SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:08PM
This is the best place I've found to put this, in-between all the "tolerance doesn't mean tolerating intolerance" nonsense, so I'll reply to you.
Free speech, as it applies to law, only says the law can't punish it. Whoopdee-doo. So, at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned, you can carry on a vendetta (as was done against Brendan Eich), and you're in the clear! Yay, you got to seriously fuck up someone's life because he said something you don't like, and it didn't violate the First Amendment because you're not the government!
Is that the kind of society we want to live in? I would argue no. I would argue that we should let everyone speak his mind and, even if their opinions are totally whacked like Ethanol-Fueled's are (I've only read a little, but I don't think I agree with him much based on what I read), we shouldn't discriminate against him in employment, etc., just because he has some weird, discriminatory ideas. I don't think we should say to white supremacists (or black or Asian or whatever supremacists), "Your opinions are disgusting, so you can't work here." If they put up inappropriate posters by their desks, or insult people for their race, or otherwise DISRUPT THE WORKPLACE, then sure, get rid of them. But just because they think things you don't like? That's thoughtcrime.
So what about here. Well, someone earlier said Ethanol-Fueled was banned from Slashdot; maybe he can enlighten us on whether that's true. If it is, I think it's just another example of Slashdot slowly circling the drain. I remember when the only thing Slashdot banned was a single comment on Scientology, and that was only because they lost a court case, and they responded with a front-page anti-Scientology education story to punish those who forced their hands against free speech on Slashdot. That's the Slashdot I want to remember -- not a Slashdot that bans accounts because they post racist nonsense.
So, I think we should try to model the Slashdot of old and go to great lengths NOT to ban accounts or their posts on this site. Being a bastion of free speech worked for Slashdot for many years; it will work for us, too. NCommander already basically said he wasn't going to ban accounts for their views; I think that's the right approach. As far as alienating members of the community who won't "tolerate hate" ... all I have to say to that is that the Internet requires a little bit of a thick skin, and it's bad for many reasons not to have a thick skin, so we should encourage our users to develop one. Having a thick skin means you don't get offended easily and therefore don't waste your time trying to take revenge on those who offended you, or feeding trolls, or caring too much what other people think of you. We want to model Slashdot, well ... we're going to get the GNAA. And if Slashdot could handle the GNAA, and Goatse trolling, and Ethanol-Fueled, we can, too.
---linuxrocks123
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday April 14 2014, @01:23AM
I was banned, but I trolled there for many years, saying way worse than what I said here. However, I often had excellent karma and frequently pulled +4 and +5 comments right up until the moment when they banned me. They even finally published one of my submissions in spite of years of trolling. I had been trolling Slashdot professionally logged in under that username since around 2008, and was not actually banned until 2012-ish, and the funny part was that I had mellowed considerably well before I was banned.
The ban was probably not a result of the community -- many people enjoyed and modded up my trolls as well as the majority of my comments, which were serious.
The ban was most likely was due to the increasing influence of advertisers, and having people like me around would be very bad for an entity looking to get bought-out.
You know how I found this place? I posted an anonymous troll in Slashdot and somebody replied anonymously with a link to Soylent news, inviting me to join! But, it seems that I'm not part of certain individuals' visions of their circlejerk utopia, hence this needless Streisanding of a tasteless joke to the front page and this rancorous debate.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 14 2014, @01:45PM
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this, as far as the part about Brendan Eich. Eich was not an employee. He was the CEO. CEOs and other executives are not employees in the normal sense of the term. If he was some low-level coder, then yes, it would have been absolutely wrong to dismiss him just for making a publicly-visible political contribution (though it may have been legal, not sure about that though, that depends on state law). The company's CEO is the public face of the company, so the company has every right to be picky about who fills that seat. Should a company overlook the fact that someone is a KKK leader when they apply for a CEO position there? Of course not; that would reflect extremely poorly on that company. It's no different here. Brendan's values clearly did not reflect well on the company, so there was likely (we don't really know) pressure on him to willingly step down.
Here's another example: a company selling Kosher foods wants to make a TV ad, and needs a male actor. Mel Gibson wants to audition for the part. Should the company be required to overlook his infamous anti-Jewish outburst and consider him for the part? Of course not; they'd be destroying their own reputation with their customer base by airing a commercial with him in it, so they have every right to discriminate based on someone's opinion.
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday April 16 2014, @02:35PM
For certain extremely visible positions -- essentially political positions -- this may be the case. However, the position of CEO of Mozilla wasn't such an extremely visible position, at least until some people decided to make it that way. I don't know what the exact job requirements of the position would have been, of course, but I would imagine it would be setting the direction for the commercial activities of the Mozilla Corporation under heavy guidance of the sole shareholder of that corporation, the Mozilla Foundation. He wouldn't have been making speeches day in and day out; he would have been supervising high-level technical employees, perhaps making and reviewing budgets, stuff like that. Despite the title, he wouldn't have been the "big boss" by any means: the CEO of Mozilla Corporation reports to the Board of Directors, which are chosen by the Mozilla Foundation, which is the organization really in control (yes, they have a weird org chart). One complaint Mozilla had about this whole thing is that the none of the few (less than 10) employees who tweeted that they wanted Eich to resign actually reported to him, either directly or indirectly.
---linuxrocks123