SoylentNews

LLVM Contributor Quits Citing Inclusivity Intolerance

posted by martyb on Friday May 04 2018, @08:50AM   
from the Nice-Big-CoC dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Rafael Avila de Espindola, one of the top contributors to the LLVM compiler toolset, has cut ties with the open source project over what he perceives as code of conduct hypocrisy and support for ethnic favoritism. In a message posted to the LLVM mailing list, de Espindola said he was leaving immediately and cited changes in the community.

LLVM project founder, Chris Lattner responded; "I applaud Rafael for standing by his personal principles, this must have been a hard decision." Lattner also insisted that "it is critical to the long term health of the project that we preserve an inclusive community."

---

Original Submission

• Re:Good on himRe:Good on him (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:39PM (3 children)

  by PiMuNu (3823) on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:39PM (#676071)

  I'm okay with it. Anecdotally, I know more people that have been in a situation to have been protected by such legislation than to have been hurt by it (but I do know instances where people have, to use your horrible wording, "played the SJW reasons card").

  I don't know any situations where it really hit the lawyers, so I can't make stronger statement.

  To turn it around, "If you live in a society where people can use gender, race, etc as an excuse to treat people badly, I'd advise picking another society on the grounds of yours sucks". Swings, meet roundabouts. It comes down to personal preference and ability to move.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:Good on himRe:Good on him (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:55PM (2 children)

  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday May 05 2018, @02:55PM (#676074) Homepage Journal

  That's not turning it around. Actual discrimination is an entirely different issue than false claims of it. It's entirely possible to think those practicing either could use a good public flaying.

  As for the "horrible wording", if you can't tell the difference between an SJW and a progressive/liberal and don't despise SJWs as as much as I do, you need to take a closer look at what they've been doing in your name and the control of your side of the aisle they've acquired. That's assuming for politeness's sake that you're not one of them yourself.

  --
  My rights don't end where your fear begins.

  Parent

  • Re:Good on himRe:Good on him (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 08 2018, @01:43PM (1 child)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday May 08 2018, @01:43PM (#677011)

    > don't despise SJWs as as much as I do

    The "SJW" thing seems to be a US thing. It seems to be used as a label for people who are pretending to be nice and thoughtful towards minorities/etc but are actually horrid politicos? In my experience that is not a particularly big group, although I have known people like that. It seems, on this site, to be used more as a slur on people who are genuinely trying to be nice, to imply that they are some horrible politico with some sinister agenda. So I find the acronym pretty unpleasant. Sorry.

    I don't really know what it means in the UK context. For example, we have "champagne socialists" and "political correctness" as memes which might be some aspect of it? But e.g. the leader of the opposition is actually a genuine die-hard socialist in the UK (rather than whatever the democrats are in the US). In the UK the politicians seem less disingenuous in the UK as far as I can tell, and SJW doesnt really map terribly well.

    Parent

    • Re:Good on him(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 08 2018, @02:35PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday May 08 2018, @02:35PM (#677031) Homepage Journal

      It seems to be used as a label for people who are pretending to be nice and thoughtful towards minorities/etc but are actually horrid politicos?

      Not really, though there are some of those in the SJW ranks for certain. I'll give you a list of their most typical traits of the US ones and let you work out who is one and who isn't for yourself:

      • White middle-to-upper class college girls. Generally unattractive and with a penchant for wacky colored hair.
      • Their beta male minions.
      • Believe $their_nation is beneath contempt both historically and currently.
      • Cheerlead every culture except the dominant one of $their_nation, which should be dismantled.
      • Apply none of their standards of belief to other cultures. (e.g. Islamic oppression of women is peachy keen.)
      • Believe embracing an aspect of another culture is Cultural Appropriation and deserving of platform denial and being socially ostracized.
      • Believe not in equality but in granting privilege to those historically oppressed. Actual equality is always seen as bigotry.
      • Define oppression as anyone even holding an opinion less favorable than cheerleading of the group in question.
      • Define free speech as the freedom to agree with them. All else is hate speech and should be banned.
      • Where a legal ban does not exist, everyone disagreeing with them should be denied platform and socially ostracized by any means necessary, legal or not.
      • Primary debate tactic is calling their opponent some flavor of bigot, using as much hyperbole as they feel necessary, in order to end discussion on the matter.
      • Believe volume can be substituted for reason.

      That's not a comprehensive list by any means but it hits the high points.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.

      Parent