Points for effort and for style. You sure got me. But I'm curious. You say you're proud of what your son has accomplished, and that's fair as far as it goes, but it doesn't mesh well with the other things you've said. You pal around with people who explicitly say they want to kill your son and others like him. Your own allies would paint your son as "defective" and cull him; how do you square that with the pride you feel for him?
Doesn't say anything about retweets going away. Essentially you can still cast your vote in support of a tweet, but you have to out yourself to your followers as having done so.
The geek community was first constructed as a haven for the unfairly rejected. But in our rush, we forgot that sometimes, the rejection is fair. It's long past time to kick the fairly-ostracized back out into the cold where they always belonged, but better late than never.
Wrong again. It's honestly kind of fun shattering the expectations of incels and Nazis everywhere.
But hey, when years of abuse lead your "legacy" to finally estrange themselves from you, perhaps we'll talk again. You will leave no mark but your genes, and even their carriers will do their damndest to erase your memory.
Homosexuals do as well, they mate with people they can't have children with.
Um, you do know women can smell this on you, right?
And the fact that women today aren't interested in becoming mothers, is obvious and just as wrong.
.
It doesn't matter. True, women who aren't interested in becoming mothers aren't interested in an adult who takes the child's role either. But even women who are interested on becoming mothers are looking for a partner, not yet another child.
FEELINGS don't matter. Only actions. 100 years from now my great grandchildren will still be around. The ones you aborted, won't,
You want to talk about natural selection and sexual selection as it happens in nature? Fine. Let's talk about natural selection and sexual selection as it happens in nature.
People don't "need" dates or mates. This is a privilege, which you get by convincing another individual that being your date (or mate) would be a good idea. The exact mechanisms vary from species to species, and, in sentient species, culture to culture and even person to person. It comes down to the very simple question: is becoming this person's mate a good idea?
And this is where the incels fall short. Most of them aren't really interested in mates, and only slightly interested in dates. What they want are mother-figures they can fuck: someone who will fulfill their sexual fantasies while, at the same time, teaching them how to live. Sometimes this gets conflated with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype, but that doesn't really work, because the MPDG is not a mother-figure.
Thing is, most women aren't interested in being sex-mommies. And so, when you start signaling to a woman that this is the kind of relationship you are interested in, it turns her off. And then you start throwing tantrums about it, and that's just a stark reminder of exactly why they don't want this kind of relationship, and it creeps them out.
This is why you get called creepy. You are not nearly as good at hiding what you want as you think you are, nor are you nearly as good at hiding your reactions to rejection. It's not women's fault that you never grew up.
Hey, he's the one who admitted to being one of Those Geeks. You can read it right in his apology letter; you don't have to take my word for it. And you know what? That's good enough for me.
Look, I'm sorry you lost Linus. Well, okay, no, actually I'm not sorry. And although RMS isn't quite where he needs to be, he does seem to be taking sone steps in the right direction, so it looks like you're about to lose him too. Your gods have begun to abandon you. Are you scared?
I'm an exception, but perhaps that's because I'm older than the generation you're making these claims about.
I haven't tied my claims to any generation in particular, nor have I intended to. In poker, they have a saying: "If you've been playing for half an hour and still can't spot the sucker at the table, it's you".
On the other hand, I'm not aware of a single infamous incident where SJWs purged a geek guilty of what you claim.
Sure. I'll even pull one straight out of the recene news: Linus Torvalds. And the new kernel CoC wasn't even in place at that time. But even so, someone got to him, and he realized that he'd been doing something wrong. And he apologized, got himself some help, and started work on some actual change, and it looks to me like he's on the road to being forgiven.
It would be nice if all of Those Geeks worked that way. Sadly, they don't. Some just plain never learn without a metaphorical swift kick in the butt. This is what makes systems to deliver said kicks necessary.
Though your use of the word "infamous" gives me some pause. Cases don't typically get infamous unless the accused (or, less often, the accuser) is already infamous, and let's not kid ourselves: most of Those Geeks are nobodies. They don't get famous, and tbus, neither do their cases. Conversely, the geeks who do get famous almost never manage that feat without picking up at least a little social grace. Torvalds was an outlier in that regard. But it sounds like one way or another, he got his kick and is now moving forward at last
So...it's totally OK to use SJW tactics right up until the point until they get turned against you - and then suddenly they're not OK. How typical.
First: when did I say that anything I'm doing was okay? Over the course of this thread and the GNU KCG thread and even that poll about CoCs, I've called myself an asshole, a bully, and a hypocrite. I've admitted to violating Slashdot's own TOS six ways from Sunday. I drew a line between fair ostracism versus bullying, only to admit in the very next breath that I was crossing the line I myself drew. These are not the actions of someone who thinks that what he's doing is okay.
Second, "SJW tactics"? I have a few SJWs in my social circle, yes, but they've generally been horrified by my tactics. I deliberately seek out trigger words, and use them to twist the knife. I've adopted some typical lines from abusers and bullies as catchphrases to turn against your kind. I flat-out tell people that the only way you're ever going to be fixed at this point (noting that I call you broken) is to traumatize you. What kind of SJW does any of this? Sure, they have some severe consistency problems, but when it comes to trauma they don't mess around: crossing that line is their cardinal sin, and I've crossed it enough times to build a megachurch.
No, I'm not an SJW. I'm not even a liberal. I'm what happens when a conservative comes to their senses about the incels and Nazis.
LOL remember 2014? Gamergate? Remember the catchphrase? "It's time to go back to bullying geeks again."
I actually don't remember that catchphrase, but I can't say I'm surprised to find out it existed. Not very many people in our society really understand the difference between ostracism and bullying, and that's not just a conservative-versus-liberal thing or even a victim-versus-perpetrator thing. The whole damn society forgot it, and the effects of this were devastating.
Back then, I'd have agreed with them. When I say most of society doesn't understand the difference between legitimate ostracism versus bullying, I was no different. I hadn't figured it out back then either.
Nowadays, well, I'd still agree. Not because it's okay, but because you have made it necessary. That's how bad you've gotten.
How about attacking neither as a general thing, in the interests of societal calm?
We tried that for decades. It's why the geek community has become such a creep-infested mess: people who don't attack anyone turned out to be the perfect enablers.
The basic framework of dividing people into classes and setting them at each other's throats, which Marx brought to something of an apotheosis, has overall done people no good, while resulting in a bare minimum of 100 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century.
This is quite true. Unfortunately, it has been poisoned by people looking to escape the normal, natural, and appropriate social pressure to grow the fuck up. There isn't a geek alive who doesn't know at least one of Those Geeks, the ones who thought they were being bullied when people avoided them, and now consider anything less than total validation to be a personal attack.
So, for the time being, this is necessary. Carrots failed, so it's time for the stick.
What the...me? Who on Earth are you talking to? You've got some conversation going on in your head and I wasn't there for my half.
No, I'm looking back over this branch of the thread, and I'm pretty sure this is the right one.
You don't attack powerless people who society shits on. You attack the powerful. End of story. If you're attacking the little people, you went wrong somewhere.
It's funny; I usually hear that from the SJWs in my social circle. It's actually one of the biggest reasons I'm not an SJW myself. Are you sure you aren't one of them? I mean, this whole bit about making up counterfactual power dynamics to paint yourself as a helpless victim, then using this as justification to render yourself immune from criticism, is spot-on.
You don't attack the powerless. You don't attack the powerful. You attack the wrongdoers, and power dynamics, real or imagined, be damned. Not that it matters, given that you aren't even evaluating the power dynamics very well: you're coming at this from the side that thinks these projects will die if they leave, and threatening to kill the project by leaving unless you're allowed to creep it up at will and get away with pushing out whomever you want. This is not something a powerless person does, or even seriously considers, because they know it wouldn't work. You think it will. That tells me that you either think you're powerful enough to pull it off, or else you're just incredibly stupid.
Society stopped shitting on geeks a long time ago. If you're still covered in shit by now, it's because you've been rolling around in your own. Stop doing that.
You inverted the usual "comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" narrative. Your post was all about shitting on society's dregs, people who got the short end of the stick, people who are already miserable.
Ah, I see. But you missed something about my post. There's a difference between bullying and fair ostracism. The geek community was founded mostly by people who had been bullied, and in response to this trauma, they decided to set up a community that would never enforce social norms (so that others could not be unfairly targeted as theu were). This resulted in an influx of people who had been fairly ostracized for flagrantly unacceptable behavior: who were looking for a place to hide from the pressure so they wouldn't have to grow up. And they whined and cajoled and manipulated toward that end, molding us into the perfect enablers, so that we would not give them the treatment they needed to grow as people.
And now, we're starting to realize just how badly you've played us. The tides are turning, and you are being kicked out into the cold where you always belonged. If you don't like that, there is a solution, and it's the same one everyone else offered you. You have the problem, and you have to change.
Instead, you should be helping to uplift them. Attack the powerful, not the powerless. Speak the truth to them instead.
I am speaking the truth to them. I cannot uplift them while doing this, because the truth is inherently not uplifting. They are not the afflicted, but the affliction. They have all the power they lacked in the past, but they have proven themselves unworthy to hold it. The truth will set them free, if there is any decency in them, but first it will break them. It cannot do otherwise.
I know exactly how hard it is to hear that you were not bullied, but fairly ostracized: that no one really wants you around, and it's all your fault. You appeal to my compassion because you think I wouldn't do this if I knew how it feels, but the opposite is true. I do this because I know how it feels.
enforement of what. your ideals. maybe people were ok with the manchildren and incels.
Then they should be protecting you from me. They have the tools. I don't even hide behind anonymity: they could warn me or ban me or downvote me into oblivion or do whatever they wanted, and I would go away.
And yet, that does not happen. Technically I commit more bannable offenses before lunch than most of you do all day, and I never get banned or even warned. My posts don't get 5'd, and really shouldn't be, but total strangers still make sure to counteract your downvoting campaigns. Seems to me that people are generally okay with my being here.
Your assuming every community wants peace and happiness. Not every community wants those ideals.
You know, it's funny. This isn't the only place I operate, but different sites require different styles, just because of the way they're set up. Differing rules and moderation structures come into this, but there are other factors. Sometimes I really can't operate alone at all, but need to get at least some help from the moderation staff. Establishing those relationships can be a tricky business, and it can take some time to feel out the parameters and boundaries of the tacit agreement by which it all works.
But everywhere I go, I am welcomed. Even places that are emphatically not about "peace and happiness" appreciate what I do. Hell; in my experience, the places you've abused into submission seem to be the happiest and most cooperative of all. They dare not move against you openly, for fear of your kind melting down in a mass of hormonal nerd rage, but when offered opportunities to work more subtly against you, they bite. They always bite, even in places where I honestly didn't expect them to.
Outstanding idea - it's obvious you speak for absolutely everybody. Just ask you.
Oh hell no, don't ask me. I'm way too hotheaded to judge things like that myself. Always have been.
I don't speak for everyone. But I do listen to everyone. Yes, even you; I couldn't do what I do nearly as effectively if I didn't. When I say nobody really wants you around, not even other geeks, it is because I've done the work to find out. When I say this is fair, it's because I've listened to both sides and considered them carefully, and while their sides have some very serious flaws, they at least have some valid points. Yours, by contrast, does not; it really is nothing more than the shrieking of a toddler who doesn't want to say "please" and "thank you".
Perhaps communities would be better off without you? It would be short term pain but we will all be better off when someone like yourself who makes it their mission to drown out anyone who disagrees with them is no longer around.
I prefer to let the communities be the judge of that. Because it's true: I really am a total asshole. I'm also a hypocrite, because although I say no one should ever be bullied (as opposed to fair ostracism, which is what you deserve), what I do does cross the line into bullying. I read through your bullshit to learn your insecurities, and then use what I've found to twist the knife. I take ruthless advantage of your most common mental states to reinforce the things the voices whisper to you when you're alone. There are places in this world where I could be held liable if you snapped and did something rash. You and I are not as different as you think; I am not an SJW, or even someone the SJWs would consider a very good ally. I'm not a Nazi or an incel either, of course, but I am a conservative, and I'm not sure I can even be called a moderate one. I am you, turned back against you.
And yet, to use just this one community as an example, my karma meter is full, my friendlist and freaklist are small but growing, your pathetic attempts at downvoting my posts quickly get countered, and I have never been banned or even warned despite breaking the rules six ways from Sunday. I'm not worshipped by any stretch of the imagination, but the community has spoken, and they certainly don't think they'd be better off without me; I'm not sure if they necessarily like me, but at the very least, I make myself useful and provide more value than I destroy, which is bwtter than you. And that's far from unique to this site. You'd have a stroke if you knew what the admins at 4chan let me get away with: yes, even at ground zero for your ilk, the admins would look the other way, and this is deliberate.
Why do they do this? How come I can get away with this form of bullying? I'll tell you the secret: it has nothing to do with me. I am allowed to do what I do because I do it to you. They hate you that much, even on your home sites. These communities, dedicated in part to protecting people from bullying, don't just deem you unworthy of their protection, they actually let people in to bully you as long as we stay pointed in the right direction. Which is also important: it's not just that I do it to you, but that I don't do it to anyone else. You're the only ones.
And that is why I am tolerated when you are not. Not because of me, but because of you. These things I do to you? You do them to everyone else. This pain you feel? You cause it in far more people than I ever will. And I'm probably not the first person to do this shit to you, and maybe I'm not even the first person to tell you all this. But seriously: you would think that by now, you'd have learned that bullying people is bad. Instead you became a cyclic bully. You're worst of the worst, because you should know exactly how it feels but you do it anyway.
Slashdot does not operate under your preferred CoC...
Hold on a moment. How exactly do you know that? I never said what my preferred CoC was. For example, I've said in this very thread that the GNU KCG would actually make a pretty good CoC, if only it included an enforcement mechanism.
So I went back and looked over Slashdot's terms of service, which include the closest thing it has to a CoC. It's not bad. Better than the GNU KCG at this particular moment, anyway, though it does need to apply its enforcement mechanisms more consistently.
...and I think we believe a little more strongly in freedom of speech.
No you don't. You don't even believe in your own twisted definition of free speech, as evidenced by the fact that you think I should leave because of what I'm saying. You freeze-peach advocates are all about letting people say whatever you want them to, but dissent from your narrative? No, that must be locked down and purged. Someone pull down the screen and turn out the lights, because we've got a projector on deck.
Also, your use of "we" does not impress me when you're hiding behind an AC account. Get a mod account in here to tell me to stop, and we'll talk. But I think you and I both know that that isn't going to happen.
Also, thank you for your apology and your admission to being sexist. However, per your preferred CoC and the historic enforcement thereof, that would do nothing to keep you from being banned. Unless you are a hypocrite, please remove yourself from slashdot and/or any projects you have represented.
Aw, man, come on. I was just posting satire, and I said I was sorry. Can't you snowflakes even take a little joke?
By your preferred CoC and enforcement mechanisms, that should be all I need to do, am I right? So unless you are a hypocrite, you have to admit I can stay. Freeze peach, yo.
This also bars you from any future involvement as there is no statute of limitations for past transgressions and there is no path to forgiveness.
Statutes of limitations, if any, should be defined as part of an enforcement mechanism. Forgiveness is not something that can or should be governed by set rules.
Please refer to them as "dissenters".
You know what? I don't think so. You don't post any sort of dissent that you believe in, as I outlined above, so I can't call you dissenters. You aren't dissenting.
I think I'll go with "creepers". I prefer the vividness of "tendie-eating filth-spawn of/pol/", but that's just too long to type out on a keyboard, and it might be a little too on-the-nose.
Your language and intent come off as abusive.
Um... whoa. Somebody alert the media, because I need some backup here. Did you just admit that I'm hurting you? Oh. Imagine that.
And imagine this, while you're at it: what do other people feel when you do these very same things to them?
I should point out that Stallman's guidelines would actually make a really good code, if they included a process to enforce them. The unenforceability is the problem, not the rules themselves. That's exactly why the abusers like these kinds of guidelines so much: no one will do anything about it if they break the rules, so they can just ignore the rules.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where enforcement weren't necessary. But the abusers ruined that for everyone. So, here we are.
I don't think Stallman is necessarily malicious for doing this. He's just misguided. And I can't even blame him for that: the whole geek community is made up of people who were targeted by the wider society's means of enforcing norms, most of us unfairly, and he probably isn't any different. Who wouldn't be reluctant to kick an abuser to the curb, after facing that kind of peer abuse? I sure am. Hell, I had to do it once, and it was like stabbing myself in the chest.
But as geeks, we've forgotten something important: some people are fairly ostracized. Sometimes this is even necessary, lest the abusers of your generosity wind up taking over, as the abusers of the geek community's generosity have. We're all about purging the bullies, but because of this blind spot, we're currently infested with a type of bully that went un-purged. It's time to fix that.
I think I'll let the mods be the judge of that. Go ahead, report me.
Am I sexist? Well, I'm not a fan of contemporary feminism's refusal to accept "not all men" as a compelling argument despite holding analogous arguments up as the compelling argument against prejudice, and I suppose some of them will probably call me sexist for that. But this same behavior pretty much excludes me from your definition of sexism.
"Incel" is a gender-neutral term. Did you know that it was first coined by a woman to describe herself? The exact meaning was somewhat different at the time: she had a medical condition that prevented her from having sex even though she had a functioning libido, rather than the modern sense of just being too creepy to get a date. But the idea of involuntary celibacy was the same.
You're right about "manchildren", though: thad is, indeed, a gendered term. That was thoughtless of me, and I apologize. What would be a better term? "Kidults", perhaps? "Basement-dwellers", possibly? "Tendie-eating filth-spawn of/pol/"?
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.
The main problem is that it lacks any method of enforcement. There are other parts of the Rule of Saint Benedict that go into this, but SQLite's CoC does not adapt them. In fact, they say outright that they have no intention of enforcing it.
And yes, that, in and of itself, is enough to make it a bad code. We live in a time and place where our communities are infested with people who game the system to abuse people without facing consequences: abusers who chose our communities precisely because we would not enforce our norms against them. We set out to create a haven from bullying, but inadvertently built a haven for bullies. This was the grand error of geek culture, and we need to correct it.
Geek culture has always been about purging the bullies. The only difference this time is that instead of being our enemies, the bullies are our friends (well, not really, but they've got us thinking it). Even so, we should not shrink from one of our most closely-held principled: bullies are to be purged. That requires enforcement of social norms, and that is why this code is unsuitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Points for effort and for style. You sure got me. But I'm curious. You say you're proud of what your son has accomplished, and that's fair as far as it goes, but it doesn't mesh well with the other things you've said. You pal around with people who explicitly say they want to kill your son and others like him. Your own allies would paint your son as "defective" and cull him; how do you square that with the pride you feel for him?
Still has to have daddy handle his finances for him, huh? You must be so proud
Doesn't say anything about retweets going away. Essentially you can still cast your vote in support of a tweet, but you have to out yourself to your followers as having done so.
The geek community was first constructed as a haven for the unfairly rejected. But in our rush, we forgot that sometimes, the rejection is fair. It's long past time to kick the fairly-ostracized back out into the cold where they always belonged, but better late than never.
Wrong again. It's honestly kind of fun shattering the expectations of incels and Nazis everywhere.
But hey, when years of abuse lead your "legacy" to finally estrange themselves from you, perhaps we'll talk again. You will leave no mark but your genes, and even their carriers will do their damndest to erase your memory.
I have only one woman I'm interested in, and she's in the next room watching "The Young and the Restless".
You might want to get out of her house before she realizes you're there.
If you find considering your legacy to be creepy, you might be a member of a group that is going extinct
I can consider my legacy just fine without having to dive down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Go back to /pol/.
It's not just the incels that fall short.
Homosexuals do as well, they mate with people they can't have children with.
Um, you do know women can smell this on you, right?
And the fact that women today aren't interested in becoming mothers, is obvious and just as wrong.
.
It doesn't matter. True, women who aren't interested in becoming mothers aren't interested in an adult who takes the child's role either. But even women who are interested on becoming mothers are looking for a partner, not yet another child.
FEELINGS don't matter. Only actions. 100 years from now my great grandchildren will still be around. The ones you aborted, won't,
Eww, creepy.
You want to talk about natural selection and sexual selection as it happens in nature? Fine. Let's talk about natural selection and sexual selection as it happens in nature.
People don't "need" dates or mates. This is a privilege, which you get by convincing another individual that being your date (or mate) would be a good idea. The exact mechanisms vary from species to species, and, in sentient species, culture to culture and even person to person. It comes down to the very simple question: is becoming this person's mate a good idea?
And this is where the incels fall short. Most of them aren't really interested in mates, and only slightly interested in dates. What they want are mother-figures they can fuck: someone who will fulfill their sexual fantasies while, at the same time, teaching them how to live. Sometimes this gets conflated with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype, but that doesn't really work, because the MPDG is not a mother-figure.
Thing is, most women aren't interested in being sex-mommies. And so, when you start signaling to a woman that this is the kind of relationship you are interested in, it turns her off. And then you start throwing tantrums about it, and that's just a stark reminder of exactly why they don't want this kind of relationship, and it creeps them out.
This is why you get called creepy. You are not nearly as good at hiding what you want as you think you are, nor are you nearly as good at hiding your reactions to rejection. It's not women's fault that you never grew up.
Hey, he's the one who admitted to being one of Those Geeks. You can read it right in his apology letter; you don't have to take my word for it. And you know what? That's good enough for me.
Look, I'm sorry you lost Linus. Well, okay, no, actually I'm not sorry. And although RMS isn't quite where he needs to be, he does seem to be taking sone steps in the right direction, so it looks like you're about to lose him too. Your gods have begun to abandon you. Are you scared?
This is why you can't get a date.
I'm an exception, but perhaps that's because I'm older than the generation you're making these claims about.
I haven't tied my claims to any generation in particular, nor have I intended to. In poker, they have a saying: "If you've been playing for half an hour and still can't spot the sucker at the table, it's you".
On the other hand, I'm not aware of a single infamous incident where SJWs purged a geek guilty of what you claim.
Sure. I'll even pull one straight out of the recene news: Linus Torvalds. And the new kernel CoC wasn't even in place at that time. But even so, someone got to him, and he realized that he'd been doing something wrong. And he apologized, got himself some help, and started work on some actual change, and it looks to me like he's on the road to being forgiven.
It would be nice if all of Those Geeks worked that way. Sadly, they don't. Some just plain never learn without a metaphorical swift kick in the butt. This is what makes systems to deliver said kicks necessary.
Though your use of the word "infamous" gives me some pause. Cases don't typically get infamous unless the accused (or, less often, the accuser) is already infamous, and let's not kid ourselves: most of Those Geeks are nobodies. They don't get famous, and tbus, neither do their cases. Conversely, the geeks who do get famous almost never manage that feat without picking up at least a little social grace. Torvalds was an outlier in that regard. But it sounds like one way or another, he got his kick and is now moving forward at last
So...it's totally OK to use SJW tactics right up until the point until they get turned against you - and then suddenly they're not OK. How typical.
First: when did I say that anything I'm doing was okay? Over the course of this thread and the GNU KCG thread and even that poll about CoCs, I've called myself an asshole, a bully, and a hypocrite. I've admitted to violating Slashdot's own TOS six ways from Sunday. I drew a line between fair ostracism versus bullying, only to admit in the very next breath that I was crossing the line I myself drew. These are not the actions of someone who thinks that what he's doing is okay.
Second, "SJW tactics"? I have a few SJWs in my social circle, yes, but they've generally been horrified by my tactics. I deliberately seek out trigger words, and use them to twist the knife. I've adopted some typical lines from abusers and bullies as catchphrases to turn against your kind. I flat-out tell people that the only way you're ever going to be fixed at this point (noting that I call you broken) is to traumatize you. What kind of SJW does any of this? Sure, they have some severe consistency problems, but when it comes to trauma they don't mess around: crossing that line is their cardinal sin, and I've crossed it enough times to build a megachurch.
No, I'm not an SJW. I'm not even a liberal. I'm what happens when a conservative comes to their senses about the incels and Nazis.
LOL remember 2014? Gamergate? Remember the catchphrase? "It's time to go back to bullying geeks again."
I actually don't remember that catchphrase, but I can't say I'm surprised to find out it existed. Not very many people in our society really understand the difference between ostracism and bullying, and that's not just a conservative-versus-liberal thing or even a victim-versus-perpetrator thing. The whole damn society forgot it, and the effects of this were devastating.
Back then, I'd have agreed with them. When I say most of society doesn't understand the difference between legitimate ostracism versus bullying, I was no different. I hadn't figured it out back then either.
Nowadays, well, I'd still agree. Not because it's okay, but because you have made it necessary. That's how bad you've gotten.
How about attacking neither as a general thing, in the interests of societal calm?
We tried that for decades. It's why the geek community has become such a creep-infested mess: people who don't attack anyone turned out to be the perfect enablers.
The basic framework of dividing people into classes and setting them at each other's throats, which Marx brought to something of an apotheosis, has overall done people no good, while resulting in a bare minimum of 100 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century.
This is quite true. Unfortunately, it has been poisoned by people looking to escape the normal, natural, and appropriate social pressure to grow the fuck up. There isn't a geek alive who doesn't know at least one of Those Geeks, the ones who thought they were being bullied when people avoided them, and now consider anything less than total validation to be a personal attack.
So, for the time being, this is necessary. Carrots failed, so it's time for the stick.
What the...me? Who on Earth are you talking to? You've got some conversation going on in your head and I wasn't there for my half.
No, I'm looking back over this branch of the thread, and I'm pretty sure this is the right one.
You don't attack powerless people who society shits on. You attack the powerful. End of story. If you're attacking the little people, you went wrong somewhere.
It's funny; I usually hear that from the SJWs in my social circle. It's actually one of the biggest reasons I'm not an SJW myself. Are you sure you aren't one of them? I mean, this whole bit about making up counterfactual power dynamics to paint yourself as a helpless victim, then using this as justification to render yourself immune from criticism, is spot-on.
You don't attack the powerless. You don't attack the powerful. You attack the wrongdoers, and power dynamics, real or imagined, be damned. Not that it matters, given that you aren't even evaluating the power dynamics very well: you're coming at this from the side that thinks these projects will die if they leave, and threatening to kill the project by leaving unless you're allowed to creep it up at will and get away with pushing out whomever you want. This is not something a powerless person does, or even seriously considers, because they know it wouldn't work. You think it will. That tells me that you either think you're powerful enough to pull it off, or else you're just incredibly stupid.
Society stopped shitting on geeks a long time ago. If you're still covered in shit by now, it's because you've been rolling around in your own. Stop doing that.
You inverted the usual "comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" narrative. Your post was all about shitting on society's dregs, people who got the short end of the stick, people who are already miserable.
Ah, I see. But you missed something about my post. There's a difference between bullying and fair ostracism. The geek community was founded mostly by people who had been bullied, and in response to this trauma, they decided to set up a community that would never enforce social norms (so that others could not be unfairly targeted as theu were). This resulted in an influx of people who had been fairly ostracized for flagrantly unacceptable behavior: who were looking for a place to hide from the pressure so they wouldn't have to grow up. And they whined and cajoled and manipulated toward that end, molding us into the perfect enablers, so that we would not give them the treatment they needed to grow as people.
And now, we're starting to realize just how badly you've played us. The tides are turning, and you are being kicked out into the cold where you always belonged. If you don't like that, there is a solution, and it's the same one everyone else offered you. You have the problem, and you have to change.
Instead, you should be helping to uplift them. Attack the powerful, not the powerless. Speak the truth to them instead.
I am speaking the truth to them. I cannot uplift them while doing this, because the truth is inherently not uplifting. They are not the afflicted, but the affliction. They have all the power they lacked in the past, but they have proven themselves unworthy to hold it. The truth will set them free, if there is any decency in them, but first it will break them. It cannot do otherwise.
I know exactly how hard it is to hear that you were not bullied, but fairly ostracized: that no one really wants you around, and it's all your fault. You appeal to my compassion because you think I wouldn't do this if I knew how it feels, but the opposite is true. I do this because I know how it feels.
enforement of what. your ideals. maybe people were ok with the manchildren and incels.
Then they should be protecting you from me. They have the tools. I don't even hide behind anonymity: they could warn me or ban me or downvote me into oblivion or do whatever they wanted, and I would go away.
And yet, that does not happen. Technically I commit more bannable offenses before lunch than most of you do all day, and I never get banned or even warned. My posts don't get 5'd, and really shouldn't be, but total strangers still make sure to counteract your downvoting campaigns. Seems to me that people are generally okay with my being here.
Your assuming every community wants peace and happiness. Not every community wants those ideals.
You know, it's funny. This isn't the only place I operate, but different sites require different styles, just because of the way they're set up. Differing rules and moderation structures come into this, but there are other factors. Sometimes I really can't operate alone at all, but need to get at least some help from the moderation staff. Establishing those relationships can be a tricky business, and it can take some time to feel out the parameters and boundaries of the tacit agreement by which it all works.
But everywhere I go, I am welcomed. Even places that are emphatically not about "peace and happiness" appreciate what I do. Hell; in my experience, the places you've abused into submission seem to be the happiest and most cooperative of all. They dare not move against you openly, for fear of your kind melting down in a mass of hormonal nerd rage, but when offered opportunities to work more subtly against you, they bite. They always bite, even in places where I honestly didn't expect them to.
You have fewer friends than you think you do.
Outstanding idea - it's obvious you speak for absolutely everybody. Just ask you.
Oh hell no, don't ask me. I'm way too hotheaded to judge things like that myself. Always have been.
I don't speak for everyone. But I do listen to everyone. Yes, even you; I couldn't do what I do nearly as effectively if I didn't. When I say nobody really wants you around, not even other geeks, it is because I've done the work to find out. When I say this is fair, it's because I've listened to both sides and considered them carefully, and while their sides have some very serious flaws, they at least have some valid points. Yours, by contrast, does not; it really is nothing more than the shrieking of a toddler who doesn't want to say "please" and "thank you".
Perhaps communities would be better off without you? It would be short term pain but we will all be better off when someone like yourself who makes it their mission to drown out anyone who disagrees with them is no longer around.
I prefer to let the communities be the judge of that. Because it's true: I really am a total asshole. I'm also a hypocrite, because although I say no one should ever be bullied (as opposed to fair ostracism, which is what you deserve), what I do does cross the line into bullying. I read through your bullshit to learn your insecurities, and then use what I've found to twist the knife. I take ruthless advantage of your most common mental states to reinforce the things the voices whisper to you when you're alone. There are places in this world where I could be held liable if you snapped and did something rash. You and I are not as different as you think; I am not an SJW, or even someone the SJWs would consider a very good ally. I'm not a Nazi or an incel either, of course, but I am a conservative, and I'm not sure I can even be called a moderate one. I am you, turned back against you.
And yet, to use just this one community as an example, my karma meter is full, my friendlist and freaklist are small but growing, your pathetic attempts at downvoting my posts quickly get countered, and I have never been banned or even warned despite breaking the rules six ways from Sunday. I'm not worshipped by any stretch of the imagination, but the community has spoken, and they certainly don't think they'd be better off without me; I'm not sure if they necessarily like me, but at the very least, I make myself useful and provide more value than I destroy, which is bwtter than you. And that's far from unique to this site. You'd have a stroke if you knew what the admins at 4chan let me get away with: yes, even at ground zero for your ilk, the admins would look the other way, and this is deliberate.
Why do they do this? How come I can get away with this form of bullying? I'll tell you the secret: it has nothing to do with me. I am allowed to do what I do because I do it to you. They hate you that much, even on your home sites. These communities, dedicated in part to protecting people from bullying, don't just deem you unworthy of their protection, they actually let people in to bully you as long as we stay pointed in the right direction. Which is also important: it's not just that I do it to you, but that I don't do it to anyone else. You're the only ones.
And that is why I am tolerated when you are not. Not because of me, but because of you. These things I do to you? You do them to everyone else. This pain you feel? You cause it in far more people than I ever will. And I'm probably not the first person to do this shit to you, and maybe I'm not even the first person to tell you all this. But seriously: you would think that by now, you'd have learned that bullying people is bad. Instead you became a cyclic bully. You're worst of the worst, because you should know exactly how it feels but you do it anyway.
Oh I'm so scared.
Slashdot does not operate under your preferred CoC...
Hold on a moment. How exactly do you know that? I never said what my preferred CoC was. For example, I've said in this very thread that the GNU KCG would actually make a pretty good CoC, if only it included an enforcement mechanism.
So I went back and looked over Slashdot's terms of service, which include the closest thing it has to a CoC. It's not bad. Better than the GNU KCG at this particular moment, anyway, though it does need to apply its enforcement mechanisms more consistently.
...and I think we believe a little more strongly in freedom of speech.
No you don't. You don't even believe in your own twisted definition of free speech, as evidenced by the fact that you think I should leave because of what I'm saying. You freeze-peach advocates are all about letting people say whatever you want them to, but dissent from your narrative? No, that must be locked down and purged. Someone pull down the screen and turn out the lights, because we've got a projector on deck.
Also, your use of "we" does not impress me when you're hiding behind an AC account. Get a mod account in here to tell me to stop, and we'll talk. But I think you and I both know that that isn't going to happen.
Also, thank you for your apology and your admission to being sexist. However, per your preferred CoC and the historic enforcement thereof, that would do nothing to keep you from being banned. Unless you are a hypocrite, please remove yourself from slashdot and/or any projects you have represented.
Aw, man, come on. I was just posting satire, and I said I was sorry. Can't you snowflakes even take a little joke?
By your preferred CoC and enforcement mechanisms, that should be all I need to do, am I right? So unless you are a hypocrite, you have to admit I can stay. Freeze peach, yo.
This also bars you from any future involvement as there is no statute of limitations for past transgressions and there is no path to forgiveness.
Statutes of limitations, if any, should be defined as part of an enforcement mechanism. Forgiveness is not something that can or should be governed by set rules.
Please refer to them as "dissenters".
You know what? I don't think so. You don't post any sort of dissent that you believe in, as I outlined above, so I can't call you dissenters. You aren't dissenting.
I think I'll go with "creepers". I prefer the vividness of "tendie-eating filth-spawn of /pol/", but that's just too long to type out on a keyboard, and it might be a little too on-the-nose.
Your language and intent come off as abusive.
Um... whoa. Somebody alert the media, because I need some backup here. Did you just admit that I'm hurting you? Oh. Imagine that.
And imagine this, while you're at it: what do other people feel when you do these very same things to them?
I should point out that Stallman's guidelines would actually make a really good code, if they included a process to enforce them. The unenforceability is the problem, not the rules themselves. That's exactly why the abusers like these kinds of guidelines so much: no one will do anything about it if they break the rules, so they can just ignore the rules.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where enforcement weren't necessary. But the abusers ruined that for everyone. So, here we are.
I don't think Stallman is necessarily malicious for doing this. He's just misguided. And I can't even blame him for that: the whole geek community is made up of people who were targeted by the wider society's means of enforcing norms, most of us unfairly, and he probably isn't any different. Who wouldn't be reluctant to kick an abuser to the curb, after facing that kind of peer abuse? I sure am. Hell, I had to do it once, and it was like stabbing myself in the chest.
But as geeks, we've forgotten something important: some people are fairly ostracized. Sometimes this is even necessary, lest the abusers of your generosity wind up taking over, as the abusers of the geek community's generosity have. We're all about purging the bullies, but because of this blind spot, we're currently infested with a type of bully that went un-purged. It's time to fix that.
I think I'll let the mods be the judge of that. Go ahead, report me.
Am I sexist? Well, I'm not a fan of contemporary feminism's refusal to accept "not all men" as a compelling argument despite holding analogous arguments up as the compelling argument against prejudice, and I suppose some of them will probably call me sexist for that. But this same behavior pretty much excludes me from your definition of sexism.
"Incel" is a gender-neutral term. Did you know that it was first coined by a woman to describe herself? The exact meaning was somewhat different at the time: she had a medical condition that prevented her from having sex even though she had a functioning libido, rather than the modern sense of just being too creepy to get a date. But the idea of involuntary celibacy was the same.
You're right about "manchildren", though: thad is, indeed, a gendered term. That was thoughtless of me, and I apologize. What would be a better term? "Kidults", perhaps? "Basement-dwellers", possibly? "Tendie-eating filth-spawn of /pol/"?
Um... err... wut
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.
The main problem is that it lacks any method of enforcement. There are other parts of the Rule of Saint Benedict that go into this, but SQLite's CoC does not adapt them. In fact, they say outright that they have no intention of enforcing it.
And yes, that, in and of itself, is enough to make it a bad code. We live in a time and place where our communities are infested with people who game the system to abuse people without facing consequences: abusers who chose our communities precisely because we would not enforce our norms against them. We set out to create a haven from bullying, but inadvertently built a haven for bullies. This was the grand error of geek culture, and we need to correct it.
Geek culture has always been about purging the bullies. The only difference this time is that instead of being our enemies, the bullies are our friends (well, not really, but they've got us thinking it). Even so, we should not shrink from one of our most closely-held principled: bullies are to be purged. That requires enforcement of social norms, and that is why this code is unsuitable.