SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Lest you think this is yet another CoC, the guidelines assure you that they are not a CoC.
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, initial version, have been published in https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html. On behalf of the GNU Project, I ask all GNU contributors to make their best efforts to follow these guidelines in GNU Project discuaaions[sic].
[ . . . ] The difference between kind communication guidelines and a code of conduct is a matter of the basic overall approach.
A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them.
[...] The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind.
[ . . . . ] I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action
The best way to avoid conflict and encourage diversity is to force everyone to voluntarily think alike.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 29 2018, @02:49PM (36 children)
Wow, brave. In the context of 2018 politics, that's the equivalent of saying something like "1488" or "I voted for David Duke" in the 00s. He's gonna get a lot of heat for not hating white men enough.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday October 29 2018, @03:58PM (27 children)
Well, I mean, it is exactly what you Nazi shits say when you're worried someone with qualms about not being a piece of shit might see, right?
This whole "find a private discord, plan a genocide, come up with carefully whitewashed white power slogans for the center right to mindlessly defend" thing isn't new. We're used to it now.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 29 2018, @04:36PM (23 children)
Can you elaborate? I can't understand a word you're saying. Maybe verbosity will clear things up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 29 2018, @05:06PM (22 children)
VLM has posted in the past about their covert nazi shit. That's one half
The other half is paying attention to the shit the nazis gen up to direct the national converastion towards a stupider place "it's okay to be white" and shit like that was genuinely created for people like you to eat up and regurgitate so they get mainstreamed. Purposefully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
I wonder whether they are all evil white cishet males.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30 2018, @05:53AM
Finally the patriarchy has been uncovered!
Quick, somebody let Hillary know about this so she can call in the drone strikes when it's her turn for the presidency in 2020!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 29 2018, @05:59PM (14 children)
Well - maybe we can agree that "it's okay to be white" is stupid. I don't have to apologize, or ask anyone's approval for being mostly white. I am what I am, and anyone who doesn't like it can just fuck off. Do any soylentils feel compelled to apologize for being Black, Indian, Puerto Rican, Catholic, or whatever? If so - I kinda feel sorry for you. Maybe I'll offer a word of condolence after I've laughed my ass off.
What the progressives fail to understand is, the more shit that is stirred up against white people, the more pressure there is on those white people to move closer to the white supremacy assholes. Look at the history of Jews, in Europe. Why did the Jews dwell in Jewish ghettos, almost exclusively? Because they were PUSHED into the ghettos. The ghettos were the only place where a Jew might find any support, if/when he needed support.
At the same time, and prior to, the European ghettos, the Jews didn't feel especially compelled to recreate Israel. Only when the pogroms became unbearable, only after the Nazis attempted to exterminate them, did the Jews find the will, along with the backing, to take back Israel.
If you won't support or help a white guy when he needs it, how can you pretend surprise that white guys go to other white guys for help?
Are you going to condemn black people who have relied on other black people throughout American history? Maybe you're going to justify the Tulsa riots? The blacks deserved what they got, for making each other wealthy?
Keep the pressure up, man. Eventually, it will blow up in your face.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @06:21PM (6 children)
"I don't have to apologize, or ask anyone's approval for being mostly white."
I haven't heard/seen a single person say you have to apologize. More stupid whinging about things that aren't happening. The real point wooshed over your head so fast you must have some sort of mental schizophrenia brewing around in that noggin which prevents you from comprehending very specific points. Probably because your mental state would collapse if you had to address the various paradoxes you try and inhabit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @06:28PM (1 child)
"Forgive me for being white. Please, take my spot instead."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30 2018, @06:13AM
>> "Forgive me for being white. Please, take my spot instead."
Let's be honest... How many affirmative action proponents -- who are not a member of a group given preferential treatment -- have actually ever given up their own spot to make room for a diversity hire?
With recent evens on the topic of affirmative action: A more apt statement is: [npr.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 29 2018, @06:44PM (3 children)
Since you're so smart - you should elaborate. Really, all you've done here is to make some empty rhetorical remarks.
Is affirmative action racist, or is it not? Is all this diversity bullshit racist, or is it not? Every bit of it is intentionally designed to hold down a white person, while some OTHER person walks on his back. "Well, Son, you could have gone to college, but there were too many not-white people who wanted your spot." "Johnson, you've been with the company for 35 years, and you deserve a big promotion. But, affirmative action says we have to put Jennifer in that spot, because she's gay and female." "We lost the contract. The government awarded the contract to some company I've never heard of, because they have a female CEO, two Blacks on the Board of Directors, and they employ more than 70% minorities."
None of that makes sense, unless you accept racism and sexism.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @08:59PM (2 children)
Well since you're such a moron who can't bother to learn about the things you whinge whinge WHIIIINGE on about
"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually."
Is it prejudiced? Obviously, by definition.
The real question here, are you willing to fix the systemic prejudice against the groups named above?
I don't like such policies myself, but fixing systemic prejudice is not a simple task.
Your complaining is the epitome of 1st world white people problems. You grew up ignoring the cries of minorities and women, but now that it tangentially affects your preferred "in group" you suddenly care and make a stink all the fucking time. I'd care more about your feelings if you weren't aligned with the group of people who promote such divisions and hide behind double talk and outright lies.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)
I reject your notion that there is "systemic prejudice'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @11:40PM
How very wight of you!
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Monday October 29 2018, @06:37PM (2 children)
Balfour declaration - 1917
Formation of Nazi party - 1920
Clearly _some_ Jews (and powerful supporters thereof) felt compelled to recreate Israel way before the Nazis attempted extermination.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 29 2018, @06:47PM (1 child)
Yes, Balfour 1917. And, in fact, there were rabble rousers in Israel prior to WW2 stirring the pot. My statement stands - there was little push, and little support for Israel, until WW2. WW2 opened the floodgates.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday October 29 2018, @11:52PM
First zionist congress, 1897...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday October 29 2018, @07:18PM (3 children)
That one is going down as one of the the "greatest hits" of the chans. It is truly perfect as propaganda. For those who do not know there are a few rules for using IOTBW;
1. Print it on a sheet of plain white paper in the approved typeface, Martel Sans ExtraLight
This turns the statement into a whisper.
2. Put NOTHING else on the paper. No links, no mark for any organization sponsoring the antic, etc. The viewer must be forced to confront those five words in total isolation, free from the out of dismissing it because of an objectionable group identified on the flyer. They must then answer the question implied, "Is it OK to be White?"
They will get their answer when the authorities take the flyer's existence as a "Hate Crime" and seek to identify the perp who placed it for punishment. It is indeed a crime in all of the West now to speak those works, to print those words and to the greatest extent they can enforce it, to think those words. There are in face entire university departments dedicated to the notion that Whiteness is the largest single problem facing the planet and the elimination of Whiteness the single great quest of there lifetime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @11:43PM
And how very wight of you, too!!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 03 2018, @03:46AM (1 child)
Just a followup link from Drudge Report. I'm sure many can't believe such a thing would be hate speech. Behold, in TEXAS:
'It’s Okay To Be White’ Signs Pop Up In Fort Worth Neighborhood
Yes, police are investigating. And note the photo, the exact thing I described right down to the typeface.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 03 2018, @03:49AM
Reposting because I fudged up the link....
Just a followup link from Drudge Report. I'm sure many can't believe such a thing would be hate speech. Behold, in TEXAS:
'It’s Okay To Be White’ Signs Pop Up In Fort Worth Neighborhood [cbslocal.com]
Yes, police are investigating. And note the photo, the exact thing I described right down to the typeface.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday October 29 2018, @06:57PM (2 children)
So you believe that the other side is equivalent to comic book villians, and you explain the fact that their rhetoric doesn't seem to rise to the level of comic book villians as being a ploy to attract more people to their true, secret, cause.
This reminds me of a certain other poster who says that the "progs" have a secret plan to transform the U.N. into a world government and enslave everyone.
Replace progs with nazis, U.N. with Trump (the enslavement part can stay the same). It's like deja-vu. Maybe you two are the same poster. Don't deny it now!
When hunting witches, always remember that "I'm not a witch!" is exactly what a witch would say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @09:51PM
Who cares what they say, just toss em' in the lake and see if they float.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 30 2018, @04:46AM
Oh no, comic book villains tend to be grandiose and have a vision for the future that crosses moral boundaries easily
The "other side" is petty and cruel.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 30 2018, @11:36AM (1 child)
Why could it possibly be bad for this to be mainstream? If leftist culture is actively racist, shouldn't people know?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 31 2018, @11:04AM
What do you mean "if"?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @05:00PM
Reading through your comments here makes me think that you're a bigot, a racist, and a sexist. I wouldn't want to associate with you on any project; you seem like a real loser.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday October 29 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)
Wait, you think a conspiracy of nazis sets the slogans for moderate-right US citizens? So, what, like at a convention or something? They run some brainstorming groups and then vote?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @11:18PM
Brainstorming? Brainstormfronting!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Monday October 29 2018, @04:31PM (7 children)
That's a very good observation, and you're right about this: If anyone says that diversity for the sake of diversity is not their goal in life, they are indeed often treated as hateful racists.
One problem* with that viewpoint is that its results are counter to its stated goals.
Let's consider two approaches.
#1:
Problem: We do not have enough diversity.
Solution: (adds people from various under-represented groups until project explodes from incompetence and/or personal infighting)
Result: They're wrong, not us! Our goal was diversity!
(facepalm. sigh.)
#2:
Problem: We do not have enough diversity.
Solution: Let's figure out why that would be. Ah, I see a lot of people behaving in rude, intolerant ways that run others off. Let's be kind to each other instead. The rudeness probably isn't necessary.
Result: No more impediment of that nature to people joining - cast of characters who join is more diverse.
Now, when intelligent people think about it rationally in the light of day, #2 looks like it's probably a better approach.
The problem--indicated in the criticism you point out--is that people don't think about diversity much intelligently, or rationally, or in the light of day. They think about it emotionally, with anger and passion, and make destructive decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, and *insist* that the destructive decisions and erroneous conclusions are *absolutely right* and *the only way* and everyone who disagrees is a bigot.
(facepalm. sigh.)
I am not saying I know the answer, but I see this often enough to know that it's something we should probably work to address and that will help us come up with an answer.
--------
* of many.
(Score: 3, Funny) by requerdanos on Monday October 29 2018, @04:34PM
Forgot to mention. Diversity for the sake of diversity is not my goal in life.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday October 29 2018, @06:52PM (5 children)
Problems with your thinking:
1. #2 has rarely, if ever, been shown to work in the real world. Once you accept the premise that diversity is a goal though, the failure to work always proceeds to #1 and destruction.
2., You also ASSume diversity, in the narrow SJW sense, is desirable. That of course requires total and absolute intolerance toward anyone who disagrees with the new project goal or even the approved $current_year version of the definition of diversity.
3. The only diversity that should be sought out in a software project is diversity of approaches and ways of thinking. If that comes from diverse ethnic backgrounds and such, great. But a project filled with people of every color and preferred sexual perversion thinking the exact California corporate approved thoughts brings no additional benefit and in the real world is always shown to produce unhelpful chaos and politics.
4. Most Free / Open software is developed on mailing lists and public repos. It is by definition color blind and blind to everything else for that matter. If "Diverse" people must always be demanding everyone else make special accommodation (that tends to lower everyone else's productivity) for them instead of starting their own projects it does raise fairly obvious questions that everyone seems to avoid. Better still, why aren't we occasionally noticing, after years of using contributing to a project, that the leader is a non-white male?
5. Freedom of association means freedom to NOT associate or it is merely doublespeak.
And above all else remember this
DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @08:31PM
I'm sorry you're so scared of someone different from you.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @10:04PM
Diversity isn't the goal. It's a byproduct of not chasing away people who are different than you. But, if your goal is to mark your territory by chasing away anyone who is, or thinks, different than you then it's understandable that you would mistakenly assume that diversity is the goal (since it is antithetical to your goal).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29 2018, @10:06PM
I hear whistles carried on the wind. Lo, what darkness falls upon this land? A fearful wind, tearing at the fabric of homogeneity is whipping up terrors unknown. The storm brings tricks for all the kids who dare be different, white ropes and smoldering crosses.
Jmorris cries for the first time in his life yet his therapist laments, tears of joy were not what they sent.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 30 2018, @12:32AM
No, it produces conflict, which, as I and others say otherwhere in this thread, is often a good thing.
These are actually the successes you don't hear about because working together was the goal, not having one or more token members of some protected minority group.
I don't assume such a thing. "SJW Diversity" is a destructive thing which is in fact not desirable, partly for the reasons you cite. What I am pointing out with #2 above is that when people say "Hey, there's (no|not enough) diversity", they are identifying a symptom of something, and not a problem that can be cured by diversity. Maybe there's no diversity because it's a small group from similar backgrounds and that's great, or maybe it's because people are excluding others who could be helpful.
Absolutely correct.
That's because of a few tautologies: people, in general, know what they know. And are uncomfortable outside their comfort zones. Someone from "outside the group" who is different in ways significant enough to trigger that "state of unknown"/"outside comfort zone" brings to light the fact that many people are very rude when brought to that point. This is the main reason why both #1 and #2 fail. For a project to develop natural diversity as it grows, people have to work against being jerks against their fear of the unknown and the different. Not all of them are up to the task without coercion.
It isn't blind in the way that you seem to think. Some groups spontaneously form as diverse groups initially, but most groups probably form as sets of similar people with similar prejudices. "Seeing" that the new guy is purple, or from another culture (or that the new guy is actually a girl), would often be better because some people, seeing such a thing, would knock off the pink-group racist jokes against purples or stereotypical male attitudes against women that they may have. But the "blind" group who is a group of similar people with similar prejudices just keeps it up "Hey you guys want to hear the latest Purple Woman Joke? Ha ha The pink guy who looks like us said you can't order a big mac here this is a hardware store!"
This "people often being jerks who are rude" is where the need for things like Niceness Codes and such spring from.
Which is enormously counter-productive. This erroneous thinking comes from people thinking that diversity *is* the goal, instead of recognizing that diversity is something that can advance the goal, whatever it already is.
Some groups have the "lightning strikes" phenomenon where the people aren't mostly jerks just by random chance. After all, every combination is just about as likely as any other, statistically speaking, if the process is initially "blind."
That's why the group of people from similar backgrounds working together for a common purpose is a good, noble, and fine thing to have, despite all the emotional, erroneous nonsense to the contrary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31 2018, @11:06AM
DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR
Diversity can be created out of nothing, proximity is not a requirement anymore. Interests + power = war.