The day the content guys pay for *my* internet access that's when they can serve me ads.
A long time ago, there lived a company called NetZero. They loved the internet and wanted everyone to have free access. They devised a plan by which users could connect to the internet for free, provided they were willing to allow an ad banner at the bottom of their browser.
All was well. Advertisers were happy, NetZero was happy, and (for the most part) their users were happy. But there lived an evil wizard who hated ads in all forms. He didn't like that banner ad. It made him very angry. He wanted free internet, but didn't think anyone should have to put up with an ad banner in exchange. With a wave of his mouse and a tap on his keyboard he made that ad banner vanish.
As word spread about the evil wizard and his dastardly spells, advertisers got nervous. The couldn't justify paying for ads that users wouldn't see -- and NetZero needed those advertisers to keep their magical internet service free to anyone who wanted it.
Sadly, no hero came to rescue NetZero from the evil wizard. It wasn't long before they became like every other ISP. Soon afterward, they died a quite death and were soon forgotten.
Well, then present some evidence. As you've seen, all the stuff floating around doesn't even begin to support the claims being made.
Given the lack of evidence, why to you continue to believe that obviously fictional narrative? What purpose does that serve? Aside from blind delusion, the only reason I can see is that you believe promoting that nonsense somehow supports an agenda unrelated to ethics in game journalism.
The Streisand effect happens when someone attempts to hide something that was public, thereby calling attention to it.
In this case, we have an obviously false claim, supported by no evidence, that no one is trying to cover-up. The two are unrelated.
I suspect it's because the problem they claim exists does not, or that there is no evidence to support their belief. Repeating the obvious lie, in hope that people will believe it, has thus become their only option.
The question, then, is why continue to make false claims? What do you hope to accomplish? To call attention to a problem that doesn't seem to exist in hopes that it will become solved? How would you know? If the problem of ethics in games journalism was solved, there would be no evidence of ethical problems -- which is exactly the state we find ourselves in now.
Could it be that GG has a different agenda than the one they claim? Perhaps one more closely aligned with the rhetoric you hear from GG supporters?
Equality does not mean walking into a group and telling them how they have to act to accommodate your irrational reactions to their culture.
Equality also isn't a kind of snack cracker. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.
Equality means treating others as equals,
That's part of it, yes.
not attempting to make others communicate among themselves according to your pathetic sensibilities.
This, again, has nothing to do with equality. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.
The second part is about behavior. This whole "discussion" is a lot like dealing with teenagers who don't understand why their expect to conform to particular norms. "Why can't we loiter here? What's the harm?" or "We're just ____. What's the big deal?" They simply can't understand that their behavior impacts others because they're still so self-centered. It's why we treat teens like children and not like adults.
See, we live in a society that does not accept the kind of behavior you're defending. You should expect to be scolded when you behave like an unruly teenager. That's how kids learn to live in a civilized society.
You only think people are trying to force you to behave because you feel a little shame when you get scolded.
The suspicion of the claims that she slept for favorable coverage does NOT mean the Kotaku article.
On the RPS article, you should note the date is early January, three months before they had any sort of romantic relationship. Regardless, there's no reason to suspect that there was any sort of exchange or arrangement. Quinn's game is highlighted along with two others in the RPS article, naming them as standouts in a list of 50 other games. If there was any sort of exchange, it's not evident from the article.
Beyond that, it goes to show the cronyism that is present in the journalism field.
I'm not convinced. I'm surprised you are. Quinn's later relationship to Grayson doesn't seem to have had any impact on his coverage of Quinn's work either before or after their romantic involvement. He never even reviewed the game.
this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.
He never even reviewed the game. The evidence just doesn't support this claim.
To the softer claim: I have to question why the only example of cronyism in the industry that sparked this outrage was a tryst between an obscure indie developer and an even more obscure freelance journalist. Particularly when there's no reason to believe that their romantic involvement had any impact on the journalistic work either before or after their romantic encounter.
Quinn and Grayson are held up as the smoking gun, yet their story does not exemplify the problems GG claims to be deeply concerned about. You can hardly blame anyone for thinking that they have a different agenda, particularly with all the other rhetoric that surrounds the movement, and the lack of evidence
The point stands that they had an agreement, she violated it, and it revoked their agreed consent before the issue.
Again, there's no evidence here that she's a rapist by her own definition. Where has she offered up this alleged definition? Where's the evidence these other things took place? What's the point? How does that relate to the other claims?
That's the most foolish argument I've ever seen. "It's too late".
Apple and Google were "too late" to the smartphone market. Microsoft was "too late" to the game console and tablet markets. It hasn't stopped them from being incredibly successful.
Market leaders change all the time. Why do you think now is the first time in history where the market is settled and new players don't stand a chance of succeeding?
Your claims get softer and softer the more facts we introduce: Here's the article you mention, give it a read.
It's pretty clear than anyone covering that topic would have, by necessity, mentioned Quinn. There are a lot of names mentioned in that article because it's about a game jam reality tv show of which she was a participant. To not mention Quinn would have been an odd omission. As for any special treatment, look at how much coverage Quinn gets compared to everyone else, and if that's positive, negative or neutral in general and in relation to the many other people mentioned and quoted in the article. There's no reason to suspect she was granted any special treatment.
It's pretty obvious to everyone that she wasn't exchanging sex for press coverage. You can believe that if you want, it's not impossible, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. How do you justify this belief?
As for the rape by her own definition:
Still absurd nonsense, lacking any grounding in fact.
Like I said, it's already long over. You've even had to make your monster larger-than-life, attributed to it all sorts of things that are laughably untrue, just to have a villain vile enough to pretend you're still fighting a righteous fight.
The war is over. You've already lost. You're shooting at phantoms, a product of fear and paranoia.
Just look at GG, a subset of your side. What happened? All the major gaming sites almost immediately put rules in place to keep your kind of rhetoric out. It's as unwelcome as hate speech. No one wants to be thought a safe harbor that sort of vile nonsense. They've been banned from conventions, Even 4chan, the bottom of the internet, has booted them out.
Where once your ideas were the norm, now their despised. You're clinging to an era long past. The world has moved on. You can't drag people back to the past. See, they don't see themselves as the monsters you make them out to be. They're not the ones who fought for equality, they just quietly accepted that everyone deserves equal treatment. What you see as evil SJW's are really just average people, happy to live in a better, more equitable, world.
Yes, it means you will lose a bit of privilege. Your status is threatened, but not by SJW's nor the twisted imaginary version you've created. No, your position is threatened by the new social norms and values that have long since replaced those old, outdated, ideas to which you still cling.
Tell me, does England have a Lord Protector or a Queen today?
Sure, though they have absolutely no power and authority. Just like GGs, MRAs, and other misogynists, they're a powerless vestige of an older, less civilized, era. The difference, of course, is that while the monarchy was troublesome, the superficial bits surrounding royalty were attractive. That's why we still have a powerless queen, princesses, and all the fun rituals and ceremony. We just don't allow them any real authority, to keep the troublesome bits of monarchy out of our good time.
Unfortunately, for you, there isn't anything fun about your brand of oppression. Your kind is dying out. Once you've lost the outrage, and no one can stay outraged forever, you'll find yourself hiding your socially unacceptable beliefs far more often from friends, family, work mates, etc. I would be surprised if you don't already closet some of your less-enlightened beliefs already.
We know you're a small but noisy faction with disproportionate representation in traditionally left-leaning media.
Oh, yes. The media loves controversy, and there are a few people who are taking advantage of this for a bit of attention. But, as I've already pointed out, they're not the real danger. The real danger to you comes from everyone else. See, the social norms have already changed. The battle for the hearts and minds of the people has already been lost to you. It's why your kind has such difficulty finding safe-harbor online. Why you're not invited (or specifically excluded) from conventions. Why you need to keep your beliefs secret from the people you interact with in the real world.
If you think you're fighting against a few media personalities, you're seriously confused. You're no longer fighting against cultural change, your fighting for it. We've already move well-beyond your ideal. You're going to have a very difficult time moving it backward as those few still clinging to a by-gone era adapt or die.
Oh? On issues of equality, history has always left us with hero's and villains, liberators and oppressors, the righteous and the unholy. During their time, each side thought they were fighting for what was right. On one side, a brighter future, the other, their current way of life. The victor has universally been those on the side of equality. The Klan is now a hate group, universally reviled. The John Birch Society, who argued against civil rights in a manner similar to your own, now looks like a relic from a less civilized era. No one in polite society associates with them today. Slavery is a distant memory, women have the right to vote, homosexuals can get married. Kim Davis will not be remembered as a brave hero fighting for what she believes is right, but as the last of the few backward and hateful hold-outs.
JBS is a neat example, as your approach is so similar. You use words like "SJW" in place of "communist" to describe the monster lurking under the bed that threatens our very existence. It's no different than "Jews" in ages past or "Muslims" a few years ago. You're simply looking to promote your own interests by leveraging fear of some dangerous 'other'.
SJW is just the monster you've imagined. You're not fighting some small faction in the war of public opinion. SJW represents everyone, save the ever shrinking minority that still agree with your outdated ideas. Equality has already won. You are Kim Davis. The last hold-outs from a by-gone era who can't cope with the realities of our new, enlightened, society. Like Carol O'Connor's character in All in the Family, you're not a bad guy, it's just that the world has moved on and your old oppressive ideals have no place.
That's what it means to be on the wrong side of history. To be remembered as the irrational or the unenlightened, the oppressor, the evil now vanquished. Joe McCarthy, David Duke, George Wallace, Kim Davis [...] all believed they were doing what was right.
You've imagined monsters that simply don't exist. There are no SJW's, that's a myth. There is civilized society and the old guard. The battle was won ages ago. Equality will happen, just as it's happened so many times in the past.
You're on the wrong side of history.
As for Mozilla, it's far from destroyed. That's just delusional. They're building new products, spearheading new standards, and making dramatic improvements to their core product. They're not reducing staff, canceling projects, or letting their core products languish. Nothing they're doing indicates they're destroyed -- or even in danger.
You're going to have to look a lot harder to find an exemplar.
Linux has no shortage of contributors, they have a shortage of reviewers. That is, people who stay with the project long enough to contribute as reviewers.
Lots of people want a kernel contribution on the resume, very few want to stick around after they've waded through that vile cesspit.
Linux isn't thriving, it's surviving. They have a constant shortage of reviewers. Why? Because so few developers stay with the project long enough to be able to contribute as reviewers. The toxic environment alienates developers. Even Linus agrees with me there.
Mozilla, in contrast, is constantly innovating. They're leading new standardization efforts, building new products, and making dramatic improvements to their core product.
What bothers me is that you seem to be defending this childish behavior as essential to the success of a project when it's clearly detrimental. I've yet to see any rational justification for that -- presumably because one does not exist.
You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
Even Linus admits he alienates developers. There's also numerous accounts of good developers who have left the project, sick of the toxicity. This isn't exactly a contentious point! The worst of the bunch even agrees with me here. I can only assume that you either don't know or that you're in denial.
(It's also no secret that they're perpetually short on reviewers. Why do you think that's the case?)
I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet.... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion.
The problem, of course, is that you want to have an unrelated discussion. If you want to talk about something other than the topic at hand, you should go off and start your own discussion. This has nothing to do with threats, ideology, or whatever else you've imagined.
Maybe you should use your platform to motivate females instead of trying to get millions of individuals scattered throughout the world to adopt your ideology.
I know which side of history I'll find myself on. I don't need to do anything. We've seen this same scenario play out countless times before. Equality always wins out in the end. You can fight against it all you want, but tide has already turned. Outdated attitudes like yours are becoming less acceptable with each passing day. I'll bet you're aware of this and find it terrifying. I'm sorry about that. It's no fun being left behind.
I do find your suggestion a bit odd, given your position. You want me to "motivate females", yet you fight (fruitlessly) against every attempt to offer them a chance and equal opportunity, even going as far as to deny that the obstacles they uniquely face even exist. It's not terribly coherent. With any luck, that dissonance will give way to enlightenment and you'll be able to join the rest of civilized society in the brighter future we'll inevitably create.
The problem you seem to have here, aside from the ability to communicate effectively, is that you think that criticizing something means you want to force that thing to change.
That's not how it works. You can offer criticism without demanding change. Stating what is is not the same as demanding it become what you believe it ought to be. I can also believe something ought to change and say as much without forcing or even wanting to force something to conform to my ideal.
You're free to continue to waste time and effort on pointless flame wars and alienate contributors with your toxic environments in your projects. That's all up to you. I will not. When I build things, I do not allow the kind of hostility that you seem to think is important. I've found that developers are much more productive when they're not busy sending angry messages and fuming over the latest hail of insults.
If you're right and your way is better you will attract the best and brightest. That's how it works.
That's interesting as it seems that the Linux kernel actively alienates the best and the brightest. What does that tell you about that approach?
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Except for all of the evidence. Developers leaving, numerous accounts of developers refusing to contribute due to the hostility found on LKML, the unimaginable waste of time from the needless flame wars that list is famous for producing. The list goes on.
Linux thrives in spite of the hostility, which has very obviously harmed the project.
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It's completely irrelevant to the point under discussion here. If you're unhappy with the topic, stop whining about it and go start your own discussion.
You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?".
So why hijack this discussion? If you want to talk about something else, go start your own discussion!
Your mistake is thinking that what was presented was evidence against the points she was trying to make. A bad example doesn't invalidate the claim, or address the claim in any way, it's simply a bad example.
Let's try a (bad) example: I claim that most US presidents were straight white males, and offer Hoover as an exemplar. You say that Hoover wasn't straight as you believe him to be a cross dresser. Does my bad example invalidate my claim? Does your argument address the point, or just example?
This isn't complicated.
it does appear that this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Though it should be noted that none of what you describe ever happened. No female developers slept with any journalists in exchange for favorable reviews. It was a lie from the start. A lie which you obviously believed.
Now, shut the fuck up and build something you fucking idiot.
I do build things. I find that I'm far more productive when I'm not wasting my time making petty insults and trying to prove that my dick is bigger than the guy next to me.
You should try it some time. You'll find you get a lot more accomplished.
Slashdot Mirror
Since forever. Your narrow, undefined, personal definition means nothing to anyone besides yourself.
So use Google Chrome. Surely, they'll act in your best interest.
The day the content guys pay for *my* internet access that's when they can serve me ads.
A long time ago, there lived a company called NetZero. They loved the internet and wanted everyone to have free access. They devised a plan by which users could connect to the internet for free, provided they were willing to allow an ad banner at the bottom of their browser.
All was well. Advertisers were happy, NetZero was happy, and (for the most part) their users were happy. But there lived an evil wizard who hated ads in all forms. He didn't like that banner ad. It made him very angry. He wanted free internet, but didn't think anyone should have to put up with an ad banner in exchange. With a wave of his mouse and a tap on his keyboard he made that ad banner vanish.
As word spread about the evil wizard and his dastardly spells, advertisers got nervous. The couldn't justify paying for ads that users wouldn't see -- and NetZero needed those advertisers to keep their magical internet service free to anyone who wanted it.
Sadly, no hero came to rescue NetZero from the evil wizard. It wasn't long before they became like every other ISP. Soon afterward, they died a quite death and were soon forgotten.
Well, then present some evidence. As you've seen, all the stuff floating around doesn't even begin to support the claims being made.
Given the lack of evidence, why to you continue to believe that obviously fictional narrative? What purpose does that serve? Aside from blind delusion, the only reason I can see is that you believe promoting that nonsense somehow supports an agenda unrelated to ethics in game journalism.
That's not an attempt to hide information. That's removing a disruptive and anti-social element from their forums.
Remember, there is NO EVIDENCE to cover-up. No attempt has been made to remove any damning information about the subject because none exists.
You can't hide something that doesn't exist.
The Streisand effect happens when someone attempts to hide something that was public, thereby calling attention to it.
In this case, we have an obviously false claim, supported by no evidence, that no one is trying to cover-up. The two are unrelated.
I suspect it's because the problem they claim exists does not, or that there is no evidence to support their belief. Repeating the obvious lie, in hope that people will believe it, has thus become their only option.
The question, then, is why continue to make false claims? What do you hope to accomplish? To call attention to a problem that doesn't seem to exist in hopes that it will become solved? How would you know? If the problem of ethics in games journalism was solved, there would be no evidence of ethical problems -- which is exactly the state we find ourselves in now.
Could it be that GG has a different agenda than the one they claim? Perhaps one more closely aligned with the rhetoric you hear from GG supporters?
Equality does not mean walking into a group and telling them how they have to act to accommodate your irrational reactions to their culture.
Equality also isn't a kind of snack cracker. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.
Equality means treating others as equals,
That's part of it, yes.
not attempting to make others communicate among themselves according to your pathetic sensibilities.
This, again, has nothing to do with equality. This is why I said that the parent didn't understand equality.
The second part is about behavior. This whole "discussion" is a lot like dealing with teenagers who don't understand why their expect to conform to particular norms. "Why can't we loiter here? What's the harm?" or "We're just ____. What's the big deal?" They simply can't understand that their behavior impacts others because they're still so self-centered. It's why we treat teens like children and not like adults.
See, we live in a society that does not accept the kind of behavior you're defending. You should expect to be scolded when you behave like an unruly teenager. That's how kids learn to live in a civilized society.
You only think people are trying to force you to behave because you feel a little shame when you get scolded.
The suspicion of the claims that she slept for favorable coverage does NOT mean the Kotaku article.
On the RPS article, you should note the date is early January, three months before they had any sort of romantic relationship. Regardless, there's no reason to suspect that there was any sort of exchange or arrangement. Quinn's game is highlighted along with two others in the RPS article, naming them as standouts in a list of 50 other games. If there was any sort of exchange, it's not evident from the article.
Beyond that, it goes to show the cronyism that is present in the journalism field.
I'm not convinced. I'm surprised you are. Quinn's later relationship to Grayson doesn't seem to have had any impact on his coverage of Quinn's work either before or after their romantic involvement. He never even reviewed the game.
this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.
He never even reviewed the game. The evidence just doesn't support this claim.
To the softer claim: I have to question why the only example of cronyism in the industry that sparked this outrage was a tryst between an obscure indie developer and an even more obscure freelance journalist. Particularly when there's no reason to believe that their romantic involvement had any impact on the journalistic work either before or after their romantic encounter.
Quinn and Grayson are held up as the smoking gun, yet their story does not exemplify the problems GG claims to be deeply concerned about. You can hardly blame anyone for thinking that they have a different agenda, particularly with all the other rhetoric that surrounds the movement, and the lack of evidence
The point stands that they had an agreement, she violated it, and it revoked their agreed consent before the issue.
Again, there's no evidence here that she's a rapist by her own definition. Where has she offered up this alleged definition? Where's the evidence these other things took place? What's the point? How does that relate to the other claims?
That's the most foolish argument I've ever seen. "It's too late".
Apple and Google were "too late" to the smartphone market. Microsoft was "too late" to the game console and tablet markets. It hasn't stopped them from being incredibly successful.
Market leaders change all the time. Why do you think now is the first time in history where the market is settled and new players don't stand a chance of succeeding?
Your claims get softer and softer the more facts we introduce: Here's the article you mention, give it a read.
It's pretty clear than anyone covering that topic would have, by necessity, mentioned Quinn. There are a lot of names mentioned in that article because it's about a game jam reality tv show of which she was a participant. To not mention Quinn would have been an odd omission. As for any special treatment, look at how much coverage Quinn gets compared to everyone else, and if that's positive, negative or neutral in general and in relation to the many other people mentioned and quoted in the article. There's no reason to suspect she was granted any special treatment.
It's pretty obvious to everyone that she wasn't exchanging sex for press coverage. You can believe that if you want, it's not impossible, but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. How do you justify this belief?
As for the rape by her own definition:
Still absurd nonsense, lacking any grounding in fact.
We won.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
If you're beyond facts and beyond reason, I can't help you.
She was sleeping with someone who gave her favorable coverage.
Again, this is completely untrue. This has been debunked countless times.
She is also a rapist by her own definition
That's just delusional.
Like I said, it's already long over. You've even had to make your monster larger-than-life, attributed to it all sorts of things that are laughably untrue, just to have a villain vile enough to pretend you're still fighting a righteous fight.
The war is over. You've already lost. You're shooting at phantoms, a product of fear and paranoia.
Just look at GG, a subset of your side. What happened? All the major gaming sites almost immediately put rules in place to keep your kind of rhetoric out. It's as unwelcome as hate speech. No one wants to be thought a safe harbor that sort of vile nonsense. They've been banned from conventions, Even 4chan, the bottom of the internet, has booted them out.
Where once your ideas were the norm, now their despised. You're clinging to an era long past. The world has moved on. You can't drag people back to the past. See, they don't see themselves as the monsters you make them out to be. They're not the ones who fought for equality, they just quietly accepted that everyone deserves equal treatment. What you see as evil SJW's are really just average people, happy to live in a better, more equitable, world.
Yes, it means you will lose a bit of privilege. Your status is threatened, but not by SJW's nor the twisted imaginary version you've created. No, your position is threatened by the new social norms and values that have long since replaced those old, outdated, ideas to which you still cling.
Tell me, does England have a Lord Protector or a Queen today?
Sure, though they have absolutely no power and authority. Just like GGs, MRAs, and other misogynists, they're a powerless vestige of an older, less civilized, era. The difference, of course, is that while the monarchy was troublesome, the superficial bits surrounding royalty were attractive. That's why we still have a powerless queen, princesses, and all the fun rituals and ceremony. We just don't allow them any real authority, to keep the troublesome bits of monarchy out of our good time.
Unfortunately, for you, there isn't anything fun about your brand of oppression. Your kind is dying out. Once you've lost the outrage, and no one can stay outraged forever, you'll find yourself hiding your socially unacceptable beliefs far more often from friends, family, work mates, etc. I would be surprised if you don't already closet some of your less-enlightened beliefs already.
We know you're a small but noisy faction with disproportionate representation in traditionally left-leaning media.
Oh, yes. The media loves controversy, and there are a few people who are taking advantage of this for a bit of attention. But, as I've already pointed out, they're not the real danger. The real danger to you comes from everyone else. See, the social norms have already changed. The battle for the hearts and minds of the people has already been lost to you. It's why your kind has such difficulty finding safe-harbor online. Why you're not invited (or specifically excluded) from conventions. Why you need to keep your beliefs secret from the people you interact with in the real world.
If you think you're fighting against a few media personalities, you're seriously confused. You're no longer fighting against cultural change, your fighting for it. We've already move well-beyond your ideal. You're going to have a very difficult time moving it backward as those few still clinging to a by-gone era adapt or die.
Ha ha, history does not work that way.
Oh? On issues of equality, history has always left us with hero's and villains, liberators and oppressors, the righteous and the unholy. During their time, each side thought they were fighting for what was right. On one side, a brighter future, the other, their current way of life. The victor has universally been those on the side of equality. The Klan is now a hate group, universally reviled. The John Birch Society, who argued against civil rights in a manner similar to your own, now looks like a relic from a less civilized era. No one in polite society associates with them today. Slavery is a distant memory, women have the right to vote, homosexuals can get married. Kim Davis will not be remembered as a brave hero fighting for what she believes is right, but as the last of the few backward and hateful hold-outs.
JBS is a neat example, as your approach is so similar. You use words like "SJW" in place of "communist" to describe the monster lurking under the bed that threatens our very existence. It's no different than "Jews" in ages past or "Muslims" a few years ago. You're simply looking to promote your own interests by leveraging fear of some dangerous 'other'.
SJW is just the monster you've imagined. You're not fighting some small faction in the war of public opinion. SJW represents everyone, save the ever shrinking minority that still agree with your outdated ideas. Equality has already won. You are Kim Davis. The last hold-outs from a by-gone era who can't cope with the realities of our new, enlightened, society. Like Carol O'Connor's character in All in the Family, you're not a bad guy, it's just that the world has moved on and your old oppressive ideals have no place.
That's what it means to be on the wrong side of history. To be remembered as the irrational or the unenlightened, the oppressor, the evil now vanquished. Joe McCarthy, David Duke, George Wallace, Kim Davis [...] all believed they were doing what was right.
You've imagined monsters that simply don't exist. There are no SJW's, that's a myth. There is civilized society and the old guard. The battle was won ages ago. Equality will happen, just as it's happened so many times in the past.
You're on the wrong side of history.
As for Mozilla, it's far from destroyed. That's just delusional. They're building new products, spearheading new standards, and making dramatic improvements to their core product. They're not reducing staff, canceling projects, or letting their core products languish. Nothing they're doing indicates they're destroyed -- or even in danger.
You're going to have to look a lot harder to find an exemplar.
All OSS projects are perpetually short on staff
Linux has no shortage of contributors, they have a shortage of reviewers. That is, people who stay with the project long enough to contribute as reviewers.
Lots of people want a kernel contribution on the resume, very few want to stick around after they've waded through that vile cesspit.
Linux isn't thriving, it's surviving. They have a constant shortage of reviewers. Why? Because so few developers stay with the project long enough to be able to contribute as reviewers. The toxic environment alienates developers. Even Linus agrees with me there.
Mozilla, in contrast, is constantly innovating. They're leading new standardization efforts, building new products, and making dramatic improvements to their core product.
What bothers me is that you seem to be defending this childish behavior as essential to the success of a project when it's clearly detrimental. I've yet to see any rational justification for that -- presumably because one does not exist.
Nonsense. There is a strong social aspect that you refuse to acknowledge. You have this mythical ideal of a meritocracy that simply does not exist.
Politics, bias, interpersonal conflict, all trump technology -- even in the Linux kernel.
Well said.
You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
Even Linus admits he alienates developers. There's also numerous accounts of good developers who have left the project, sick of the toxicity. This isn't exactly a contentious point! The worst of the bunch even agrees with me here. I can only assume that you either don't know or that you're in denial.
(It's also no secret that they're perpetually short on reviewers. Why do you think that's the case?)
I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet .... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion.
The problem, of course, is that you want to have an unrelated discussion. If you want to talk about something other than the topic at hand, you should go off and start your own discussion. This has nothing to do with threats, ideology, or whatever else you've imagined.
Maybe you should use your platform to motivate females instead of trying to get millions of individuals scattered throughout the world to adopt your ideology.
I know which side of history I'll find myself on. I don't need to do anything. We've seen this same scenario play out countless times before. Equality always wins out in the end. You can fight against it all you want, but tide has already turned. Outdated attitudes like yours are becoming less acceptable with each passing day. I'll bet you're aware of this and find it terrifying. I'm sorry about that. It's no fun being left behind.
I do find your suggestion a bit odd, given your position. You want me to "motivate females", yet you fight (fruitlessly) against every attempt to offer them a chance and equal opportunity, even going as far as to deny that the obstacles they uniquely face even exist. It's not terribly coherent. With any luck, that dissonance will give way to enlightenment and you'll be able to join the rest of civilized society in the brighter future we'll inevitably create.
The problem you seem to have here, aside from the ability to communicate effectively, is that you think that criticizing something means you want to force that thing to change.
That's not how it works. You can offer criticism without demanding change. Stating what is is not the same as demanding it become what you believe it ought to be. I can also believe something ought to change and say as much without forcing or even wanting to force something to conform to my ideal.
You're free to continue to waste time and effort on pointless flame wars and alienate contributors with your toxic environments in your projects. That's all up to you. I will not. When I build things, I do not allow the kind of hostility that you seem to think is important. I've found that developers are much more productive when they're not busy sending angry messages and fuming over the latest hail of insults.
If you're right and your way is better you will attract the best and brightest. That's how it works.
That's interesting as it seems that the Linux kernel actively alienates the best and the brightest. What does that tell you about that approach?
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Except for all of the evidence. Developers leaving, numerous accounts of developers refusing to contribute due to the hostility found on LKML, the unimaginable waste of time from the needless flame wars that list is famous for producing. The list goes on.
Linux thrives in spite of the hostility, which has very obviously harmed the project.
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It's completely irrelevant to the point under discussion here. If you're unhappy with the topic, stop whining about it and go start your own discussion.
You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?".
So why hijack this discussion? If you want to talk about something else, go start your own discussion!
You ask for evidence, you get evidence,
Your mistake is thinking that what was presented was evidence against the points she was trying to make. A bad example doesn't invalidate the claim, or address the claim in any way, it's simply a bad example.
Let's try a (bad) example: I claim that most US presidents were straight white males, and offer Hoover as an exemplar. You say that Hoover wasn't straight as you believe him to be a cross dresser. Does my bad example invalidate my claim? Does your argument address the point, or just example?
This isn't complicated.
it does appear that this whole "gamergate" thing is indeed about a developer fucking a reporter in order to get better reviews and that being unethical.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Though it should be noted that none of what you describe ever happened. No female developers slept with any journalists in exchange for favorable reviews. It was a lie from the start. A lie which you obviously believed.
You mean the model BlackBerry has used for over a decade.
the barriers to entry are absolutely fucking zero
You're welcome.
Now, shut the fuck up and build something you fucking idiot.
I do build things. I find that I'm far more productive when I'm not wasting my time making petty insults and trying to prove that my dick is bigger than the guy next to me.
You should try it some time. You'll find you get a lot more accomplished.