Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

LLVM Contributor Quits Citing Inclusivity Intolerance

posted by martyb on Friday May 04 2018, @08:50AM   Printer-friendly
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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
LLVM Contributor Quits Citing Inclusivity Intolerance | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

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

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2