Same thing happened with Opal and with FreeBSD. It seems to always be the worst, most abusive people pushing for these updates.
They're using "harassment" or "politically correct" as an excuse to harass and be assholes to people they see as assholes, and aren't really considering they're far worse than anyone they're accusing. The FreeBSD thing is interesting because it's someone advocating the newly adopted CoC be used to boot Randi Harper, who hasn't contributed to the project in years, but feels fine harassing male contributors and also pushed for the CoC in the first place to control other peoples behaviour.
A lot of this is he-said-she-said BS hysteria made up by the people that didn't agree with him. Instead of engaging, discussing or debating they went right for "HE'S TRANSHOMOMISOGYNYPHOBIC!!!"
It's far to easy for a few people to level accusations that, "group XXX is a hate group because... they just are. Stop attacking the wymons asshole, if anyone disagrees they're obviously part of that hate group, support raping women and skinning children alive and should be thrown in jail."
It's called Kafkatrapping, simply denying an accusation makes you guilty or guilty by associating with someone or defending someone else's moderate position that's been taken out of context and/or misrepresented at hysterical levels.
I would have fallen for that when this whole thing went down, now I know better. Seeing it done over and over is part of the reason I've distance myself from overly politically correct culture. There are just too many people pushing for liberal views by destroying their oppositions reputations using shaming tactics. I still have socially liberal views. I support gay marriage, social assistance, accessible health care, pro-choice and equality in general, but I don't support slandering people that don't agree with my views or how some of the tea-partiers on the left take it to an extreme.
The conversation is hard to follow because one of the participants Elia responds to deleted his tweet, but here's where it starts https://twitter.com/elia/statu...
The deleted comment was about the suicide rate for transpersons which Elia responded to as
that happens also after the reassignm. (not talking just about dr. Money) not accepting reality is the problem here
This douche jumped in to the convo earlier putting words in people mouths
That's because trans people are treated like shit. Constantly.
Which Elia responds
maybe that's just a (legit) opinion, I still fail to see how that kind of invasive surgery on kids can b cherished
anyway it's months that in Italy school after school sneaks genderism lessons in without parents consent. Not cool
I 100% agree with you transpersons need access to treatment, but gender reassignment surgery is dangerous and I think someone should have to at least be a consenting adult before they make that decision. It's a huge decision that children shouldn't just make on a whim as it's a lifelong commitment. On top of that, the suicide rate of people that HAVE had gender reassignment doesn't look that much better to me than those that haven't had it. On the flip side, the ones that survive are more satisfied with their lives.
That said, Elia's issue was with Italian schools using some controversial teaching methods and encouraging children to have reassignment surgery, which was all done without parents knowing about it.
Which apparently made him a transphobic bigot. His opinion, IMHO, is not that hateful or off the wall.
This krainboltgreene guy though https://twitter.com/krainboltg..., I started looking at when I was trying to understand what was going on. Guy is a major asshole troll, he uses the same name and image on several platforms (G+, Twitter, GitHub) and is consonantly starting shit with people.
He shows up in the branching issue a few times to basically pick fights with anyone that's arguing against accepting the suggested CoC.
The conversation just continues to degrade with him. He spends a lot of time accusing people of not contributing to the Opal project, but he doesn't contribute either so I'm not sure why that should matter. One of his main projects seems to be a library that analyzes twitter conversations and determines how toxic it is https://github.com/socialkardi...
I almost think this guy is a parody account, because he fits exactly the type of person someone would say is an "SJW". White guy, acts like an asshole to other white guys, assumes anyone disagreeing with him is a white guy, obsessed with gender politics and incredibly quick to accuse people of being misogynists,
My point is that I believe that spending money to bring about his goal
Quite honestly when the curfluffal kicked up, before he resigned, I laughed at it because I knew if he was donating, he was wasting his money. We all knew, even at that time, gay marriage was an eventuality. I had the mind set that the law was actually going to be a good thing because it meant someone would be able to challenge it in court. Challenging it in court would have eventually resulted in it being a precedent setting ruling. I'm Canadian, we've had gay marriage for a few years now, but my gay uncle lives in Texas, with his new husband who he's been with for over ten years. I'm pretty sure these days everyone has a friend or family member who's gay, and for most of us it was hurtful they don't / didn't have the same rights. It's a tiny minority that don't support gay marriage, and that ranges from actual bigots to people that just don't like what they see as a "corruption" of a religious word. Nuts to them in either case, but I still don't think someone should lose their job or be threatened for their opinions.
Well, with the exception of cases like Kim Davis, where she's refusing to do her job because she doesn't agree with the law. If your opinion is preventing you from complying with the law, doing your job and/or affecting how you treat customers / co-workers / employees, you should find another job. If you can separate your opinion and personal actions from your professional duties there shouldn't be any reason you can't continue to work. Even if your personal opinion is hurting other peoples feelings.
I know you saw his a him donating as an attack, but it was something everyone else laughed at. We all knew how it was going to turn out. The way he was attacked though didn't make people fighting for gay rights look good, or rather it made people more sympathetic to him, but it's likely to be as an example of "SJW" (I hate the term) behaviour going forward. There are real social issues that need to be dealt with. The people who fall into this "SJW" category hurt those causes for everyone because they act exactly like the bigots they pretend to be fighting. They shut down discussion and attack people on personal levels to make sure there is no opposing opinion or a voice, and normal people see that as hypocritical and bullying, which is why there's more and more of this "SJW" this "SJW" that. Progress doesn't happen by censoring the opposition. Debating them and demonstrating they're wrong is the only way, censoring them just means they have something relevant to say and makes people more sympathetic to what could be a very nasty cause.
Anyway, sorry, I had no intention of ranting at you.
Even if he did donate, it's a moot issue. He was slandered, threatened, had his family threatened and resigned from his position because of people speculating his motives rather than knowing him and having a conversation.
We might not agree with him donating for that cause regardless of his reasons, but keep in mind, some day you might be on the receiving end of having a "wrong opinion", or at least what some nutter on the internet perceives as a "wrong opinion" and it'll be your job and your family under the spotlight. Trust me, I've already been through it, and it's unpleasant to say the least.
Never said I was oppressed, or there was any SJW conspiracy. I said the reason people don't like "SJWs" is because of shit that they pull, like in the Opal example I outlined above. What's worse is if you follow these people that were involved in that incident for awhile and see the types of things they write. They have no moral high ground to be dictating the behaviour of others.
And that's the chip that's on my shoulder. People being assholes to other people they don't know anything about because, "diversity". When most of the time they're working to exclude people that they disagree with. It's not about diversity, it's about censorship.
So here's the problem, people automatically assume because he had certain beliefs, which I don't share, to beliefs are malicious in intent. They're not. You don't know my father, you don't know how kind he is to everyone. He believes strongly Gays shouldn't use the word marriage, but has no issue with them joining in civial union. It's a stupid argument, but that's his position. It doesn't make him a bad person, but people scream, "RELIGION! He wants to damn everyone to hell!! He's a horible bigoted asshole!", without even getting to know him or his position.
Let's look up the term "bigot" and see what it says.
bigot
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
So I'm sorry, but when he gets attacked by someone because they don't share his opinions and they have no desire to even be reasonable... well the definition is quite clear.
A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.
But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.
This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.
If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.
Being told that girls are not interested in CS by teachers and parents
Bull, As a parent of a young girl NO ONE is telling her what she's interested in, other than the people constantly whining about girls not going into tech fields. Who also happen to be the people the perpetuate needless, "womenz are so harazzed".
What, like everyone else who's worked for more than 5 years? I have been thoroughly lambasted by co-workers and sexually harassed. It's not right, but you can't complain about not getting special treatment then bitch about being treated like everyone else. Take the issues on a case by case basis and deal with it through the HR department. Don't whine about theoretical women not getting special treatment as an excuse for why women don't go into tech.
The kind of bullshit we see on the LKML, that even some men won't put up with
Good, don't put up with it. It's volunteer work, don't like it, don't volunteer, it's that simple. In either case stop whining that people won't do things your way and go off and do things your way. I wish Matthew Garrett good luck, but I imagine his project will be just as "toxic" except in a different way and it'll be to specific people, who are "acceptable targets", rather than to everyone. I'm sure SJW Linux will be a big hit with all it's privilege checking.
The wage gap
Negligible when everything is factored in. Men work more hours, for more of their lives, with less time off for things like raising families. You can't distill life down to how many cents on a dollar a person makes.
Brogrammers
Stop making up words as an excuse to be a douche bag PC Bro
TL;DR
You are the problem in every issue you've brought out. If there's any reason women aren't going in to tech it's because people like you are making them feel unwelcome by perpetuate stereotypes, spread misinformation and mock people who don't agree, which polarizes the issue making people bitter toward actual social justice issues. The harder you push, the harder the push back is going to be.
The problem with using Wiki even as just a pointer to real source information is that it points to the sources an elite group wants you to see. As I said, not just anyone can edit it anymore, so you only get the incredibly bias hyperbolic ideological articles the editors that are camping that article want you to see.
It's to the point it shouldn't even be a starting point for research because it, and the sources it uses, will taint your perspective on whatever topic you're trying to learn about.
An editor can literally generate content for an article they want to write by just writing an article because journalists will take things from wiki without looking at sources and use that as a basis for their articles, which, again, get fed back into the wiki article they're using as a bases. It really is as simple as creating an article on Gobblegroungewoopie with fake sources, sending it to a journo who writes clickbait about the latest trends, then using the results to support Gobblegroungewoopie as a real thing with real sources.
So if you have an agenda to push, wiki is now a powerful tool to get your ridiculous ideas into the public domain.
He had an opinion on gender reassignment surgery being done on kids, that's not transphobic, but a couple SJW's started calling for his head. At first they were told to stuff it, so they went to twitter to drum up a mob
Ultimately this Code of Conduct was merged into the project. Now check out who it was that wrote that CoC, that's right the same person that started the issue is the person that wrote the CoC that got shoehorned into the project of someone's opinion on kids having gender reassignment surgery.
What's worse is this line:
This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
was added after the fact because by the original CoC, Elia Schito didn't do anything wrong.
On top of people taking "donations" to edit content, just one reason it shit, there are editors that use their cliques in the wiki community to make articles say whatever the hell they want. It's not open for anyone to edit anymore, if you contradict the wrong person you get the boot, which has lead to a concentration of ideology pushers. Seriously, just read the talk page for some of these things, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also take a moment to think how their system works. An editor goes out, find articles that say what they want, while excluding ones that contradict them. Then the crap wiki article gets read by a journo who writes a hyperbolic article about the topic, which then gets fed back into the wiki article leading to a more and more unbalanced topic.
This is why people get laughed at for citing wiki and people need to know it's no good for anything above doing research on potatoes.
Wikipedia is shit. I highly recommend you don't cite it as it destroys credibility.
My point is, I'm not believing some he-said-she-said BS, If I don't personally witness it happening, I'm not taking someone's word for it. It's far too easy to take just about anything out of context from a tweet, or FB post or a paragraph of some communication or a donation made for some obscure reason and twist that into evidence of racists, homophobic, sexists, misogynistic behavior. So unless it's a tangible action I see happen, I'm not supporting a mob going after them.
Exactly this. My Dad is against gay marriage, but it's because he's very religious and believes in protecting what he precises marriage is. I've had many drunk arguments with him over it. He doesn't hate gay people, he just had different values. Unfortunately it's really easy for people to twist those values as representing a bigoted position so they can call him names, mock him and dismiss any arguments he has to make. It kills me sometimes because I don't agree with him, but I despise the way people treat him because of that one view.
Remember it's not bullying or discrimination as long as you pick the "right" target
For all the browsers we have a choice to use, there's something great about each of them and something crap about each of them. They all have perks and flaws...
Except Internet Explorer, that's just shit all round. Haven't used Edge yet so I can't comment on it.
I'm aware, I was responding to the hypothetical example with my hypothetical responce.
It's not thought policing.
It's thought policing to go after someone because of their personal thoughts and opinions that they've never let influence how they treat people.
But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist
I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.
As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates
Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.
This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.
We're in agreement here
Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?
That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.
For starters Hunt stepped down from his position.
Secondly it's now common knowledge that the reporter took his original comments out of context and choose to withhold the entire thing for her personal agenda.
A better solution would be for journalists to stop treating hashtags like they deserves the same coverage as some kind of nuclear war. I'm seriously disgusted at the number of articles on sites like the CBC where entire articles are nothing but a series of cherry picked out-of-context tweets with the journalists giving you their play by play misrepresentation of what EVERYONE is saying.
Holy shit, I remember back when Lauren O'Neil did her hit piece on GamerGate and wrote that awful #StopGamerGate2014 article. I went and looked at the tag and 40% of it was GamerGate people making fun of it, 50% was a stupid bot repeating ISIS propaganda over and over and then there was a few people in between treating it like it was a serious thing. Lauren took the few people of the THOUSANDS of tweets in it and treated it like the entire internet was anti-GamerGate in spite of most of the non-botted content coming from actual GamerGate supporters. Their hash tag lasted all of a day, but it didn't stop her from propping up her bull shit analysis and making a big deal out of less than a mosquito of an issue.
Although it is a little funny now, I can't read an article without seeing a tweet from someone I know as a GamerGate supporter.
Sarkeesian's entire claim to fame now is, "I was harassed for my opinions... they... they called me a liar and said I suck... just like everyone does to everyone else on the internet. Don't they know I'm a women? You can't say mean things about women... unless they disagree with me, then screw that bitch. WHERE'S MY ARMY OF FEMINIST!!."
I almost can't wait for 5-10 years down the road when she's completely irrelevant and everyone's making fun of her like they do to Jack Thompson now for having the exact same argument he had.
So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.
However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view. That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.
This is thought policing at it's finest.
A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.
So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.
I actually think this is great. I have no reservations in my mind that he's going to fail, but it's one less PC bro (Video for context) forcing their politics into the Linux Kernel project and dragging everyone down with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I didn't agree with the views he had, but he never attacked any of the people that worked for him over their sexual preference. He made a contribution to something he PERSONALLY felt was correct and was demonized for it years later by people too quick to pick up the pitch forks. Just like Tim Hunt, Matt Taylor and Brad Wardell.
I want you to seriously think about how easy it's going to be to remove someone from any community that's preventing the shit that ended up on firefox.
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
XXX project lead: "No way, not going to happen"
Rando on Twitter: "XXX project lead is a bigot"
< Ensuing twitter storm and articles about XXX project lead >
XXX project lead: "People are sending me things in the mail and threatening my family, I have to step down"
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
New XXX project lead: "Sure thing boss."
I see a lot of parallels with other things I've seen going on over the last year. Like this for example https://www.reddit.com/r/progr...
Labeling someone as a "bigot" is just a convenient way to get people to attack them or feel better about attacking them, allegations true or not.
I don't think it's fair to say she's made ALL the threats against herself, but she has been proven to be a liar and has on a few occasions been caught trying to drum-up harassment.
Like the time she forgot to log out of her dev account on Steam before starting a thread saying bad things about herself. She was called on it by a Steam mod and ended up removing the thread shortly after. (https://archive.is/t1Oxl)
Or the time she claimed GamerGate was threating a PAX conference, except the threats were from one of her followers directed at GamerGate supporters (https://i.imgur.com/nAxgNCD.png)
Or the time she created the brololz account to harass & mock people on twitter (http://imgur.com/y1OK1By)
I don't agree with anyone receiving death threats and it's dumb that I have to state that whenever Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian come up, but I'm all out of empathy for these women. Who seem to continually kick beehives, get stung by wasps then parade it around as evidence that bees need to be eradicated. They're definitely creating they're own "misery" which gets them big bucks and lots of attention while breaking the #1 rule of the internet (don't feed the trolls)
Slashdot Mirror
Same thing happened with Opal and with FreeBSD. It seems to always be the worst, most abusive people pushing for these updates.
They're using "harassment" or "politically correct" as an excuse to harass and be assholes to people they see as assholes, and aren't really considering they're far worse than anyone they're accusing. The FreeBSD thing is interesting because it's someone advocating the newly adopted CoC be used to boot Randi Harper, who hasn't contributed to the project in years, but feels fine harassing male contributors and also pushed for the CoC in the first place to control other peoples behaviour.
A lot of this is he-said-she-said BS hysteria made up by the people that didn't agree with him. Instead of engaging, discussing or debating they went right for "HE'S TRANSHOMOMISOGYNYPHOBIC!!!"
... they just are. Stop attacking the wymons asshole, if anyone disagrees they're obviously part of that hate group, support raping women and skinning children alive and should be thrown in jail."
It's far to easy for a few people to level accusations that, "group XXX is a hate group because
It's called Kafkatrapping, simply denying an accusation makes you guilty or guilty by associating with someone or defending someone else's moderate position that's been taken out of context and/or misrepresented at hysterical levels.
I would have fallen for that when this whole thing went down, now I know better. Seeing it done over and over is part of the reason I've distance myself from overly politically correct culture. There are just too many people pushing for liberal views by destroying their oppositions reputations using shaming tactics. I still have socially liberal views. I support gay marriage, social assistance, accessible health care, pro-choice and equality in general, but I don't support slandering people that don't agree with my views or how some of the tea-partiers on the left take it to an extreme.
https://twitter.com/elia/statu...
It was apparently a disagreement over this article
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/0...
The deleted comment was about the suicide rate for transpersons which Elia responded to as
that happens also after the reassignm. (not talking just about dr. Money) not accepting reality is the problem here
This douche jumped in to the convo earlier putting words in people mouths
That's because trans people are treated like shit. Constantly.
Which Elia responds
maybe that's just a (legit) opinion, I still fail to see how that kind of invasive surgery on kids can b cherished
anyway it's months that in Italy school after school sneaks genderism lessons in without parents consent. Not cool
I 100% agree with you transpersons need access to treatment, but gender reassignment surgery is dangerous and I think someone should have to at least be a consenting adult before they make that decision. It's a huge decision that children shouldn't just make on a whim as it's a lifelong commitment. On top of that, the suicide rate of people that HAVE had gender reassignment doesn't look that much better to me than those that haven't had it. On the flip side, the ones that survive are more satisfied with their lives.
That said, Elia's issue was with Italian schools using some controversial teaching methods and encouraging children to have reassignment surgery, which was all done without parents knowing about it.
Which apparently made him a transphobic bigot. His opinion, IMHO, is not that hateful or off the wall.
This krainboltgreene guy though https://twitter.com/krainboltg..., I started looking at when I was trying to understand what was going on. Guy is a major asshole troll, he uses the same name and image on several platforms (G+, Twitter, GitHub) and is consonantly starting shit with people.
He shows up in the branching issue a few times to basically pick fights with anyone that's arguing against accepting the suggested CoC.
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
The conversation just continues to degrade with him. He spends a lot of time accusing people of not contributing to the Opal project, but he doesn't contribute either so I'm not sure why that should matter. One of his main projects seems to be a library that analyzes twitter conversations and determines how toxic it is https://github.com/socialkardi...
I almost think this guy is a parody account, because he fits exactly the type of person someone would say is an "SJW". White guy, acts like an asshole to other white guys, assumes anyone disagreeing with him is a white guy, obsessed with gender politics and incredibly quick to accuse people of being misogynists,
My point is that I believe that spending money to bring about his goal
Quite honestly when the curfluffal kicked up, before he resigned, I laughed at it because I knew if he was donating, he was wasting his money. We all knew, even at that time, gay marriage was an eventuality. I had the mind set that the law was actually going to be a good thing because it meant someone would be able to challenge it in court. Challenging it in court would have eventually resulted in it being a precedent setting ruling. I'm Canadian, we've had gay marriage for a few years now, but my gay uncle lives in Texas, with his new husband who he's been with for over ten years. I'm pretty sure these days everyone has a friend or family member who's gay, and for most of us it was hurtful they don't / didn't have the same rights. It's a tiny minority that don't support gay marriage, and that ranges from actual bigots to people that just don't like what they see as a "corruption" of a religious word. Nuts to them in either case, but I still don't think someone should lose their job or be threatened for their opinions.
Well, with the exception of cases like Kim Davis, where she's refusing to do her job because she doesn't agree with the law. If your opinion is preventing you from complying with the law, doing your job and/or affecting how you treat customers / co-workers / employees, you should find another job. If you can separate your opinion and personal actions from your professional duties there shouldn't be any reason you can't continue to work. Even if your personal opinion is hurting other peoples feelings.
I know you saw his a him donating as an attack, but it was something everyone else laughed at. We all knew how it was going to turn out. The way he was attacked though didn't make people fighting for gay rights look good, or rather it made people more sympathetic to him, but it's likely to be as an example of "SJW" (I hate the term) behaviour going forward. There are real social issues that need to be dealt with. The people who fall into this "SJW" category hurt those causes for everyone because they act exactly like the bigots they pretend to be fighting. They shut down discussion and attack people on personal levels to make sure there is no opposing opinion or a voice, and normal people see that as hypocritical and bullying, which is why there's more and more of this "SJW" this "SJW" that. Progress doesn't happen by censoring the opposition. Debating them and demonstrating they're wrong is the only way, censoring them just means they have something relevant to say and makes people more sympathetic to what could be a very nasty cause.
Anyway, sorry, I had no intention of ranting at you.
So?
Even if he did donate, it's a moot issue. He was slandered, threatened, had his family threatened and resigned from his position because of people speculating his motives rather than knowing him and having a conversation.
We might not agree with him donating for that cause regardless of his reasons, but keep in mind, some day you might be on the receiving end of having a "wrong opinion", or at least what some nutter on the internet perceives as a "wrong opinion" and it'll be your job and your family under the spotlight. Trust me, I've already been through it, and it's unpleasant to say the least.
Never said I was oppressed, or there was any SJW conspiracy. I said the reason people don't like "SJWs" is because of shit that they pull, like in the Opal example I outlined above. What's worse is if you follow these people that were involved in that incident for awhile and see the types of things they write. They have no moral high ground to be dictating the behaviour of others.
And that's the chip that's on my shoulder. People being assholes to other people they don't know anything about because, "diversity". When most of the time they're working to exclude people that they disagree with. It's not about diversity, it's about censorship.
You'd benefit from this as well http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Let's look up the term "bigot" and see what it says.
bigot
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
So I'm sorry, but when he gets attacked by someone because they don't share his opinions and they have no desire to even be reasonable... well the definition is quite clear.
A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.
https://archive.today/5IBg1
http://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.today/0KhZv
But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.
This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.
If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.
Being told that girls are not interested in CS by teachers and parents
Bull, As a parent of a young girl NO ONE is telling her what she's interested in, other than the people constantly whining about girls not going into tech fields. Who also happen to be the people the perpetuate needless, "womenz are so harazzed".
The "resume test"
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
Unwanted attention and comments in the workplace
What, like everyone else who's worked for more than 5 years? I have been thoroughly lambasted by co-workers and sexually harassed. It's not right, but you can't complain about not getting special treatment then bitch about being treated like everyone else. Take the issues on a case by case basis and deal with it through the HR department. Don't whine about theoretical women not getting special treatment as an excuse for why women don't go into tech.
The kind of bullshit we see on the LKML, that even some men won't put up with
Good, don't put up with it. It's volunteer work, don't like it, don't volunteer, it's that simple. In either case stop whining that people won't do things your way and go off and do things your way. I wish Matthew Garrett good luck, but I imagine his project will be just as "toxic" except in a different way and it'll be to specific people, who are "acceptable targets", rather than to everyone. I'm sure SJW Linux will be a big hit with all it's privilege checking.
The wage gap
Negligible when everything is factored in. Men work more hours, for more of their lives, with less time off for things like raising families. You can't distill life down to how many cents on a dollar a person makes.
Brogrammers
Stop making up words as an excuse to be a douche bag PC Bro
TL;DR
You are the problem in every issue you've brought out. If there's any reason women aren't going in to tech it's because people like you are making them feel unwelcome by perpetuate stereotypes, spread misinformation and mock people who don't agree, which polarizes the issue making people bitter toward actual social justice issues. The harder you push, the harder the push back is going to be.
The problem with using Wiki even as just a pointer to real source information is that it points to the sources an elite group wants you to see. As I said, not just anyone can edit it anymore, so you only get the incredibly bias hyperbolic ideological articles the editors that are camping that article want you to see.
It's to the point it shouldn't even be a starting point for research because it, and the sources it uses, will taint your perspective on whatever topic you're trying to learn about.
An editor can literally generate content for an article they want to write by just writing an article because journalists will take things from wiki without looking at sources and use that as a basis for their articles, which, again, get fed back into the wiki article they're using as a bases. It really is as simple as creating an article on Gobblegroungewoopie with fake sources, sending it to a journo who writes clickbait about the latest trends, then using the results to support Gobblegroungewoopie as a real thing with real sources.
So if you have an agenda to push, wiki is now a powerful tool to get your ridiculous ideas into the public domain.
I think you need to do a little more research into SJW history.
Just look at what happened to the Opal community to see why people have a major beef with "SJWs"
https://github.com/opal/opal/i...
Go back and read the twitter conversation that shit storm was started from
https://twitter.com/elia/statu...
He had an opinion on gender reassignment surgery being done on kids, that's not transphobic, but a couple SJW's started calling for his head. At first they were told to stuff it, so they went to twitter to drum up a mob
https://twitter.com/CoralineAd...
Which included attacking anyone on the project that disagree with them
https://twitter.com/CoralineAd...
Ultimately this Code of Conduct was merged into the project. Now check out who it was that wrote that CoC, that's right the same person that started the issue is the person that wrote the CoC that got shoehorned into the project of someone's opinion on kids having gender reassignment surgery.
What's worse is this line:
This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
was added after the fact because by the original CoC, Elia Schito didn't do anything wrong.
On top of people taking "donations" to edit content, just one reason it shit, there are editors that use their cliques in the wiki community to make articles say whatever the hell they want. It's not open for anyone to edit anymore, if you contradict the wrong person you get the boot, which has lead to a concentration of ideology pushers. Seriously, just read the talk page for some of these things, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also take a moment to think how their system works. An editor goes out, find articles that say what they want, while excluding ones that contradict them. Then the crap wiki article gets read by a journo who writes a hyperbolic article about the topic, which then gets fed back into the wiki article leading to a more and more unbalanced topic.
This is why people get laughed at for citing wiki and people need to know it's no good for anything above doing research on potatoes.
Wikipedia is shit. I highly recommend you don't cite it as it destroys credibility.
My point is, I'm not believing some he-said-she-said BS, If I don't personally witness it happening, I'm not taking someone's word for it. It's far too easy to take just about anything out of context from a tweet, or FB post or a paragraph of some communication or a donation made for some obscure reason and twist that into evidence of racists, homophobic, sexists, misogynistic behavior. So unless it's a tangible action I see happen, I'm not supporting a mob going after them.
Exactly this. My Dad is against gay marriage, but it's because he's very religious and believes in protecting what he precises marriage is. I've had many drunk arguments with him over it. He doesn't hate gay people, he just had different values. Unfortunately it's really easy for people to twist those values as representing a bigoted position so they can call him names, mock him and dismiss any arguments he has to make. It kills me sometimes because I don't agree with him, but I despise the way people treat him because of that one view.
Remember it's not bullying or discrimination as long as you pick the "right" target
For all the browsers we have a choice to use, there's something great about each of them and something crap about each of them. They all have perks and flaws... Except Internet Explorer, that's just shit all round. Haven't used Edge yet so I can't comment on it.
This is a hypothetical example.
I'm aware, I was responding to the hypothetical example with my hypothetical responce.
It's not thought policing.
It's thought policing to go after someone because of their personal thoughts and opinions that they've never let influence how they treat people.
But even you said you'd support removing Eich for being a white supremacist
I said if I personally witnessed him being a white supremacist. If I actually saw him randomly physically attacking a black or jewish person because they were black or jewish. That's policing actions, not thoughts.
As a Manager of a diverse group of people, I don't think he could be an effective leader without the respect of his subordinates
Then that should have been left up to his employees, not a twitter mob of people that don't know him who were told he was a bigot because of a political donation.
This is what happens when you divide everything into 2 sides. If someone from side A does something bad, it doesn't make side B automatically right.
We're in agreement here
Why not just evaluate every claim based on merit regardless of whether it's a "diversity" issue?
That's essentially what I said I'm doing, but when there's a "PC culture" component to the claim I look extra careful at it along with who's making it and what their motives are. A lot of the time it's someone making fluff from nothing and putting words into people's mouths in an effort to frame them for something.
You are a moron.
For starters Hunt stepped down from his position.
Secondly it's now common knowledge that the reporter took his original comments out of context and choose to withhold the entire thing for her personal agenda.
http://observer.com/2015/07/la...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...
Unfortunately weeks of slander can't be undone by a couple articles pointing out how wrong they were to slander him.
A better solution would be for journalists to stop treating hashtags like they deserves the same coverage as some kind of nuclear war. I'm seriously disgusted at the number of articles on sites like the CBC where entire articles are nothing but a series of cherry picked out-of-context tweets with the journalists giving you their play by play misrepresentation of what EVERYONE is saying.
Holy shit, I remember back when Lauren O'Neil did her hit piece on GamerGate and wrote that awful #StopGamerGate2014 article. I went and looked at the tag and 40% of it was GamerGate people making fun of it, 50% was a stupid bot repeating ISIS propaganda over and over and then there was a few people in between treating it like it was a serious thing. Lauren took the few people of the THOUSANDS of tweets in it and treated it like the entire internet was anti-GamerGate in spite of most of the non-botted content coming from actual GamerGate supporters. Their hash tag lasted all of a day, but it didn't stop her from propping up her bull shit analysis and making a big deal out of less than a mosquito of an issue.
Although it is a little funny now, I can't read an article without seeing a tweet from someone I know as a GamerGate supporter.
Sarkeesian's entire claim to fame now is, "I was harassed for my opinions... they... they called me a liar and said I suck... just like everyone does to everyone else on the internet. Don't they know I'm a women? You can't say mean things about women... unless they disagree with me, then screw that bitch. WHERE'S MY ARMY OF FEMINIST!!."
I almost can't wait for 5-10 years down the road when she's completely irrelevant and everyone's making fun of her like they do to Jack Thompson now for having the exact same argument he had.
So first off, I wouldn't believe it. After the shit I've seen pulled over the last year most of what the media says is bull, made up, taken out of context, half truths, hyperbole, unfounded accusations. I'd have to witness Eich, in context, being a white supremacists, then yes I would support removing him.
However, all reports from employees stated Eich was respectful to them and he did encourage diversity. He had one anti-gay marriage view that he donated some money to support, but didn't discriminate against people based on that view. That donation was dug up and whipped into a social media storm that resulted in articles parroting rumors and slander to the point he and his family was being threatened with physical violence by people who were justifying it because he was a bigot.
This is thought policing at it's finest.
A couple years ago I was pretty much on the bandwagon for politically correct culture, but now I see it's a tool people are using to ensure facts and opinions that disagree with them, what they see as "popular opinion", get shutdown. What's worse is the people that employ these types of shaming and mobbing tactics are the WORST hypocrites, as long as you agree with them they don't even care that your a self admitted pedophile, but they're extremely quick to accuse others of it based on guilt by association using fabricated evidence.
So unfortunately my stance now is, if someone's making waves about a politically correct, gender, race and/or "diversity" issue THEY are probably the ones in the wrong and look very carefully at their claims, who they're accusing, what their motivations might be and what they're proposing as a solution before falling in with them.
You probably deserved the troll mod for that, but it was still hilarious...
I actually think this is great. I have no reservations in my mind that he's going to fail, but it's one less PC bro (Video for context) forcing their politics into the Linux Kernel project and dragging everyone down with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I didn't agree with the views he had, but he never attacked any of the people that worked for him over their sexual preference. He made a contribution to something he PERSONALLY felt was correct and was demonized for it years later by people too quick to pick up the pitch forks. Just like Tim Hunt, Matt Taylor and Brad Wardell.
I want you to seriously think about how easy it's going to be to remove someone from any community that's preventing the shit that ended up on firefox.
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
XXX project lead: "No way, not going to happen"
Rando on Twitter: "XXX project lead is a bigot"
< Ensuing twitter storm and articles about XXX project lead >
XXX project lead: "People are sending me things in the mail and threatening my family, I have to step down"
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
New XXX project lead: "Sure thing boss."
I see a lot of parallels with other things I've seen going on over the last year. Like this for example
https://www.reddit.com/r/progr...
Labeling someone as a "bigot" is just a convenient way to get people to attack them or feel better about attacking them, allegations true or not.
I don't think it's fair to say she's made ALL the threats against herself, but she has been proven to be a liar and has on a few occasions been caught trying to drum-up harassment.
Like the time she forgot to log out of her dev account on Steam before starting a thread saying bad things about herself. She was called on it by a Steam mod and ended up removing the thread shortly after. (https://archive.is/t1Oxl)
Or the time she was talking private chatting with a group of anons that ended up mysteriously being involved in harassing her (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1WSLdFCAAEicWf.png:large)
Or the time she claimed GamerGate was threating a PAX conference, except the threats were from one of her followers directed at GamerGate supporters (https://i.imgur.com/nAxgNCD.png)
Or the time she created the brololz account to harass & mock people on twitter (http://imgur.com/y1OK1By)
I don't agree with anyone receiving death threats and it's dumb that I have to state that whenever Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian come up, but I'm all out of empathy for these women. Who seem to continually kick beehives, get stung by wasps then parade it around as evidence that bees need to be eradicated. They're definitely creating they're own "misery" which gets them big bucks and lots of attention while breaking the #1 rule of the internet (don't feed the trolls)