking facist
tough to run a code (of conduct) club sometimes surrounded by greed fear ego based corepirate nazi hostage takers? motive=results.. be kind, unwind,, thanks again
I think I want to throw up after reading that.
What makes Rich-shart Stallman any more of a moral authority than the twitter team at Steakums (tm) or the good folk at Firestorne Tyres (tm)?
He is not any more or less of an expert than those people - and that's the whole point.
What he is is human, and fundamentally, deep down, all humans know how to be kind.
Ideas like these (not rules) help guide someone to remembering what it means to be kind, that other people are generally trying to be kind also and to remember that as well.
There will always be some outliers but the point is to at least try, if you don't take a first step you'll never get anywhere.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We all know "rules" are about enforcement, not about actual rules. If sane people interpreted rules we wouldn't really have a problem here. Nobody really wants neo-nazi's spreading neo-nazi garbage. But then again we don't really need formalized rules for this.
The problem starts when the enforcers aren't reasonable people, but people trying to push a political agenda. Unfortunately these are EXACTLY the type of people that gravitate towards rule enforcement. The more narrow you are, the more likely you are to want to be an enforcer and push everyone else towards your own narrow interpretation.
So maybe this is some form of compromise. Yes, we're going to try to encourage people to not be jackasses. No, we're not going to have this formalized process where a Kangaroo court decides if you can be in the gang anymore.
FFS. Can we please stop this nonsense and get back to coding and ignoring the whiners.
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D.
There is a kind of diversity that would benefit many free software projects: diversity of users in regard to skill levels and kinds of usage. However, that is not what people usually mean by "diversity".
I'm the last person to dismiss empathy. I'm i very emotional person, and an expert in these things since before the SJW/p.c. thing was even a wet sheen in the eyes a a blue-haired butch lesbian,
and that is exactly why I find this whole thing so repulsive.
Because it NOT about caring for people's emotions or being empathetic AT ALL.
It is exclusively about dominating the world one lives in, using the lever of crocodile tears and others having empathy with one, to dominate, and oppress and abuse others, in an amalgamation of all the master suppression techniques!
Nothing about that is kind! Rules aren't kind! Rules are controlling! A tool to excuse punishment! A form of violence! Nothing else!
If it actually was about empathy, people would understand it how the speaker meant it, and not how the listener's trigger-filled mind wants to "interpret" it, and then be "offended" like fucking pubescent toddlers!
TL;DR: YOUR PERCEIVED REALITY IS NOT THE WORLD'S REALITY! YOU DO NOT GET TO SHAME OTHERS FOR WHAT YOU HALLUCINATED THINGS TO MEAN! GET A THERAPY. AND ONLY CHILDREN ARE OFFENDABLE! GROW UP!
honor their preferences about their gender identity
I for one do not welcome our mentally ill gender neutral overlords. You can identify as mayonnaise all you want, but i won't refer to you that way.
RMS manages to explain the goals of people concerned about things like diversity really well. His footnote about genderless pronouns is really good too, taking it as written that a person's gender identity is their identity but also showing how what matters is respecting that, not the exact words or conforming to some arbitrary standard.
I'm always impressed by his ability to think and write clearly, getting to the heart of the matter in a concise way.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Those who need to be reminded of the need or desirability of being kind are either so conditioned to do the opposite or don't know what that means in practice. In other words, he is preaching to the choir.
and Rewind...
besides taking the 'oath'? which who knows what that allows to be done..?
Unless you like getting lynched by a Twitter mob and blacklisted, just keep your code to yourself.
Two of the least kind people out there are pushing for codes of conduct? And this isn't being forced upon them by SJW's? Yeah right...
FTFY
I've never quite understood why they push industry to fix the diversity issue. It's not simply a case of hiring more diverse people; you have to have a sufficient supply of qualified candidates. It seems to me the logical approach would be to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds pursue their interest in IT and ear qualifications, but that would take actual effort.
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a
specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't
think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there
is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the
problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out
on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in
demographic D.
Except you automatically lose out just by having a limited perspective... we all have that, it's just part of life. eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled, Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people, etc
Diversity is a net gain because it gives us perspectives that we can't hold ourselves, and we'll be able to build for everyone not just people who are similar to us. We just shouldn't go so far as to discourage anyone, but nobody is actually suggesting that apart from in the mad fantasies of the strawmen builders.
The difference is between asking and telling. Asking people, especially volunteers, is much more productive than telling people to do something.
The self-described SJWs aren't just expressing an alternative opinion; rather, they are trying to enlist the jackboots of government to point their guns at those who disagree. "He? HEEEeeee? That sexually harassing hate speech!!!1111"
Go get your bottom surgery; just don't force other people to pay for it.
Have your delusions; just don't force other people to play along.
In the old days, people weren't afraid to fork a project in order to do their own damn thing.
That was true diversity: Prove your worth in the market place of ideas.
That's happening too.
However, there have been numerous studies showing that if you take the *exact* same resume, changing only the name to sound white, black, or female, the one that sounds like a white man is substantially more likely to lead to an interview. And you can't really blame that on anything but bias in the hiring institution, a factor that's probably amplified by an existing lack of diversity.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
this has been studied for many decades, not related to software libre at all. the book i recommend is named "invisible dynamics": https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invis...
it outlines six systemic laws - and they are laws (not "guidelnes") - which, when you examine them closely, you will find that any software libre project (or any business) that violates one of those laws is a project that *will* be in trouble, in some form. as the book has to be paid for, i extracted the systemic laws and outlined them here: http://libre-riscv.org/charter...
they're really very simple, and are a down-to-earth reflection of the complexities of interaction between people. the systemic laws require that people recognise:
* the right to belong (to feel welcome)
* their role and the role of others
* the understanding of their difference in *their* level of expertise and that of others
* the understanding of the *seniority* of themselves (their length of service) and that of others
* the acceptance of reality (no "denial")
* the acceptance of both guilt *and* merit (no trying to take credit, and no taking away people's right to learn from their mistakes)
* REWARDING of achievements (this is *severely* lacking in the software libre world)
* RECOGNITION of achievements
if you think back on every newsworthy horror story on slashdot over the past 20 years, you will find, behind every one of them, that one of the above has been violated in some way.
* codes of conduct: so horrifically toxic that people feel sickened and repulsed by them, and leave. those that don't leave are under a constant cloud of toxicity and "guilty until proven innocent".
* corporations spongeing off of software libre projects results in shellshock, heartbleed, the GPG developer getitng USD $10,000 into debt; the gentoo lead developer having to work for microsoft due to USD $45,000 of debt
* the samba team taking credit, receiving awards, sponsorship, donations and shares based on my work, causing me to have to go work on building sites in order to feed myself.
there are many many more examples.
so it's been done... it's just not very well-known.
.... one step closer to [un]civil war?
Only if the SJWs call off their social justice war.
The typical SJW behavior is the kind of thing that doesn't mesh well with a set if kindness guidelines, because it relies a lot of exaggeration and othering.
That's why I think it's such a great pairing with the article I linked to, which is the other side of the equation - how to decide who to remove if they cannot or will not abide by notions of kindness? It lays out what I think is an excellent structure to be able to dismiss the very worst sort of people for communities, the ones that in most systems spend 99% of the time skirting the boundaries for removal because they are expert at playing rule systems. Weaponized Empathy uncovers the very real psychological cost those people have, and I would warrant a lot of people deep into the SJW mindset would not last a day if the posts they made were looked at through this lens.
The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, could be a way to keep people from drifting far enough down a path that you have no choice but to remove them, to make people re-evaluate how they interact with others. Everyone needs that kind of check from time to time and people often will not do it themselves without a bit of a push.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He is only asking. He can have his diversity goals, and you can have your colorblind focus on results. When it's only asking, you can agree to disagree. Everyone can get along.
When someone is only asking, it can be a discussion instead of a fight.
The problem in rhe geek community these days is that it has been infested with people who took advantage of our refusal to reject anyone, abusing the system to bully and bullshit whoever they wanted without fear of consequences. And like many victims of abuse, we meekly complied to keep the peace when we should have kicked them out.
That needs to change. The incels and manchildren have had decades to prove that they won't change without enforcement, so it's time to bring in enforcement. There will be some initial pain, but the communities will ultimately be better off when the abusers are gone.
On another note, here are my thirty questions due to the loaded, lossy, and opinionated terminology dictating the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html). Please let me know if there is any confusion because I am totally confused and as a user and modder of GNU software in the past, present, and future, I feel it is not only my obligation but my duty to respond to this post on the gnu.org website. 1. What do you mean by advance? 2. What do you certain patterns of communication mean? 3. What do you mean by conscious effort? 4. What do you mean by specific? 5. What do you mean by good faith? 6. What do you mean by wrongs? 7. What do you mean by harsh tone? 8. What do you mean by accept it? 9. What do you mean by actually say and actually do? 10. What do you mean by preferences? 11. What do you mean by personal attacks? 12. What do you mean by hit back? 13. What do you mean by feelings? 14. What do you mean by private? 15. What do you mean by peace? 16. What do you mean by anger? 17. What do you mean by typical desires, capabilities, or actions? 18. What do you mean by kind? 19. What do you mean by conscientious? 20. What do you mean by mistakes? 21. What do you mean by nonfree? 22. What do you mean by not allowed? 23. What do you mean by exaggerations? 24. What do you mean by constructive criticism? 25. What do you mean by real views? 26. What do you mean by tangent? 27. Why not have a special hotline for GNU software w.r.t. that repository? 28. What do you mean by comfortable? 29. What do you mean by cater? 30. What do you mean by friendlier?
I'll bet this comes from the heart
Stallman is routinely and extensively criticized for saying things he hasn't said.
It seems that parents are no longer teaching their children how to behave in public.
Obviously this didn't start last week, because a lot of the offenders have been out of the house for a long time.
Lately it seems that it's become so prevalent that we need some (more) remedial education.
ESR's essay is instructive to people who want to participate in geek culture but don't yet know the social norms therein. It seems lately that the prerequisites for participating in any culture at all--starting with recognizing that dignity in others and in ones self are missing.
The grumpy old man in me suspects that society is crumbling and this is a doomed attempt to patch it.
The hopeful old man in me knows we have been assholes to each other for a long time and enough of us are fed up that all of are starting to hear about it.
This kind of self-discipline by communities is a messy process, but it really does seem like it's worth a try.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Stop using Yahoo!?
eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled
This is not an issue of lack of diversity of your developers, but lack of feedback from a representative group of your users.
Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people, etc
Camera film today being bad at capturing black skin because calibrated "by white people for white people" in general? That smells like bullshit.
Do you have recently taken pictures in side-by-fashion on a modern film properly exposed and developed without touch-up work as proof of this?
Cameras and camera film are designed for capturing arbitrary images --- MANY MANY, perhaps most being pictures of inanimate objects/scenes from nature, so the ability for film to accurately take a very high depth of color across the spectrum is necessary...
Unless you have some really really oddball special film... cameras are are meant to capture a scene with high detail containing any color; not just people, let-alone people with a particular skin tone.
From the Guidelines:
By contrast, to suggest that others use nonfree software opposes the basic principles of GNU, so it is not allowed in GNU Project discussions.
This is the kind of religious/political zealotry that turns people off CoCs!
(Just kidding BTW. I personally avoid nonfree software to an extreme.)
"Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply"
Most open source developers I know would leave a project before they would try to change personality.
It was a triumph that they were now inhabiting as an equal a building named after a man who didn't treat their ancestors as such. The bigotry of early American politics is what made Obama being the President that much BETTER; they should have been relishing their privileged position in life: Being the ones who finally triumphed in becoming those descendants who overcame the systemic mistreatment.
Besides all that symbolic mumbojumbo which actually means nothing to anybody (except for English Lit majors), here are some facts:
* Slavery was a thing since the dawn of mankind.
* Black people enslaved black people, and sold them to Arabs.
* White people came last to the African slave trade.
* White people were the nicest of the slavetraders.
* White people ended slavery globally, killing each other to do it.
* The first legally recognized slaveowner in the American colonies
was a black man in Virginia, Anthony Johnson, who had himself
been a slave, but was freed after having been bought
by white people as a indentured servant (just like the Irish).
* White people gave black people the vote.
* White people forcibly integrated the schools/businesses
* White people set up affirmative action for minorities.
Need I go on? White people have nothing to be ashamed about; even the worst things that can be attributed to their ancestors were the least worst instances of those things among all humanity, and whites have done the most to end and then pay compensation for them. It's OK to be white; it's GREAT to be white, and that's why you can't say it: Everybody knows it's true.
You see, political correctness cuts both ways: You can't point out mediocrity, and you also cannot point out greatness. Whites are great, and they should be lauded for dragging the rest of humanity out of the muck and onto the ever more lofty and perilous trail toward Civilized Society.
AmiMoJo is SO TRIGGERED right now you guys...
Meanwhile, Hester, we will fasten this letter 'A' to you will a power-nailer just so you know We think you're unacceptable among Our kind of people. And don't you DARE take it off because there's more of Us than there are of You and We'll believe it's Our right to treat you how We want.
The camera example is from the past and not really valid any more, but well documented, and the reasons are still valid.
In an ideal world having good feedback from users would fix this, but we never have that in real life. How many times have we heard that innovation is made by people scratching their own itch? Developers have a massive influence on the product because of all the tiny decisions that they make to make their own lives better, improvements that don't go through the bureaucracy of making a change request, justifying it, etc. How many little improvements do you make for *you* vs what someone's told you to do. And how well would you understand it even then?
FTFY
That is incorrect. "Their" is plural of his/her/its. We know his sex. Their is NOTHING wrong with using the correct pronoun that corresponds with his known nature - It is the suppression of doing so that is becoming the insane norm.
If he says a new and improved version is good, then the concept must be good.
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)
It's never just "asking". It always becomes "telling".
That's the fundamental flaw with a society built around a government: For such a society, it's culturally acceptable to tell people what to do (or even what to think), and to enforce such a decree by the point of a gun.
SJWs are the opposite of empathetic. Just l like what they supposedly criticize.
But since they act like empathetic people, dumb other people now start to hate empathy, instead of its abuse.
Making the problem with "sociopathic" assholes even worse! And breeding more SJWs in the process.
(I put "sociopathic" in quotes, because it is a misleading term. The correct term is "psychopathic", and ICD10 lists them as the same thing. But "psychopath" has been abused by the media, to mean "manipulative murderer with no empathy". Still, "sociopath" also implies such a person is not a psychopath. Which is wrong.)
The SJWs are doing nothing against you. They never have. Stop assuming that a lack of victims on a side that never existed is tantamount to you being attacked.
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)
FTFY
That is incorrect. "Their" is plural of his/her/its. We know his sex. There is NOTHING wrong with using the correct pronoun that corresponds with his known nature - It is the suppression of doing so that is becoming the insane norm.
FTFMe
It seems that parents are no longer teaching their children how to behave in public.
You simply have no means to correct child's behavior in public if child is not cooperative. Leftist made "discipline" a dirty word and managed to conflate it with child abuse.
There is just no reason for anyone contributing to an online collaboration needs to make their gender public. The normal English pronouns for a person whose gender is unimportant or unknown work fine: "he, him, his".
Fun fact, English used to have a distinct word for male adult: "were". It survives only in werewolf and wereguild. The gender-indeterminate "man" has replaced "were", because men are unimportant. We have words to highlight when a person is important or valuable, like "king" or "woman", but there was just no need for a word for "male adult" distinct from "adult".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It broke the community worse than the Python version transition, and it made the GPL a dangerous word in the corporate world. The result? Resources are now being poured into BSD-licensed (or even more liberally licensed) projects.
Stallman was wrong.
there have been numerous studies
In the words of Ms. Choksondik from South Park, "present them".
Note I am not disagreeing with you, but a claim was made and you need to back it up.
Poor rightie, oppressed by bad, bad left and SJWs and LGBTI*s ans People of Color and what not diverse minorities.
Cry me a river.
What if people really do start out as pond scum?
It would be a mistake to treat them as though they're something better than they are.
Neo-Nazis are bad-faith debaters and respect only physical force. Linus and RMS don't want themselves, nor their own or their groups' blunt good-faith communication to be associated with or used to support the tactics of such abhorrent people. That a code is congruent with the aims of rigid, humorless social justice zealots (RHSJZ's) is an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect.
To quote a google email on the Damore memo "we don't want diversity of ideas".
Diversity of ideas is great. That's the last thing anyone pushing for "diversity" actually wants - they want lockstep orthodoxy of belief.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Australia's government stopped a hiring program that used only non-gender data in resumes; they stopped it because it hired even more men that were being hired before.
Amazon recently announced that it was dropping its hiring "AI". Why? Because it preferred to hire men.
Men built this world. This is not surprising.
This doesn't even fit any definition of "left". It is't social. It isn't peaceful. It isn't even its distorted -ism form. Not even the American one, which is "almost, but not quite, entirely batshit insane right-wing extremist".
Where "right-wing" is a very vague term, usually meaning something between neocon fascist (aka corporate culture, "privatization", and the lot), straight-up psychopath (aka "sociopath"), complete pussy afraid of anything unknown or changing (aka "conservative"), and "nostalgic proto-hipster redneck dreaming of a fuzzy-lighted past that never existed". And stands for the "freedom" to take away everyone else's freedom, if there is some shit to be preseved to stay as shit as it always was, or a buck to be made (like selling your grandma for a dime).
What this is, is merely the most assholey of the same old right-wing ideologies I listed here, wrapped in a thin false-flag veil of a horribly distorted token pseudo-social behavior.
It's like when Americans say they stop believing in some religion, and then keep the exact same mannerisms and mindsets, but merely apply them to science. Coming up with bullshit terms like "atheism" (which is like saying "acancerism" instead of "healthy" or no word at all, for somebody who doesn't have cancer), or saying hilariously ridiculous nonsense like saying "I believe in science" (Look the fuck up what the entire damn fucking point of science is, you moron! Is is.. tadaa.. THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE!) ... or even, and this blows my mind in its insanity... creating a "Church of Atheism". ... The amount of facepalming us Europeans do over this, will outlast the universe!
Americans: What is it with you? Why do you have to distort all and everything that is good into utter gallopping batshit insanity??
Money and markets were fine. Not being ill with schizophrenia (aka religion) was fine. Being nice to other people was fine!
Until you fucks came along, and transformed it into a cancer like this wave of SJWdom/p.c.dom/CoC(k)dom!
When someone misuses the word "phenomena", you know you can ignore his stupid opinion.
The camera example is from the past and not really valid any more, but well documented
So lets see this documentation.
And because I don't feel like making two posts..
We just shouldn't go so far as to discourage anyone, but nobody is actually suggesting that apart from in the mad fantasies of the strawmen builders.
I am confused. Who is saying that we need to discourage people?
I've worked with people like that.
What do we do about someone who simply doesn't like someone so decides that everything they they write is a thinly veiled insult?
I've worked with people like that.
What do we do in the case of the inevitable use of the CoC as a bludgeon?
To think that this will not happen is naivety in the extreme.
So here we have it. The Prime Directive is not the project any more. The prime directive is to avoid upsetting the most sensitive person in the group. This person now rules, and all must acquiesce to their demands.
This has actually existed for years. The name for this situation is walking on eggshells. And it has never worked out well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That word, "right". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, a meritocracy doesn't give 2 shits about seniority.
Because that is something these people have to be told.
I really love teaching in contrast. There I can just fail the failures. No, no backlash, as here academic education does not serve to make a profit.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There have been a bunch of studies. Some one way, some another.
In tech, 'women's names' get more interviews. Because the recruiters are all under pressure to find female techs/engineers/programmers.
'Low class' black names do get fewer interviews than 'high class' white names, nobody has ever done a study comparing redneck 'white names' (e.g. BillyJoeJimBob) against made up spelling 'black names' (e.g LaTrina).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
* Those statues and building names make their triumph all the more wonderful; they should be taking happy selfies in front of them.
* White people are responsible for the successes of the civil rights movement. They were the ones in power; they are the ones who made a success of it.
Civil rights, tolerance, multiculturalism, respect for the individual, equality under the law.
Those are all White ideas.
Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and honor their preferences about their gender identity.
See, this is itself an aggressive move, an exertion of power over others.
E.g. when someone is clearly a man, but they "ask" you to refer to them as a woman, and various institutions throw their weight behind that "request", and if you object or decline to participate in it you are labeled (and treated) as some sort of aggressor ... well, someone in this equation isn't being "kind", but it isn't who you might think.
I understand that the proponents of "self identification" don't see it that way.
Remember, the original problem was that people were being amazingly rude and never getting "fired." That's when the projects became a laughingstock and everyone lost all respect for them. So they had to get some adults to lay down the law for the childrens. Really complicated laws, like "don't be a dick, thereby causing our project to be ridiculed the world over so that nobody wants to work with us."
The CoCs are how we get back to work, with a rule to cite whenever someone's a dick, so we can finally "fire" them.
Free Software used to be like working for the government. Now it's becoming more like working for the private sector. Finally, the most worthless of the dead weights are starting to be told to go home.
However, your attempts to do so might be wrongheaded and might backfire by alienating those who were skilled enough to make your project a success in the first place.
So, you want to fight the assholes? The first step is to realize that the real problem is not their politics - it's that they're assholes. If their politics were aligned with yours then *you* might not see them, but they'd be pulling the same asshole shenanigans against the other side and be making your side look just as bad as they're currently making the other side look to you. In fact I can promise your that there's millions of them doing so right now - I run into them all the time.
Be the bigger man - don't try to shut them down for being SJWs or whatever - shut them down for being assholes. It probably won't work - if they could be shut up that easily they wouldn't still be annoying everyone. But it still lets you vent, and does so in a manner that reinforces in bystanders that the problem is not that their politics are different than yours - it's that they are acting like assholes.
This.
A thousand times this.
If it's an ancient foundation of every community, then why must it be expressed here?
Either its an unnecessary re-declaration, and should therefore be removed, or it serves some other, ulterior motive.
These codes of conduct seem ludicrous to me. There's two ways they make sense. If I look at it as authoritarian asshats trying their best to attack freedom of speech, this pattern seems logical. If I look at it as poorly socialized children suddenly finding themselves in adult bodies, it also makes sense. Both could be true and seem to be 2 sides of the same coin. Where did all this moral posturing and white knighting come from? It's McCarthyism all over again, yet no one seems to be willing to admit that these witch hunts will lead us all into hell.
because it gives us perspectives that we can't hold ourselves,
Big buttons and big normal text because their eyesight isn't that good. Time-critical tasks would need to be slower. Reminders of "what to do on this page". No neologisms or trying to be "hip". Boom, perspective of the elderly accounted for. It's like we have the ability to read and learn things and can have a set of design standards for the elderly. Just imagine a whole class of people who had the job of... I dunno... designing things or something. Instead of every website dev team needing to hire one of every group of... however you want to split it, the designers could simply read up on their target audience. If it's important. Most the the time the boss will tell you to get it out the door fast as possible and not care about edge-cases.
Of course, the presumption that seniors don't know how to use computers is less true than it was before. Simple because the old die and there is a newer younger wave of seniors coming in. Because we'd hate to be ageist wouldn't we?
But hey, I'm not arguing against diversity. I'm saying that the gains from diversity are less than you're selling as people can read about and accommodate different perspectives. Automation has taken that job. It's a book. Maybe a large pamphlet. But diversity is still a good thing. Party composition is a thing. If you've got 4 wizards, on the chance that you run into some beholders, having a fighter in the party is going to pay for itself. There's utility there. What ISN'T a good thing is penalizing people based on their skin-color. That's racist. And accepting lower-quality applicants instead of having the higher-quality applicant read a book on "How to cater to your target audience" is a net LOSS.
Over 11,000 words and more than 65k characters - my limited 16 bit brain overflowed.
The TL;DR version is search first, then pick the right venue, then ask nicely.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Your Code is terrific but because you referred to this person as a 'She' we aren't going to use your code and use this sloppy bullshit that doesn't compile instead.
Feel better?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It has all sorts of jobs for people like yourself. I won't bother correcting your history essay.
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)
The Time Cube is strong with this one. AC may have discovered "four-cornered empathy". However, he left out that those who disagree have been "educated stupid" (which, in this case, I'd agree with). Keep pluggin away, AC, we all miss Time Cube.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This is not an issue of lack of diversity of your developers, but lack of feedback from a representative group of your users.
For an open source project if someone comes to you with a bug that can only be reproduced by being black, and you aren't black... More over it really helps to think about this stuff earlier in the development of features, rather than someone come along when it's all done and point out that your UI is difficult for colourblind people or the fact that you can't change the font size is a major issue for them.
Honestly the best thing to happen to computers in the last decade has been the ability to properly scale UIs, and I'm not even that old.
Camera film today being bad at capturing black skin because calibrated "by white people for white people" in general? That smells like bullshit.
Even these days with cameras being mostly digital it's still an issue. It's only really in maybe the last five years that Hollywood has got really good at filming black people in anything less than ideal lighting. Even once the technology got there, it took a while for cinematographers to figure it all out.
That's why so many films with black actors won awards for cinematography lately.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's like when Americans say they stop believing in some religion, and then keep the exact same mannerisms and mindsets, but merely apply them to an ideology".
FTFY
To quote a google email on the Damore memo "we don't want diversity of ideas".
I searched and this doesn't seem to be a quote. Do you have a link perhaps?
The nearest I could find was:
Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions.
http://fortune.com/2017/08/07/...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not true. Good photographers use different film for different situations. Fuji Velvia is beloved by landscape photographers, but it makes people in portraits look weird. Portrait photographers will often use film that is balanced to warm the colours up a bit because it tends to make people (of all colours) look better.
If I remember correctly, the supposedly racist film is actually early black and white film that would preserve detail in white faces but make people with very dark skin just look black. That's actually a basic property of film: the light response is nonlinear so you get more contrast at the dark end and less at the light end.
I am the parent poster. Almost certain you would be here to hijack the conversation. We do not want your forced diversity. Diversity started in evolutionary biology as part of survival strategy. It is not what you think it is.
Where is the hatred in that post? It's nowhere. There's literally NOTHING hateful about it.
Arabs castrated their African slave men, and regularly killed the babies of African women.
Between the 15th and 18th centuries, Muslim/African pirates also invaded European lands, and took free white people as slaves; white people, on the other hand bought their slaves as time-limited contractually bound indentured servants, until Anthony Johnson (a black man) set the legal precedent for slavery in the West.
"That's why so many films with black actors won awards for cinematography lately."
Or maybe a bunch of white guilt progressives running the awards industry voted based on race.
Only in the open source all-volunteer army. In the professional world they're called Employee Manuals. In the employed world, you can't go on a loud swearing rant against your coworkers unless you're the CEO, and even then the board will step in and ask you to tone it down.
Lose out how?
What difference is UI design going to be that it has some random person in, say, Africa, or India, contributing?
Software is software is software.
Culture and "new ideas" should not even fucking remotely come in to it. Shit like that is why we have retarded designs over the years. And these people are also the ones responsible for shit interfaces like Material Design, all the hipsters that have come on board with their shit minimalism and vibrant colors and no useful visual cues that something is interactive!
If there is anything, we need LESS people in software globally, regardless of who they are, creed, sex or otherwise! Too many idiots that don't put half a braincell in to designing interfaces.
And this isn't even getting in to software function, holy SHIT software is terrible these days.
Whether it is Chromium or Gmail, even the projects by the biggest software powerhouses in the world put out absolute SHIT in terms of code.
Gmail is slow as fuck these days unless you use what was once considered a gaming machine 5 years ago.
All because the developers are too stupid to write code themselves, so they use in-house libraries that have stupidly high-overhead. Facebook likewise. And Discord.
The industry is filled with so many of these idiots.
Again, less needed, not more.
If someone doesn't put the effort in to FIND places to contribute, fuck them, they aren't worth it already because they lack basic initiative.
I've never seen anyone without basic initiative contributing anything of significance to any project, software or any other industry.
They are always cogs in a machine that defecate absolute drivel of the worst, cheapest kind.
They are an insult to any industry they enter. Cheap labor.
And before some cunt comes in and screams "racist" or whatever, I speak of everyone in general, so fuck you in advance you triggered permababies.
The western world has been shitting out low quality workers in a lot of industries in droves. Especially software. (and webdev)
Also, I have a bone to pick with this:
Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people,
No, that's just the laws of physics.
This is a fact that black things have less definition. The darker a skin is, the less definition.
It's a very big problem in photography because light exposure by black skins was basically non-existent, so darker people ended up way darker than they should be, whereas lighter skins reflected considerably more.
It has nothing to do with race, it is just an unfortunate issue with black colored things in general. The only way to get around it is larger exposure times, which leads to blur, or artificially boosting darker things, leading to considerable noise.
Cheap phone cameras suffer horribly in dark conditions, usually leading to a lot of noise in the picture because they have no significant lens to focus.
This is why phone cameras have silly-huge resolutions, to try minimize the significance of the noise.
Hopefully when meta-lenses come out, that will help. One day. They will revolutionize cameras.
It did make me laugh when a friend was playing with his Eyetoy on webcam and it couldn't see him hahaha
n/t
So if it please you, and I mean not to criticize, but to help you to acheive your well deserved goals, and further explore and find yourself, I would like to humbly submit, although if you find this overbearing, and bigoted, I apologize in advance. I would certainly be most sorry if I inflicted great harm upon your freedom of expression.
You did not place a period at the end of your post.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The only one talking about exclusion is you.
Anybody can celebrate the great achievements of the white people. And, who is white? Well, just like people know a woman when they see one (despite the requested pronouns), they also know a white person when they see one (despite claims otherwise), and they can certainly discern a non-white person.
A white person first and foremost an appearance, and is secondarily an adherence to a certain culture. Those 2 criteria are more than enough to cover nearly every case without debate, and when there is debate, only you are talking about exclusion.
You're suffering delusions.
You're welcome for the free diagnosis (and for the free everything else that white people pay for).
Your "So... lobsters?" reply is an admission of defeat.
When you contribute to a FOSS project, you are choosing to allocate your capital (time, skill, labor, money, etc.) as you see fit.
When you license your project, you are relying on the rules of property rights.
Ergo, FOSS is an example of Capitalism.
I guess there's a reason why corporations stagnate, while disruptive startups have bro culture.
That talent leaves one and joins the other.
I had friends in a band, and taking their band photos was quite difficult. One of them was very light skinned, another very dark skinned. Exposing correctly for either one (with b&w film, back in the day) would either blow out the white guy or make the black guy too dark. They ended up having to manually "dodge" the image to get it right.
That's not racist film though, just a limitation of the range of exposure. HDR wasn't around yet.
Well played.
Firstly, it's absurd to say that there's no such thing as "white culture", or that various instances of white culture are vastly different; there are obviously huge similarities and shared histories among them. Christendom was a thing; the Holy Roman Empire was a thing. Europe is a thing. For certain, the Enlightenment and all of the values that extended from it are WHITE values; those are not Chinese values; those are not Muslim values; those are not Latino value; those are not even Jewish values. Those are WHITE values, and they form the basis of modern WESTERN cultures.
Secondly, why aren't people bothered by the celebration of particular cultures such as "German" or "French" or "Irish" culture? Well, because like most WHITE cultures, the Enlightenment values led their peoples to divorce ethnicity from nationality, despite the fact that all of those nations were crafted by a particular ethnicity, namely WHITE people.
By celebrating "White" culture (rather than "<insert nationality here>" culture), people are being reminded of that ethnicity, and thus the political powers-that-be rush in to stoke racist paranoia.
Whites don't care if you want to wear a suit and tie, but if a white person wears dreadlocks, lookout! That's cultural appropriation. You see, white people (by virtue of their Enlightenment) separate culture and ethnicity, but nobody else does. And, this difference is exploited by those who have a will to power.
To a logical person, "equal protection" means "equal protection"; parameterizing on initial conditions is by definition not "equal protection".
To a knowledgeable person, your point is wrong. The Mongolians invaded Europe. The Muslims invaded Europe; the Barbary (Muslim) pirates raided and enslaved all manner of white peoples for 3 centuries or so. Every group has experienced oppression; only White people have pulled others out of oppression (even at the expense of white people).
White people are a global minority.
Maybe those people are "privileged" exactly to the degree they should be.
To those who have much, even more will be given; from those who have little, even more will be taken. It's not a virtue to be poor.
Maybe Stallman will stop interrupting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is just no reason for anyone contributing to an online collaboration needs to make their gender public.
Incorrect. I want everybody to call me by my preferred pronoun: I am Erin Stout, 27, Female, Plural. I share my headspace with several Fictives. My preferred pronoun is "Motherfucker."
If you don't like to use swear words, I will also (grudgingly) accept "Her Holiness" or "My Lady" (if spoken with an accent befitting a peasant)
FYI: That's not guideline #2. That's footnote #2.
SQLite won already.
rather than someone come along when it's all done and point out that your UI is difficult for colourblind people or the fact that you can't change the font size is a major issue for them.
This is why you have Alphas and Betas. Anyways, in the OSS world UIs are usually made by one person who has sufficient knowledge to do so -
and sometimes you get GUI nightmares with thousands of obscure checkboxes, kinda like This.
In an ideal world the UI designs would be made or reviewed by UX experts -- in the corporate world, there would be a committee of beancounters to approve the design - a luxury most projects don't have.
The Muslim world's greatest achievement was preserving a few ancient works from the West. Wow.
We were once strong people, who never hesitated to brave the world. Our strength allowed us to create the greatest civilization that ever existed. We used our strength to help others. We developed their countries, we gave them science, technology, medicine, and advanced philosophy. The whole world benefited from our strength and our generosity.
Now, we are a bunch of weak individuals who are afraid someone might use bad words. We feel so weak that we can't tolerate strength anymore. We shame strong people, because we are afraid of them. We are so weak that now the only thing we can do is to virtue signal, in the hope that other people won't hurt us.
Torvalds and to a lesser degree Stallman are in the image of our civilization. They were once strong men. Their strength allowed them to create great and successful projects, that the whole world could benefit from. Now they have become weak. They don't hope for excellence anymore, they hope for kindness, so they don't get hurt. It's sad.
Every time I hear RMS open his mouth to speak or read words he's written I'm impressed by the careful and brilliant wisdom of his thoughts.
Maybe he looks like a stereotypical grungy neckbeard, but intellectually he's a Sistine Chapel.
Create a web site and forum and have clear project set out.
Some sort of chat app for support.
Write a lot of quality code.
Tell the world about the project and the skills used in interviews and reviews.
Get up at 2 am to do live interviews if the timezones are different.
Find a translator to help spread the message in other languages.
Be ready for non computer questions and challenging technical questions in the same interviews.
Invite in people of skill who have a past in really great computer work.
Keep growing the project. Doing interviews.
Always read than then respond to every security related report quickly giving the person who reported the problem an outline of how their report will be worked on.
A timeline and the complexity of the problem can be set out. Keep them updated as the problem is worked on.
Thank them for their security related report.
A good project needs the best code and great people who can keep their code secure and updated.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I like how you call for the warriors to stop waging war without asking one time what it is they are fighting. Your claims throughout this thread are vague enough to imply that SJWs are just out screaming at people for no reason. You do not call for the conservative (and your) side to stop the discrimination and active hostility towards the SJWs. You want us to accept your hatred for us and to abide by whatever arbitrary law you've come up with this week, but the minute we ask for the same from your side, we get the big F U. We're tired of that. We don't stop defending ourselves until you stop attacking. Besides, war is what you conservatives always want so again, stop acting coy.
First of all, singular they has a long history within the English language dating back at least as far the Bishops (1568) and King James (1611) Bibles, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen and many other notable authors.
Or, as Language Log put it:
By all means, avoid using they with singular antecedents in your own writing and speaking if you feel you cannot bear it. Language Log is not here to tell you how to write or speak. But don't try to tell us that it's grammatically incorrect. Because when a construction is clearly present several times in Shakespeare's rightly admired plays and poems, and occurs in the carefully prepared published work of just about all major writers down the centuries, and is systematically present in the unreflecting conversational usage of just about everyone including Sean Lennon, then the claim that it is ungrammatical begins to look utterly unsustainable to us here at Language Log Plaza. This use of they isn't ungrammatical, it isn't a mistake, it's a feature of ordinary English syntax that for some reason attracts the ire of particularly puristic pusillanimous pontificators, and we don't buy what they're selling.
Second, the sneering and incorrect hyper-grammar-policing of a historically acceptable construction is bad enough, but did you really have to do it in a post mistaking "there" and "their" in the second sentence? Because that's not some marginal or debatable rule of grammar, that's actually two different words with totally different meanings. Even Safari's god-awful grammar checker flags that one as questionable . . .
Whatever "discipline" and "child abuse" you are referring to is irrelevant. Your first sentence is correct, as-is, with no other qualifiers necessary. If someone, a child or not, doesn't want to cooperate, then no amount of "whoopin dat azz" is gonna make them do something they just fucking don't want to. You can beat em harder, choke em out, drown the little fuckers, chop some fingers off, doesn't matter. There are plenty of people who would rather die than do what you tell them to. The way you act on this website, I'd say you're in that camp. I'd also say that since you're such a proponent of corporal punishment, that you yourself got that ass whipped daily, maybe even multiple times. You STILL don't know how to act right in public nor how to have respect and dialog with your fellow man. Not being able to spank your kids is NOT the problem with society. Try again.
What if he identifies as a native American woman?
The first step toward showing kindness toward others is to wash your hair every so often.
tone
You did not
This kind of reproachful tone is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Bravo! You managed to ask the exact same question in 30 apparently different forms.
The question?
"Exactly how big of a dick can I be without pissing someone off enough to get me banned/fired?"
You know what each of those statements meant. You know what the spirit of the law is. You want to know the letter of the law so you can run logic equations against it. Was A>B? Nope, then I wasn't being an asshole...even when you were. You're part of the problem. You're the reason why we can't have nice things. You're also why this CoC will not work so at least we can agree there. The rule about ignoring others intentions, or not planning for things that might happen is kumbaya hippy bullshit. We have a metric fuckton of examples available about what happens when you turn people loose with no rules at all. Someone ALWAYS shits in the KoolAid. To ask me to sit back and ignore that for "the ideal" is useless. You can agree with that as well. You think you see historical evidence and intentions just like I do. Which one of us is "correct" depends on who gets to define the current morals. In this case, that is RMS. If you don't like it, fork it, and go make your own distro with blackjack and hookers. You agree with that too- I've seen you post it.
Well, it typically falls to the US to fix thing after Europe fucks it all up and can't dig itself out. Of course the US is strange to you, they had a generation that went throughout Europe at war, finished that, and finished Japan.
Before that they worked with the French to kick the British out.
Swear all you like, but their culture is the result of European arrogance followed by European failure.
You did not
This kind of reproachful tone is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
It is exactly the sort of thing that keeps women out of STEM careers. My Bad.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yeah, don't do what you just did. There was no need to reply to the statement but YOU just needed to have the last word on it. Your UID is low enough that you know why having the last word becomes problematic. I'd suspect you don't like it because you are the type that wants the last word, but there's a rule saying I shouldn't speculate on that so I won't.
This post needs no reply, but I know you just can't fucking help it.
If I remember correctly, the supposedly racist film is actually early black and white film that would preserve detail in white faces but make people with very dark skin just look black. That's actually a basic property of film: the light response is nonlinear so you get more contrast at the dark end and less at the light end.
The non-linearity applies to color film as well. Up until the 1970's color film had poor contrast in darker tones, and it was reportedly (according to a Vox documentary on the subject) chocolate and wood product manufacturers complaints about their products lacking detail in advertisements that triggered improvements. It wasn't until the mid 1990's (just before digital started to take over) that dark skin tones could be seen with the same detail as light ones in the same photo by even consumer grade film, though the photographer's attention to lighting still plays a big part.
What are you talking about?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
A interest in such history is what made it clear that Whites are a godsend on this forsaken planet.
The Future.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Free Software developers of the world, open your eyes! Our communities are being raped, our work pillaged.
Detestable villains - thieving, mean spirited, belligerent, racist, unprincipled - are using underhanded tricks to force hypocritical "Codes of Conduct" on the projects we built.
These petty-authoritarian CoCs are always imposed anti-democratically. There is never free debate, and usually no public discussion at all. They are imposed by force without a vote. If the CoCs were put up for a fair democratic vote by project contributors, they would always lose by a landslide.
The purpose of these CoCs is to allow social activists, who have contributed nothing to the project, to conduct witch hunts against anyone who opposes their hate-driven agenda. Thereby they plan to steal our work for their shadowy corporate paymasters.
You can readily tell these CoCs are not about "just being nice" - because they are ALWAYS supported by the very LEAST NICE, most aggressively mean and shamelessly bigoted people you can imagine. Look how the CoC-mongers treat anyone who disagrees with them as subhuman.
If a project to which you contribute has been raped by CoC-mongers there is a simple solution: WALK AWAY. Never contribute again. If you have a patch almost ready, count the time you spent on it as a loss and throw it away. If you see a security issue, remain silent and do nothing. IT'S NO LONGER YOUR PROJECT. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME THERE.
If you are evaluating new software, don't even consider any projects burdened under the tyranny of a CoC. Their technical attributes do not matter - just don't consider them. Never be openly political, always make up a technical reason for rejecting CoCed projects.
Don't argue in public about the CoC. Doing so only exposes you to needless risk. You might be dis-employed, blackballed, and even set up for a #MeToo purge. Just stay far away. If you resign from a project that gets CoCed, try to do so on the same day the CoC is imposed. But give "spend more time with friends & family" or "pursue other interests & projects" as your reason for resignation. Protect yourself!
Comrades: Individually we are powerless, and easily crushed beneath the iron boot of Corporate Social Just-Us. But together in solidarity we are millions and we are strong. The Internet itself depends on our collective labor. If we stop working, the internet stops working.
Free Software developers, save yourselves and save your communities! Just WALK AWAY from any project with a CoC. Without our labor they are nothing.
Shows that you have no interest in caring about what others think of you. And if that is the case, why should I care if people are butthurt by my way of talking?
Because you're not an important person. However, Stallman is. You're a nobody, while he's an authority figure.
If you don't have unit and integration test framework, which would allow you to reproduce bug conditions without user's presence, you have a lot bigger problem than lack of diversity.
Lol, Stallman may be an "authority" for losers like you, to us he's just a weirdo who should be locked up for his own good. In time, a well-timed accusation of harassment will take him out for good.
"Political Correctness is the idea that feelings are the most important thing, particularly over facts."
Political Correctness is how women think, and ever since we "empowered" them to betray men, they have been trying to force men to "think" (feel) like women. Women have a good reason for doing this: They are biologically programmed to make places they inhabit a safe space to have a baby. This process is completely unconscious but they rationalize it as somehow relevant to whatever male-space they are trying to destroy (turn into a safe nest).
If we don't close Pandora's Box soon, she will ruin everything men have built, and men in general.
Check Exhibit B in the Damore et al class action suit against Google. Pages 8, 9, 18 explicitly don't want diversity of ideas. Many other pages include people attacking others because of a perception of their views.
But hey, that's just one source.
I just checked those pages again. None of it contradicts what the CEO said. He said in his statement that they are tolerant of ideas as long as expressing them doesn't cause a Code of Conduct issue. Also, those emails are from individual employees and don't represent Google corporate policy.
I really can't wait for this lawsuit. The arguments are going to be fascinating. Doubtless this will come up and I expect these emails will be dismissed fairly quickly because no reasonable person would expect tolerance to extend to open intolerance of other employees.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yet again, you ask for evidence to support someone's claim, evidence is provided and you switch to "well, that's irrelevant".
reasonable person would expect tolerance to extend to open intolerance of other employees
Given that's exactly what many those emails and communications demonstrate I'm bewildered that you think that would cause them to
be dismissed fairly quickly
Shit, you're not even consistent within the same fucking sentence. Seriously, learn how to fucking think, it might help you avoid the intellectual dishonesty I highlighted in the first half of this reply.
I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's not evidence of what you claim. In the context it was written it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means, and in court I'm sure that will be argued.
See, the law has this concept of a reasonable person, precisely to stop people making far fetched interpretations.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Because the recruiters are all under pressure to find female techs/engineers/programmers.
I think that reinforces the point - *if* there's pressure to diversify, it helps counteract the pre-existing bias. If there weren't a pre-existing bias, then there would be no lack of diversity to justify such pressure.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But mainstream culture is, and only subsets of communities are surviving the effects of it. Sadly most of them in smaller or more isolated regions where the economy is 'good enough', most people are still enfranchised to work but not given to expectations of excess wealth (like the bubbles in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.)
Having said that, there is definite rot in the left, center, and right, a lot of it stemming from entertainment like reality tv, conspiracy theories (ghost, hunting for hitler, etc), 'entertainment news', and social media. And regardless of which group you fall in, the majority of people have one of the mentioned subjects as either entertainment, source of news, or belief of truth.
This makes more progress and gets more uptake than GNU Hurd!
eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled
This is not an issue of lack of diversity of your developers, but lack of feedback from a representative group of your users.
Maybe they can't find the feedback button because it is too small?
RMS 5 months ago:
Hey, put back my abortion joke in the glibc comments! It's super important, you guys.
RMS this week:
Please don't raise unrelated political issues in GNU Project discussions, because they are off-topic.
Exactly! I always look to nitpick with RMS and almost always he's covered his bases. I love it. So well thought-out. Refusing to play games or bullshit. What a person.
Yeah, yeah... after you supported the Nazis and had nearly the same ideology, including concentration camps and human experiments and whatnot, and when you realized that Russia will win the war by conquering everything from Russia back to Berlin and beyond, the UK had gained air superiority, and the French Resistance also winning back their country through the sheer force of their massive balls, you quickly flipped sides, ran in, and YOU kicked over the last bucket! *slow clap* ... riiight, ... "YOU" "won the war". ... lol
So yeah,
After that, hired all the Nazi scientists, Nazi doctors and other Nazi monsters that you could, and told them to continue doing "their work" in the USA.
And while all but the Nazi countries had rejected race theories in the 1920s, and even the Nazi countries had to stop using them after 1945, you happily kept them *to this day*! ... Your damn birth certificates still fucking say "RACE"! And you don't even blink, or act shocked, about that! You actually still believe there is such a thing! Utterly ignoring biology. Even after a 100 damn years of the scientific community having looked into it, and found that the genetic differences simply aren't enough to warrant such a concept!
So yeah, face it: The USA is the only surviving NAZI country!
And you haven't won a war since your own civil war! You lost every single war, unless you were helped by others. (Mostly Europe.)
Oh, and to add insult to injury: The country with the highest win/lose ratio for wars in the known history, is: *France*!
lol. Go cry in the corner now. Your life has no point. XD
You call them "black sites". Look them up!