SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Mighty Buzzard (18)
The Mighty Buzzard
themightybuzzard@proton.me
http://soylentne ... e+Mighty+Buzzard
"Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
themightybuzzard@proton.me
http://soylentne ... e+Mighty+Buzzard
"Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
Journal of The Mighty Buzzard (18)
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wednesday February 21, 18
12:34 PM
In case you haven't heard, FreeBSD has a new code of conduct that's seemingly pulled straight from the shit-spewing face of a blue-haired intersectional feminist.
Me, I refuse to contribute to any coding project with a code of conduct designed to protect people of one political ideology from those who disagree with them. They're of course welcome to do what they like but they'll be doing it without my help in any way.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
The person who marries for money usually earns every penny of it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:42PM (2 children)
So you're saying [thelibertyreview.com] you only contribute to CoC-less projects?
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @12:51PM (1 child)
Indeed. I only insert myself into those without a CoC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:03PM
This explains so much about TMB's conduct, especially it's disregard for standards of social decency.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Wednesday February 21 2018, @02:27PM (108 children)
I've just skimmed that code of conduct. None of it seems particularly unreasonable to this shrinking violet lefty SJW apologist. What in particular do you object to?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:01PM (18 children)
This one actually seems better than many, but
is a bit of a stretch. Exactly what "systemic oppression" are we referring to here? Perhaps specific rather than an overly description that assumes that everyone considers " systemic oppression" the same thing. Basically, that part of the first point *reeks* of SJW and could be removed without changing the meaning. I think it would actually be more clear.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:15PM (16 children)
I see you missed the Glossary part on the page where it's defined as
I myself found pretty funny the part that says (with bold added by yours truly)
Simulatedly *hugs* the FreeBSD devs (no consent whatsoever)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:37PM (8 children)
What kind of person would do •backrub• in an amateur technical club setting? Unlike •hug•, depending on the situation, that would creep me out directly.
Keep sex out of technical environments.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:00PM (7 children)
"Keep sex out of technical environments."
What kind of person sees *backrub* and thinks sex?
There's nothing sexual about back pain.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:10PM (3 children)
In my experience, about 10% of backrubs are administered because of some professed back pain. Backrubs are initiated because she wants to touch me, or I want to touch her, or we both want to touch each other. There are pills for backpain, after all.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)
But *backrub* on the Linux Kernel Mailing List for example? Even without prurient interest, it is inappropriate for technical community mailing lists.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:29PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:46PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:05PM (1 child)
George W fondling Angela Merkel?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:37AM
Oh thank you for that image!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:50PM
Samuel L. Jackson agrees [youtube.com].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Reziac on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:41PM
"Simulated" could be extended indefinitely, wherever one wishes to take offense. A smiley face in email becomes "he simulated leering at me!"
A year ago I'd have thought that ridiculous, but now it's not even a stretch.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:49PM (3 children)
... and *this* is the kind of CoC that drives me away from projects.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by archfeld on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:58PM (2 children)
ANY COC drives me away from a technical project. If they feel the need to dictate how I act in a technical project environment or there really IS a need for that kind of statement then I don't want to be involved anyways. I regularly work contracts for some of the largest employers in the US and the US government and I've never had a COC detailed to me nor been required to acknowledge such a load of trash. What I do at work is professional, what I do at home or on my own time is just that MY OWN. All HAIL freedom of speech and the right to dissent, disagree and be different. While I acknowledge the US and the western world in general is far from perfect it is however the best of the worst and I am DARN PROUD of being a US citizen.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:59AM (1 child)
I regularly work contracts for some of the largest employers in the US and the US government and I've never had a COC detailed to me nor been required to acknowledge such a load of trash.
That is such utter BS. Just 'cause you didn't read it doesn't make it nonexistant.
Every large corporation has policies about this kind of stuff.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:51PM
Yes they do have HR rules but nothing that comes even close to the trash listed by the FreeBSD COC. As for my reading how the hell do you know what I read or signed ? You as usual are assuming evidence not present. Since you are familiar with EVERY large corporation out there, not to mention the US Government, which does not contain anything regarding online hugs or backrubs. Sometimes is it best to remain silent and have everyone assume you are a jackass than it is to open your yapper and prove them correct.
Just to reinforce what I said, I've never had to or even been asked to sign anything approaching a COC like what was adopted by the FreeBSD project. Yes they do reference sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace but that as you pointed out is standard. Even the nanny State of California's HR policies aren't that socially retarded.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:52AM
Simulated physical contact ?!?! That's just plain stupid, almost as bad as people who get all uppity and demand that you stop yelling at them when you use all capitals. I remember the old days on my VT terminals when all you had was capitals or the old ASCII terminals in a Unix environment when all you used was lower case. The idea that the case of the characters has any direct change on the content of the message is plain ridiculous. I would compare it to people who think 'sexting' is the same as having an affair. Sticks and Stones as the old saying goes, and while words can be hurtful they are not the same as physical harm and anyone who tells you they are has not been punched in the nose on the play ground. People need to grow up. How are our 'precious little snowflakes' going to react in a world where you can do everything correctly AND still lose. Participation trophies are for 7 year olds, beyond that you need to know that it takes effort, grit and determination to succeed, that not everyone has what it takes or is willing to give what it takes, not to mention just plain luck or serendipity.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:01AM
After all, as any sort of moderator, you shouldn't care why the harassing behavior happens or what narrative it can get shoehorned into. You should just care about stopping the harassing behavior. Adding gobbledygook just makes errors in administering the code of conduct more likely as well as encouraging abuse of the rules in support of ideological windmill tilting.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:02PM
IAAL, and one thing I have to remind new people is that words and definitions are like programming. So one should substitute the value of the definition and see how it reads (and if you use the same wording a lot, you might consider "refactoring" and using a definition).
I was pleasantly surprised as to the definition of "dead names" was not some sort of "unperson" status. <sarcasm>However, I as someone who recently lost a relative, I find the use of the term "dead" in this way to be insensitive and triggering.</sarcasm>
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:17PM (31 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Reziac on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:31PM (27 children)
Dead on. Couldn't have said it better.
Good thing there are existing forks; FreeBSD is now dead for real, or soon will be.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:43PM (25 children)
FreeBSD is now dead for real, or soon will be.
That might have been the goal. What's rather disturbing is that even GNOME has more sensible rules [gnome.org].
The core team got taken for chumps and allowed derailment of the code-oriented focus of the project. What was injected into FreeBSD turns out to be copy-pasta from SJW activists [wikia.com]. Contrast that with the old FreeBSD rules [archive.org]. The project is no longer about code and the coders are no longer running the show, and that was done on purpose.
Who benefits most from the neutralization of the FreeBSD project these days beyond Bill?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:36PM (13 children)
I doubt anyone benefits; it's just another trophy for the SJWs to gut and wear as a skin suit.
Small outfits are easier to conquer than large ones. But conquer enough small ones, and eventually it makes the big ones look bad by comparison ("everyone else has a CoC, why don't you? do you hate your $diverse employees?"), and then they too become vulnerable to convergence.
This is the second-generation fruit of the Soviet demoralization campaign (if you haven't watched Yuri Bezmenov's talks on YT, do; they're most enlightening), and how it works when society as a whole no longer has a counterbalance in the form of an obvious and generally-accepted bad example (as so served the USSR).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by canopic jug on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:49PM (12 children)
it's just another trophy for the SJWs to gut and wear as a skin suit.
I agree about that part. However, I'd say that I would not be surprised if there was an additional layer that utilizes the SJWs by letting them loose on various targets.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Reziac on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:05PM (5 children)
Tentacles probably lead back to the Usual Suspects, Soros money and the like.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:00PM (4 children)
What is this crazy Soros meme all about? I keep seeing it used in Stupid Signalling all over the Intertubes.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:00PM (3 children)
Soros really does drop $billions on SJW causes.
For example, radio beacons on ships reveal that his efforts to "rescue" African Arabs migrating to the EU are not about people drowning off the coast. He funds ships that go to very near the coast of Libya. Basically, paddle a surfboard or air mattress out to his ship, and he'll take you all the way to Italy.
He's still trying to kill Brexit.
Just recently, he put $18 billion towards undermining western civilization.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:51AM (2 children)
So he's one of the good guys. No wonder he winds up the Alt-Wrong Far-Stupid snowflakes :-)
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:27PM (1 child)
No. Soros had a short position on deutsche bank [rt.com] - no matter his public position he was betting on Brexit. If you think he's importing migrants for altruistic reasons or that his publicly stated anti-brexit position reflects his financial (actual) position then you have much to learn about psychopaths [rt.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 23 2018, @12:51AM
https://www.rt.com/business/356111-soros-fund-bearish-sp/ [rt.com]
No wonder they're all so unhappy that the stock market keeps going up and up. They were counting on Hillary, tax increases, and a subsequent crash.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:29PM
I don't think it is quite that bad. I think it may have started similar to the Tea Party (not that they are the only group like this, just the clearest example most agree on), in that some group saw a bunch of useful idiots they could control. They then fed the beast until it grew so big, they could no longer control it. Now, the best they can hope for is that the monster they created doesn't decide to put the creators in its sights.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:32PM (4 children)
You might want to read Campus Wars: has Liberalism gone too far? [ft.com]
It is a frightening read.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @11:05PM (3 children)
I'm not an FT subscriber but it is clear that the rise in SJW activism in the US coincided with state guaranteed student loans. Gender studies and the ilk are simply not worthwhile degrees and the student loans that the Obama administration had on the balance sheet as assets will never be repaid, nor is there any chance of default. Worse still, the creation of all this credit has lead to price inflation across the board and it's making degrees in subjects like medicine, CS, physics and law unaffordable to students from all but the most wealthy backgrounds. Courses based on neo-Marxist bullshit need be de-funded, urgently.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Friday February 23 2018, @12:50PM (2 children)
You might find the graph "Average Net Price for Full-Time Students at Private Institutions Over Time" particularly interesting.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday February 23 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)
You don't account for financial aid in this way because that doesn't reduce the overall cost, contrary to the assertion. While a portion of that is merely cost waived by the college (and hence, a legitimate reduction in cost), there are other components to financial aid. For example, student loans are a part of financial aid, which cost is mostly borne by the student (the rest as subsidy by mostly the federal government). And there are a variety of aid programs that are payments from outside sources to the college (federal grants).
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday February 24 2018, @01:14PM
Astute remark.
Take a look at the graph mentioned, "Average Net Price for Full-Time Students at Private Institutions Over Time", and you'll notice that between 1993-4 and 2003-4 the (average) published sticker price [i.e. not accounting for "financial aid" -- the overall cost] rose with about $7000. Between 2003-4 and 2013-14 it rose with about the same amount. Fingering the Obama administration for the rise in tuition and fees is, hence, not correct, though it, and previous administrations before it, may be partially to blame.
Source [stlouisfed.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by http on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:12PM (9 children)
You suggested,
And I say bollocks. This means that people who aren't part of the dominant group (whatever that may be this decade) can contribute code without having to fuck around with politics.
If you're straight, cis, male, et cetera, or some combination, you have the luxury of not noticing heteronormativity, transphobia, sexism. If you are not all of those things and maybe more, it's not politics. It's your fucking entire life. You will continually be faced with visible hatred, dismissal and marginalization, discrimination... And if all you want to do is contribute code, wouldn't it be good to be able to do so without fucking stupid politics?
It's really not hard to not be an asshole to people. Sadly, assholes often necessitate formal or near-formal rules.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:24PM
What are you, a racist? Those traits have nothing to do with whether the code runs or not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:48PM
I don't have any diversity points, but I face the same obstacles if I want to contribute where a cabal holds power, and can dismiss contributions on other than technical grounds.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:06PM (6 children)
Why does any of that matter when it comes to writing code? If you are spending so much time talking politics and being offended I can't see much time for actually getting shit done.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:36PM
And there is the largest problem with allowing SJWs into any project. Most of them have no skill at anything except being able to go from zero to offended in 0.002 seconds. If they did they'd be out making money at it instead of spending all day looking for offense to take.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:44PM
This seems to be a common illness of weakening organizations. The political folks come in and make themselves appear indispensable, then spin things around getting nothing done, but appearing very active.
(Score: 5, Informative) by http on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:00PM (3 children)
This is the biggest whooosh I've seen this year. Or, you're an asshole.
If you're black, seeing the n-word thrown around on a project you're participating in... you aren't "spending time" being offended any more than someone hit by a baseball bat is "spending time" being assaulted. It's something other people are actively doing. You're being disrespected, and you have a choice: not address it, and live with an higher cotrisol level that will shorten your life in the long run; address it, and be maybe be called a delicate snowflake by morons like you (again higher coritisol levels); or just work on something else where people aren't being whiny pissbabies about not being allowed to throw slurs around.
My money is on you being an asshole. That doesn't rule out stupid.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:44AM
My money is on you still not getting that FreeBSD just got annexed by people not interested in the code. TMB nailed it when pointing out that if they had coding skills, the SJWs would be out getting money rather than looking for opportunities for being offended. You talk about stress levels. Anyone trying to contribute code in a project that has become all about politics and not coding is in for elevated stress and increased barriers to participation regardless of their non-coding attributes.
What does any of your agenda have to do with making the code run? Right. It doesn't.
> This is the biggest whooosh I've seen this year. Or, you're an asshole.
Going full-on adhominem just reinforces that fact: The CoC has nothing to do with coding and changes the focus of the project away from coding. The old FreeBSD CoC at least stayed out of the way of coding. You and your crowd are only about impairing a once highly successful project.
Again who benefits from putting sand in the gears, in addition to Bill? And don't throw in that alt-right talking point about "Soros" being the evil puppet master controlling all nefarious action. The ones that have hired and leveraged lots and lots of SJWs, especially fags, have been state-level agencies.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:49AM
Why so racist?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by dexcheque on Monday February 26 2018, @12:46AM
Assertive confrontation is not the same as making more rules. Being assertive engages that voluntary mental circuitry which helps avoid the cortisol hit you mention, while at the same time participating in the social group in a way that has been time-tested over the history of humanity to produce better and better enterprises. It's not always pleasant, but neither is achieving a hard-earned goal. If it's a valuable goal, there'll be plenty of other capable people going after it too.
Making more rules is an end-run around the entire game. It's kicking the chessboard over because you can't win the game. It's worse than insisting that This Game Is Invalid -- it is attempting to prevent the game at all. This tactic, unchallenged, erodes competence and agency.
If you want respect for the work you can do, you prove it. This non-violent competition is the same strategy men have been using cooperatively to one degree or another since men first started working together toward any common goal.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:52AM
Ah those old rules seemed pretty decent and also seemed to cover the serious offenses listed under the new rules but without going totally overboard. I do like them better. I still wonder whether someone was paranoid about legal action though and thought they'd better cover every possible eventuality for which someone might take action, in the new code.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:57PM
Don't go mocking the dead now, or we'll have them on your ass too!
Why do we limit all our respect for the dead and the pre-born? It's like, your life is sacred, until you take your first breath, then they're out to kill you....
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @03:46PM (1 child)
Hoping the Linux kernel project keeps repelling the SJW entryists. Probably greatly helps that Linus became financially independent, and can't be threatened with his career or funding.
If he gets attacked, most capable technical contributors and hardcore users can just go back to a virtual 90s mode.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:16PM
No worries there. Linus Torvalds is a rather conservative old asshole. If I had a son named Linus, he might look like Torvalds. Heterosexual white male - and I think he's Christian. Helluva nice guy - and he even makes pretty little girl children. Ain't no SJW's taking over Linus' project.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27 2018, @01:55AM
so i was thinking that this was just going overboard on the do unto others as you'd do unto oneself.
what in this do you want to do to yourself that is so great that you are very upset its forbidden?
i just dont get this animosity. i mean i would rather just check in the code and have people leave me alone. all that bs around it isnt liberal sjw stuff, its like a don't be a jerk privacy policy stuff. i wouldnt do anything like what they forbid and wouldn't care to work with someone that did
but im an introvert and cant see that any other way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:27PM (1 child)
You disagree that I didn't personally find anything particularly unreasonable? Perhaps you think I am in denial? Maybe I am. We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:49PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:31PM (53 children)
Every single bullet point. Yes, all of them. Each and every one is designed not to make the project a pleasant environment to work in but to make it easy to demonize and eject anyone not in the SJW cult.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:40PM (52 children)
Just to clarify, you believe that
-- Threats of violence.
-- Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
-- Deliberate intimidation.
-- Stalking or following.
-- Unwelcome sexual attention.
are normal, reasonable activities that only nutjobs would consider to be inappropriate. Is that correct?
I just want to make sure I understand your point of view Buzzard.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:52PM (51 children)
When the criteria necessary to meet each is defined by a SJW? You bet your sweet bippy.
Consider the last one, for instance. It sounds good if you don't actually read it. Once you do though you realize that asking someone out or even simply complimenting them can get you thrown off the project with a scarlet letter for a reference.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:06PM (35 children)
Please define the term "SJW." I honestly don't know what it means.
So "stalking/following" and "inciting others to harm another person" are normal, reasonable activities? That's funny, most legal codes call those activities crimes.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:20PM (10 children)
Stalking or following? You ever hit someone's user info page and see what all they'd been talking about lately? Boom. You're literally Hitler and given the boot.
Inciting others to harm another person? My bot on IRC is fairly violent. Try the #sammich <someone> command sometime. Even discounting him, not a week goes by that violence is not joked about. Usually not even a day.
When the arbiters are perfectly willing to interpret the rules in a manner no sane person would, you need to consider how they're going to be used not just how you would interpret them.
As for the term, no, I won't define it. I could but if you aren't already well aware of what they are and that they are a very real problem to western society, you wouldn't believe that people like that actually exist; they're that fucking insane. If you really want to know, google it. There are plenty of examples of their insanity out there that aren't coming from me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:41PM (9 children)
Many of those rules could certainly be interpreted in an unreasonable way to condemn someone that doesn't deserve it but then you should get mad at the moderator / overlord for abusing their powers in an unreasonable way. It doesn't mean that the rules themselves are unreasonable, so don't get mad at those. Would it be better if they were less ambiguous? Sure, but human social interaction is quite a fuzzy subject.
Sometimes organizations have rules like this as a sort of ass covering exercise. So, day to day, many infractions are overlooked but if someone starts being a total asshole and disrupting a project by constantly intimidating other contributors, they've got an agreed reason to kick them off.
In society I really don't like the concept of a rope to hang every honest man but in the context of a smaller organization like this, they can run it how they like.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:51PM (1 child)
If a substantial amount of the org's activity turns into finding new things to add to the ass covering, then the org has jumped the shark.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:11PM
Probably, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't really like this sort of stuff, but as long as they apply their rules sensibly, it's fair enough as far as I'm concerned. They may be concerned about the possibility of lawsuits although in a sane world that wouldn't happen in a non-profit organization like this.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:40AM (6 children)
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the United States
This applies equally to CoCs and the like. Don't assume a reasonable person will always be the one in charge of enforcement.
(And yes, I appreciate the irony of who said it.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:54AM (5 children)
Yes I agree with that principle, especially when it comes to a nation's laws. For a small organization, where participation is voluntary I do not however see much wrong in their writing vague guidelines for the behavior of participants. It might be misguided or foolish, but it is their right as an organization to do it.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:39PM (4 children)
The problem is not the CoC specifically. If enforced in the manner you are implying, it would go along swimmingly as a policy that reinforces standard professionalism. The problem TMB is alluding to is many of the open source projects are getting staffed or infiltrated by developers or administrators with a very thin skin. If everyone were professional, that wouldn't matter. However, relationships are fuzzy, so a offhand comment in the code that wouldn't offend 90% of the devs out there becomes a trigger that the self-centered fruit flake uses to attack the offender with the CoC. If you were professional, you would notice the off color comment, disregard it, delete it, or send a private message to the offender and ask him politely not to be offensive. However, TMB alludes that the offended does not respond professionally and instead goes nuclear, evicts the offender and thus turning the community toxic.
In essence, there are 3 issues.
If the CoC was purely to keep the project technical, there would be no reason to push out either developer. There was no explicit harassment in my scenario until the offended dev used the CoC to expel the offending developer. Now, if the first dev was repeated gay bashing in the code, and is warned several times to stop because it is unprofessional, then that is a different circumstance because he is deliberately being offensive and harassive. Likewise if the other developer was writing a bunch of gay friendly code and hating on Christians or breeders. 'Gay' does not belong in the code. Religion and atheism do not belong in code. TMB claims that these CoC are used to force out developers that find Progressive political agendas offensive from community projects. Banning people for harassment is normal. Warning people that their behavior is not professional and perceived as harassment is normal. Being easily offended because of a offhand comment bearing little conviction is not normal. Using that offhand comment to ban someone is not professional. Bringing your political beliefs to a technical project is unprofessional. Banning people because they do not subscribe to your political beliefs is oppressive.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:19PM (3 children)
That's a good write up of what the Mighty Buzzard is getting at, yes. The issue I have with this attitude which also seems to be shared by others on here who are quick to shriek "SJWs!" is that it's calling them guilty until proven innocent. AFAIK he's just seen the CoC, reacted to some trigger words that he associates with SJWs and written off the FreeBSD project there and then without waiting to see how these rules get applied.
I'm not for a moment questioning whether there are people that misuse these social justice principles to condemn people unfairly. There have been plenty of examples of this. I'm not denying that there have been examples of this on other tech projects. What makes me very uncomfortable is that it's all too easy to lump many or most of the people that care about the well-being and civil rights of others under the SJW moniker and instantly shut yourself off from any discussion they wish to have. It's dangerous. Creating labels and then dismissing and ridiculing whole systems of thinking does not help humanity advance. Typically labels are redefined by their opponents. The same thing has happened for example to terms like Libertarian and Centerist. Change the meaning of a label so that people no longer wish to be associated with it and you can discourage people from joining that cause and spread disinformation about it in the media.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:59PM (2 children)
There's also the whole banning of virtual hugs, too. "FreeBSD outlaws virtual hugs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxNdQJSlg54 [youtube.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:14PM (1 child)
Yes I freely admit their terms are OTT. My point is that Mr Buzzard's knee jerk reaction is even more OTT.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday February 23 2018, @01:06AM
I'd say rather the kneejerk reaction is because we've seen this before; we know where it leads, and so far there have been no exceptions.
Also, I strongly suspect these highly-interpretable CoCs are designed as honeytraps -- one wrong word and you're stuck.
Speaking of honeytraps,
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907 [ibiblio.org]
Consider how much easier it is to honeytrap someone when you're backed by a CoC that makes the wrong word, an accidental touch, or a lingering glance into a Serious Offense.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:29PM (2 children)
Let me google that for you [wikipedia.org]
So collect evidence and go to the police, that's how crimes are prosecuted. Making a false complaint or feigning offence by taking something out of context in order to bully someone off a project is not a reasonable activity. Putting rules in place that facilitate that exact behaviour is not reasonable either. Sane adults know they have the right of free expression and free association, they will refuse internment in "group think prison" and deny the ability of emotional infants to treat them like children.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:51PM (1 child)
Please provide specific examples of this. Otherwise, I can only assume that this is your paranoia talking, not rationality.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:41PM
Please [sott.net] wake [louderwithcrowder.com] up [jezebel.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:54PM (20 children)
Long story short, it started out with 'social justice' (a collectivist ideology) and was a positive term used amongst adherents to that ideology who really fought for the cause.
Then critics of that ideology started using it as a pejorative.
At which point some of the SJWs started perceiving it as a pejorative and objecting to it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:04AM (19 children)
Individual liberty, equal rights and opportunities for all humans and respect for the cultures of those who are different is a "collectivist ideology"?
Hmm...That doesn't seem to add up. Unless you define "collectivist ideology" to mean whatever point of view with which you disagree.
I suppose I could be misunderstanding you, Arik. If so, please enlighten me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:22AM (5 children)
That's not what the SJW's stand for, it's what they spout to justify their discrimination and abuse. Things like childhood genital mutilation should not be part of any culture I am asked to respect! Would you express support for childhood genital mutilation or be brave enough to condemn these cultural practises even when it offends the dogma of the collective and they will punish you for your condemnation?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:46AM (4 children)
Says you. Without evidence or even logical argument.
I'm fine with practices that don't impact functionality, like ear (and others) piercing, gauges, removal of the male foreskin, neck rings [wikipedia.org], head coverings, tattoos and many other things that may or may not conform to my cultural background.
I'm not afraid to speak my mind, nor am I afraid to call people out when I see abuse and harm.
You're barking up the wrong tree with me, friend. I believe in individual liberty and respect for other humans. Full stop.
Don't like what I have to say? Make an *actual* argument to support your position, don't read what I write, blather on and show yourself to be narrow-minded and ignorant, or any or none of the former. Your liberty is as important to me as my own, because if yours can be curtailed, so can mine.
But that doesn't mean I'm willing to let you make unsubstantiated claims and throw insults at a vaguely (or not at all) defined set of people and/or ideas without a rebuttal.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:12AM
Likewise [soylentnews.org]
You say that while completely ignoring the multiple links I've provided for you throughout this discussion of cases where SJW's (oh no - a pejorative) are undeniably the aggressors. I may be posting as an AC but still find your behaviour to be... disrespectful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:56AM (2 children)
Some people just want their fundamental right to control their own bodies to be respected. The discussion about whether it impacts functionality is thus irrelevant. Frankly, that applies to any forced body modification.
Additionally, every surgical procedure has risks; if there is truly no impact on functionality, then there is no justification for taking the risks since it involves someone else's body.
If you weren't talking about forcing these things upon children, then this doesn't apply.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:55AM (1 child)
Huh? what you talkin' about Willis? Who said anything about any of that. You're projecting. Project on someone else please.
Again, what does that have to do with me? I said, *in the comment you replied to* that:
WTF?
If you have a problem with your children or your parents, take it up with them. I am as uninterested in your trauma/drama/issues as I am uninvolved in them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 01 2018, @05:27AM
In response to this comment,
You replied
To which I'd have to agree with the AC. Most of that list is abusive if forced on someone too young to consent. Some of them such as the male foreskin are there for a reason. Then there is head coverings which doesn't seem to belong to that set (not sure what gauges are).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:41AM (12 children)
No, that's not. But that is not "social justice." That's liberalism, though here in the US that word became a pejorative back under Reagan so we tend to look for other words for it.
Which is where the confusion comes in. Liberals and "progressives" are often lumped together as left wing, but we couldn't be more different from each other.
The chosen name itself reveals the difference if you look at it closely. "Social justice" - why do they feel the need for a modifier with justice? Because their idea of justice is not the normal usage of the word, it's something entirely different, something "social" i.e. collective. The do not believe in individual rights, but in group rights. That's collectivist.
And that's not a straw man, that's based directly on what influential social justice folks proclaim publicly.
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2013/01/15/the-definition-of-social-justice/
"While it’s definition varies depending on the source common themes that exist across them all are the ideas of: human rights; *dignity*; political, economical, *social, and other equality*; *equal distribution of resources*; justice; "
It goes on and you can easily use the link yourself, but again note this is not a straw man, this is not a critic putting words in the mouths of some amorphous blob of foes, this is a prominent social justice progressive writing for others of the same ilk.
And it's self-contradictory at best. They take a lot of things that sound good but aren't always compatible, throw them together, and then *redefine* things until it makes sense to them. At which point in many ways they are speaking a different language.
I've *d a few sections of that let me tell you why.
*dignity* - who could be against dignity, right? But what's it doing on this list? Are they saying that individual *dignity* is no less important than fundamental human rights? Well, in fact, they'll be meaning the dignity of a collective, a group identity, rather than of individuals, but yes, otherwise that's really what they're doing. Your right to free speech is intended to end quite abrubtly when it meets their conception of the dignity of an allegedly oppressed group.
*social and other equality* - again, we're all in favor of equality, who could object? but look carefully. They're placing the concept of *social* equality, and the even more nebulous concept of *other equality*, on the same plane with fundamental rights, with equal treatment under the law.
*equal distribution of resources* - this is an explicitly collectivist, neo-marxist idea that is completely incompatible with liberalism and fundamental human rights - again, placed on an equal level.
This is why there is no justice in social justice. Because justice is individual.
But it's a popular cult with a lot of institutional backing, and it gets a lot of support from people that buy into the attractive rhetoric and don't think too critically about it. These people can be very sympathetic and genuine. But they're being used.
And in all fairness on many issues it's only half-wrong. It's not like there's never been systematic oppression, they just expand and distort that reality to justify whatever they want. And unfortunately, a half-truth is effectively a whole lie.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:45AM (10 children)
Thank you Arik. You have done what others have failed to do: attempt to engage in actual discussions of ideas, rather than throwing insults and unsubstantiated claims. It's appreciated.
I will take issue with your paraphrasing of various definitions from the site you linked. The definitions are not from the author herself, rather they are from various other places around the 'net, and attributed as such:
I think that's a reasonable definition. Personally, I support human equality in every aspect of life. I dislike imposed inequality. That's not to say that I think all humans are identical in capacities or motivation. Rather, I support the idea that all humans *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail or anything in between. No collectivism there.
If there's anything there that you find objectionable or incorrect, I'd appreciate your comments.
I fully support the idea that "all persons...are to be treated equally and without prejudice" and the stuff excluded by the ellipsis are just distractions from the larger point.
I also strongly support the idea that all persons should have the *opportunity* to participate as equals within society. Which is the gist of the second definition, IMHO. Nothing collectivist or advocating a redistribution of resources there, AFAICT.
Except for a typo and some awkward phrasing, this seems to be strongly in favor of equality, human rights, and respect for all humans. Not a hint of collectivism here either.
Everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities...Hmm, that seems appropriate to me. Note that the word used is *opportunities* not *outcomes*. That's perfectly consistent with the ideas of liberty and equality in my book. And not a bit of collectivist anything there.
Aside from the obvious poor editing, I read this to say that we, as a society (that is, individuals living together) have a responsibility to ourselves and others to create institutions that promote equality and liberty for all. Yes, that claim does require more than one person. As such, I *guess* there is a collectivist in the sense that it promotes "cohesiveness among individuals" [wikipedia.org] to promote the liberty of us all. However, it does not, IMHO, suggest "prioritization of the group over self" [wikipedia.org].
Humans are, and have always been, even before there were humans, social animals that lived in groups and found ways to survive and thrive. The most successful humans have been those who are willing to cooperate with each other for the good of both themselves and the group as a whole.
I don't see anything inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and equality there. In fact, if we refuse to cooperate, we will lose our liberty and equality to those who are stronger, better armed and lacking in respect for their fellow humans. That's not a society in which I want to live. Do you?
Now that we've addressed what the site you linked to support your arguments actually says, let's look at your arguments.
I'm not aware of anyone who believes that, nor is that stated or implied anywhere on the linked site. I submit that there certainly are folks who are anti-liberty, anti-equality and anti-freedom of expression, but that's not reflected by the site you linked. Show me who, specifically those people are and I will rail against them, as they are the enemy of the ideals I hold dear.
I'm not really sure what it is that you're arguing here. Equality has many facets: Equality under the law, equality of political access, equality of opportunity and the list goes on and on. I don't see that spelling out the facets of such a broad term reduces its importance or value.
I certainly could be missing the point here, and if so I'd appreciate some help.
You're absolutely correct. But I found no exhortation to "equal distribution of resources" or "equality of outcomes" in the site you linked.
Rather, I saw "equality of opportunity" referenced more than once. I strongly support that.
So, for this, I think you're putting words in other people's mouths. Which, I suspect, is quite satisfying. Unfortunately, it's not reflective of the folks you are attempting to paint with that brush.
I find it best to treat individuals as individuals, rather than to paint poorly defined swathes of people with a broad brush.
I am certain that there are anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-freedom of expression folks out there. And I find their ideas to be quite repugnant.
Generally, those people constitute a small, vocal group. And those groups come from *all* over the political spectrum and every economic class.
Lumping those who want to promote a society that protects the rights and liberty of individuals to live as they choose as long as they don't impinge on the rights or liberty of others, with anti-liberty, anti-equality scum is unfair and, if done deliberately, disingenuous.
Your thoughts would be most welcome, Arik.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:47AM (9 children)
Likewise.
"I will take issue with your paraphrasing of various definitions from the site you linked."
I'm sorry but you appear to be mistaken, I did not paraphrase from the various definitions, I skipped down past them and directly excerpted that authors own words. The ones he came up with AFTER reviewing the definitions from around the net.
So while I will reply to some of this where I think it might be interesting there may be a divergence of relevance from the point of that misunderstanding.
"Personally, I support human equality in every aspect of life. I dislike imposed inequality. That's not to say that I think all humans are identical in capacities or motivation. Rather, I support the idea that all humans *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail or anything in between."
Well then we agree on that. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Now apply that to the supposed 'wage gap' please?
"I also strongly support the idea that all persons should have the *opportunity* to participate as equals within society."
And I don't have a problem with that, as you've expressed it. But I'm very concerned with it, in a context of social justice, because that means we're talking about *legally mandating* this. In that context it becomes contradictory to a higher principle - freedom of association. The only way you could mandate social equality without violating freedom of association would be if everyone is already there. At which point a mandate would be utterly superfluous.
"Humans are, and have always been, even before there were humans, social animals that lived in groups and found ways to survive and thrive. "
Absolutely, but again, let's not lose track of the distinction between society and government. Society is formed by consensual association. Government is the power to force. They are opposites. If you use force to compel people to associate unwillingly, that's not society any longer, it's not consensual, it's not an improvement. So at that level you do have to choose one or the other - equality or liberty. Equality or consent. I think, and it sounds like you may even agree, that equality must be judged the lesser value and give way in that case.
"I'm not really sure what it is that you're arguing here. Equality has many facets: Equality under the law, equality of political access, equality of opportunity and the list goes on and on. I don't see that spelling out the facets of such a broad term reduces its importance or value."
It's a similar issue. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle that can be applied and followed, and it's non contradictory. But if we keep expanding this circle of abstractions a bit we can make it very contradictory. By the time we get to equality of outcome we have something entirely different. There is no way you can guarantee equality of outcome while still respecting equality under the law, for instance. Think about that for a moment. Equality under the law implies (and requires) respect for individuals in their right to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Equality of outcome (unless held strictly subordinate to fundamental rights) is deeply incompatible with that respect for the individual.
The way the game seems to work is that first they put the two on the same plane, and then they use the latter to destroy the former.
I appreciate the attempt to have a serious conversation and I will try to come back and give you a few better examples of what I am talking about a little later.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:01AM
No. I'm sorry. I did miss the bit to which you refer. It was in this paragraph (with emphasis added) [socialjusticesolutions.org]:
And yes, that one phrase "equal distribution of resources" is included there. However, you didn't quote the whole paragraph which gives context to that phrase. Specifically:
That context gives a more nuanced meaning, I think.
Regardless, it seems odd to reject as Marxist/collectivist an entire set of ideas (which have been defined in various, but similar, ways at various times) focused on equality and liberty for all on that one phrase. But we all take meaning where and how we find it.
I find it a little disingenuous of you to leave out the direct references to "personal responsibility" and "creating access to opportunity," as those are critical aspects of societies that have liberty and equality.
That said, I'm not going to defend the author's word choices or her sincerity. You'll have to judge that for yourself.
What's more, I went ahead and read the short essays linked [socialjusticesolutions.org] from the page you linked in an effort to find any of this "redefinition" and "collectivist/marxist ideology" of which you speak. I didn't find it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that my fluency in English is quite good and, while I did miss that one phrase, I've read through this stuff several times now and have been unable to identify these things.
You say that
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Unless you're referring to the Fourteenth Amendment's [cornell.edu] Privileges and Immunities clause.
What's more, while the First Amendment [cornell.edu] doesn't make specific reference to freedom of association, the SCOTUS confirmed that freedom of association is an essential component of the freedom of expression [wikipedia.org] guaranteed by the First Amendment in NAACP v. Alabama [wikipedia.org].
So I'm not sure where you get the idea that *any* legal mandate WRT freedom of association is possible in the United States. As such, I hope this has put those concerns to rest.
I understand your point, but I can't agree.
Firstly, society [dictionary.com] is the sum of people, cultures and institutions living together. Societies can, and do, take many forms. However, in every case (with the exception of a mob, which could be considered a society if one wishes to stretch the definition) a society, whether it be narrow (e.g., The Society of Illustrators [societyillustrators.org], The Society of Women Engineers [swe.org], The Society of Friends [quaker.org], etc.) or broad (e.g., American Society [wikipedia.org], Western Society [wikipedia.org], etc.) has some form of governance [wikipedia.org].
Without such governance to provide the force of law and decision making at various levels, society would fall apart, which has happened repeatedly throughout history. In the United States, we created that governance to be by consent of the governed. Which, IMHO, is quite enlightened and, while it can have its vicissitudes, has been stable for almost 250 years. Not a bad run.
Is American governance perfect? No. Does it provide the structures that can create the conditions conducive to liberty and equality for all? Yes. Does it, in fact, do so well? No.
Given the fact that those in the US have freedom of movement, freedom of expression, widespread distribution of the political franchise and, to a fair degree, the due process of law, it seems ridiculous to claim that your local government, your state government or the Federal government imposes its will upon you at the point of a gun.
Don't like local ordinances? Write an op-ed for your local paper. No one will come and arrest/shoot you for that.
Become/support a candidate who will change such ordinances. Any shooting or threats to be killed then? I think not.
Don't get satisfaction/results from the above efforts? Move to another town. Are there men with guns ready to shoot you if you try to leave? Please.
The same goes for state and federal governments.
So. You aren't being forced to submit at the point of a gun. Rather (assuming you're in the US) you were born (or immigrated) into a society whose governance is well-defined and does not restrict you from voicing opposition, working for change or simply leaving.
Sorry. I'm not buying it.
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here, except as a means to inject "equality of outcomes" which we both (and the folks on the original website you linked) don't support.
I hear you. But again, that leads me back to the question I asked earlier in the larger journal discussion: Who is this "they" you're talking about? I assume you're not referring to this guy [sfgate.com].
Jokes aside, I'm really interested to understand to whom you are ascribing that goal. I think you'll find that there are very few in the US who support that concept, and even fewer who would be willing to admit it.
I think it more likely that such a "group" is a fiction promulgated to sow division between us all in an effort to either profit, advance an agenda that the vast majority of us would reject, or both.
Again, your thoughts and comments are most welcome, sir.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:07PM (7 children)
I think you're begging the question here, Arik. If we consider an observed wage gap between genders, you are implying that you assume each gender already has an equal opportunity to earn the same wage for a given role (or an equal opportunity to successfully negotiate the same wage). Those that complain about the wage gap would disagree with you on that.
Forcibly adjusting people's pay to address the wage gap could be construed as equalizing outcome but only within the confines of a specific employment role.
You express a desire for equality of opportunity, but how does one go about creating that? It certainly cannot be achieved by doing nothing unless it already exists universally in society. Unfair discrimination certainly exists, so that's not the case.
A key example of inequality of opportunity is where some individuals are born into very wealthy, influential families, affording them great capital and business connections right from the start. There are millions of others who have none of that. How would you go about addressing that inequality? Is adjusting outcome completely off limits?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 23 2018, @09:06AM (6 children)
I'm not implying that I assume anything at all. *sigh*
Let me spell it out for you.
If we apply "equality of opportunity not equality of outcome" to the "wage gap" as it's defined by those who promulgate the concept, the conclusion is not that it's right or wrong - it's that it's irrelevant, if we're talking about justice. It is entirely and explicitly a collective measure. Females earn less money in wages, per 10 million. Ok, so what?
You're measuring outcomes but outcomes are not the appropriate measure.
If I told you that blue-eyed people made more than green eyed people, in the same sort of aggregate measure, would you decide that green-eyed people were being underpaid on the basis of that evidence? Let's smash the evil blues and make them give the greens their fair share!
Ooops, I read that backwards, greens make MORE money, they're the evil oppressors, gas the blues!
This is all nonsense. You're measuring the wrong things.
Is there any sort of obstacle preventing the virtuous greens, err I mean the long-suffering blues, from competing on an equal playing field?
If yes, what, specifically? That would be very interesting. There's a tremendous amount of hand-waving but very rarely does anything solid get pointed to. You realize, I hope, that actual discrimination, hiring preferentially or paying more based on gender, is actually an offense that police and district attorneys and courts investigate and prosecute and can easily destroy anyone for, right? If you have any evidence for anyone doing that in any western nation you can literally shoot it off to a state lawyer and see careers if not the entire enterprise destroyed, that's no joke.
But if not, then yes, then we reach the point of "well, in that case, it seems likely that this is a result of different choices." And in fact there's plenty of scholarship documenting and detailing that, that's exactly what it is. Females, in that same meaningless aggregate sense, work less, make less money, live longer, spend more money. You want to talk about the wage gap, how about we talk about that spending gap huh?
But I say that only rhetorically, again, the real point is that we're measuring the wrong thing, both ways.
If you believe in individual justice, then a "wage gap" that appears only as an aggregate, statistical generalization based on a very narrow set of measures, and one that neatly disappears when you start to control for different people having different values and pursuing different goals, then you don't see it as a problem. If you cared more about money than I did and you pursued it with more vigor and energy and determination than I did and you got paid more of it... I don't see the problem. And I don't know or need to know your gender. That's just completely irrelevant.
But as I said earlier, "social justice" is not the same thing at all. So if you view everything with this lens of collectivism, it doesn't matter that no individual was harmed, it's intolerable that those greens, I mean blues, I mean males, got more than their fair share.
That's not a rational position, or one that's genuinely respectful of other individuals and their rights either.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday February 23 2018, @07:09PM (3 children)
Apologies and thank you for clarifying your position a little.
Ah, so prosecuting anyone that demonstrably introduces inequality of opportunity. Yes I suppose that's one way of attempting to create and maintain equal opportunities. What about the polite bigots though? The ones that keep their actual discrimination inside their heads and construct other excuses in parallel for why they won't hire someone of a demographic they dislike.
It's actually extremely hard to do anything to influence equality of opportunity one way or another. I'll be honest with you; I've been somewhat playing devil's advocate in this thread. Up to a point, I agree with you that these demographic classifications shouldn't be relevant. Still, they're relevant to the discriminating bigots because of aspects of the past culture they grew up in. It takes time for cultural preconceptions to change.
It's hard for leaders that preside over thousands or tens of millions of people to assess the well-being of that population without invoking some collective statistics. Yes, they often try to talk and listen to individuals too but when populations get that large statistics become a tool to make the problems knowable. And as we've already said there are plenty of bigots that do treat people of different statistical cohorts differently. Sometimes the discrimination even seems somewhat rational and is tolerated, for example risk assessments by insurance companies.
By the way, I'm curious at precisely what point you feel opportunity turns into outcome. Clearly pay would come under outcome. But my example of someone being born into a wealthy family, are they inheriting opportunities or outcomes? Does every opportunity arise from someone else's outcome (or a past outcome for the same person)?
If you introduce a little bit of inheritance tax, are you taxing unequal outcome or unequal opportunity?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:19AM (2 children)
"Ah, so prosecuting anyone that demonstrably introduces inequality of opportunity. Yes I suppose that's one way of attempting to create and maintain equal opportunities. What about the polite bigots though? The ones that keep their actual discrimination inside their heads and construct other excuses in parallel for why they won't hire someone of a demographic they dislike."
I think the most succinct answer I can give to that is "don't let the best become the enemy of the good."
Let's suppose, for a moment, that it were possible, with sufficient expenditure of resources, to produce perfect equality of opportunity across society.
I'm afraid it is not, but let's assume for the moment it is. BUT, it's extremely expensive.
Just how much would you pay for it? Just how much is it worth?
Now I know the standard sort of politically correct reply has to be any amount, because money is never more important than equality, right?
But that's bullshit. That really is bullshit. Think that logic through. Increase the price till you don't have enough left over to feed everyone. But hey, everyone is equally starving? What? How can that sound like a good idea.
Which is why I keep insisting equality can't be placed alongside fundamental rights, not without a lot of qualification at least. Imagine two buttons, one makes everyone wealthy (but unevenly so) while the other one makes everyone absolutely equal, and desperately poor. Do you REALLY think that the second button is better?
So, back to your question, what do you do about those people? Absolutely nothing, as long as they don't fsck up at least. It's a small evil that must be tolerated to avoid the greater evil. Thoughtcrime. Thought police. An authoritarian distopia, no matter how well-intentioned.
Irrational discrimination solves itself, we just have to be more patient with it than we would like. Darwin can take generations to work.
"It's hard for leaders that preside over thousands or tens of millions of people to assess the well-being of that population without invoking some collective statistics."
One of many reasons the importance of such 'leaders' should not be exaggerated.
"Sometimes the discrimination even seems somewhat rational and is tolerated, for example risk assessments by insurance companies."
Yes, another point that should be made. It's not discrimination that's wrong, or bad. Discrimination is the natural function of the rational mind. It just means noticing differences. A person who cannot discriminate cannot function, which makes it ironic that it's got such a bad name. "A discriminating mind" is actually a good thing, unless something else has gone wrong.
It's irrational or unjust discrimination that we really mean when we talk about discrimination being bad. It's plain bad logic.
And there's no difference in logic between the white racist that hates blacks, and the black racist that hates whites. Nor is there any difference we need to take note of, at least in the context of justice, between the misogynist and the misandrist.
Social justice, as I have seen it expressed many times, directly contradicts that point. They define racism in such a way that it's impossible for a "non-white" to be racist, and impossible for a "white" to be non-racist, so that all men are rapists, and all women are victims. This is not just wrong it's obviously wrong, it's lazy, dishonest thinking.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday February 24 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)
Thank you. That's an excellent analysis of the problem. That's why I think the best solution is to strike a careful balance: a little bit of regulation to keep the peace and uphold basic morals, a little bit of social welfare to limit absolute suffering, and a lot of freedom and civil liberties. Compromises like this aren't in fashion though. Many politicians and their supporters seem to be spending much of their time instead arguing for and against extremes.
Oh, I couldn't agree more.
Of course but the trouble is everyone has their own idea of what forms of discrimination are, or are not unjust. Obviously some discriminators can be unquestionably wrong if they believe a fact about a demographic that is the inverse of a statistical truth about it. But the question of whether a discriminatory choice is unjust is harder. For example, I would argue that any decisions, that a motor insurance company make for a quote that are based upon the past behavior of other drivers that share attributes with the applicant, are unfair discrimination because they are not considering that person as an individual. Increasing or reducing their premium based on their own past behavior would be fair though.
Oh up until this bit you were starting to win me over, Arik. What you're describing sounds so extreme it almost seems like a hyperbolic caricature, if you'll excuse my language. What percentage of social justice proponents really believe exactly this? I don't doubt there will be some very stupid individuals (or intellectually lazy, as you note) that do, but there will always be bad apples in every school of thought. You are careful to qualify the observation by saying you have seen social justice expressed this way many times. I too have come across these ideas a number of times although strangely in my case it's almost invariably been opponents of so-called "SJWs" that have expressed them. Perhaps I just don't frequent the right echo chambers to observe this sort of thinking first hand. One thing that bothers me is that some "SJW" opponents fall into the very collectivist, discriminatory trap you've described (though you are careful to avoid it yourself) by automatically assuming that every "SJW" thinks in this same extreme, hypocritical, dishonest way.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday February 26 2018, @03:54PM
Did you follow the 'Mizzou' and 'Evergreen' protests at all?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)
As a more practical matter, if employers could get away with paying $class less for the same work, they'd hire ONLY $class. The strongest realworld evidence that the 'wage gap' doesn't exist (once one controls for equal work) is that people other than $class still get hired.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 01 2018, @06:15AM
That's not true. People's prejudices come into it. Basically it is what the employers believe rather then the reality. If an employer believes that men are better at math, they're more likely to hire men for more pay, even in the face of evidence that women are at least the equal of men. There's other believes that come in, such and such a group is more likely to be thieves, so don't hire them for any wage, even though it is a huge generalization. For reasons such as these, employers are willing to pay more.
People, including employers, are often not rational actors.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 23 2018, @01:09AM
We need another term for classical liberal... which at this point might be best described as "liberal right".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:27PM (14 children)
I'd point out that, in my experience, as long as someone accepts that "no" means "no," and doesn't see it as a challenge to "convince" someone that they really do want to go out with you, you're not engaging in unwelcome sexual attention. I don't really get how that can be confused, as I only want to be around people who want to be around me, and not all of those.
And telling someone who isn't already romantically involved (or has clearly indicated that they wish to be) with that you'd "love to stick my tongue in your mouth" or other orifice, is likely inappropriate.
Further, I'd say that telling someone that you "like their outfit" isn't unwelcome sexual attention either, unless you're looking at the recipient's crotch, boobs or ass, as appropriate, while you say it. Saying, "wow! you look hot!" is probably not appropriate for a colleague, although it may well be fine for a friend or a lover.
Given that there are a small group of people who are either oblivious to such social norms, or see other people as objects for their use and not humans, it falls to the rest of us to educate (and if that fails, ostracize) those folks that their actions are inappropriate.
I suppose we could just call them "assholes" and leave it at that. However, those folks would likely perceive that as someone being mean, rather than telling them that they're acting stupidly and they should stop.
In the absence of a code of conduct (an attempt at education), we're left with ostracism. And in the absence of criteria for that, we're left with the same problem you attribute to "SJWs," who and what ever they are, arbitrary decisions to ostracize someone.
All that said, I respect your point of view and encourage you to act upon your beliefs and ideas as long as they don't impinge upon the rights and personal spaces of others.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:41PM (13 children)
You're trying to think like a reasonable human being. That's your mistake. There is nothing remotely reasonable about SJWs. Under their rule, you do not get the benefit of being told "no" and offense can be taken weeks or months later after you've had time to get annoyed by something entirely unrelated that someone said or did but isn't against the rules.
Not one of these rules are there for the reason it would appear to a rational human being. They are there exclusively to be used in virtual lynchings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:49PM (4 children)
To use your own term, "bullshit!"
You're once again making broad pronouncements and vague accusations against a nebulously (that means poorly, or in this case not at all) defined "group."
Perhaps your point is valid with regard to certain individuals. You haven't told us who those individuals are, or even presented an argument that the leaders of the FreeBSD project are members of such a "group."
Claiming that "these guys are implementing SJW ideas, therefore they are SJWs," is circular reasoning.
Come on Buzzard, you're smarter and more articulate than this.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:55PM (2 children)
I linked a Wikipedia article for you explaining SJW's above. Here's a current real world example [youtube.com] and the deleted video is linked in the description where it is available at sites that are not youtube. Enjoy!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:07PM (1 child)
Right. And said article states:
IIUC, these people are whoever the person using the term thinks is socially progressive, feminist, a supporter of civil rights and respects the ideas and culture of others.
What's more, the strong implication would be that those who use such a pejorative are against individual liberty, equal rights and opportunities for all humans and disrespect anyone who is different from them.
Is that just about the size of it? I'll leave the obvious conclusions to the reader.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:31PM
And serial killer is a pejorative term for a murderous psychopath... or is that backwards? Consider this old tweet [twitter.com] which predates the Weinstein accusations and all the male feminists and assorted virtue signallers [knowyourmeme.com] who have since been publicly accused of abusive behaviour. No surprise that it's endemic in the charity sector too. [threadreaderapp.com]
Now go and watch the video that youtube deleted [bitchute.com].
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:57PM
Dude, you may as well be asking what specifically I dislike about Stalin. If you don't know anything about Stalin, you're not going to believe me even if I tell you because the truth is so much worse that what you're able to conceive of a human being being. You need to research them yourself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:03PM (6 children)
[Citation needed]
Are you sure you're not just seeing words like "diversity" and "harassment" and immediately tarring these people with a stereotyped SJW brush? There are plenty of online communities where power goes to the heads of those in charge and people are banned unfairly but I'm not willing to believe that every organization that feels the need to draw up a CoC like this will necessarily behave like that.
You're applying a narrow, preconceived stereotype to everyone that wants to discourage discrimination in their organization.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:14AM (4 children)
It's not an issue of prejudice or stereotyping. There is a human tendency to assume that other people are somewhat like yourself. I wouldn't need to use those words because I treat everyone as an individual based on merit, right up until I have reason not to. Even assuming words like these are being used in the best possible faith, there is increased risk of the self-licensing effect.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:35AM (3 children)
Which is fine (I like to think I do the same myself) but when someone's kicked off a project, they might be glad to have had the opportunity to examine what those reasons not to might be, in advance.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:00AM (2 children)
In real life, something as simple as body language can be enough for me to immediately minimize contact. On a project, the work matters and the personalities less so unless it becomes a major problem. The LKML is a good example of this functioning well, it gets heated but personal attacks occur over work or someone being an asshole. Many, myself included, respect Linus for his no-nonsense bluntness. Has Linus ever been accused of bullying or abusing someone unfairly?
The SJW thing is different, self-styled paragons of moral virtue and self-styled victims work together to bully others. Should Brendan Eich [usatoday.com] have been pressured to resign? Was there any suggestion he'd ever behaved unprofessionally towards a colleague or were they just creating some nonsensical story about "harm" to punish him for exercising his personal political agency? What about someone's personal sex life? [theregister.co.uk] We already know the story. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday February 22 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
That Drupal thing was social injustice. Blatant discrimination against someone based upon their sexual preferences. The stupid part is I think it's because those sexual preferences weren't protected under the umbrella of Political Correctness which itself is a form of discrimination. Also, usually, what people do outside of their work should not be the business of their employers, which I think in a way echoes what you're saying about the work mattering more than the personalities. The bottom line is, it's when the personalities start to hinder the work or make people want to quit the work, that something probably needs to be done about it.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:43PM
Bravo, that more or less sums it up and very well articulated. Although I do make the point that these are cases of individuals being bullied out of positions by oppressors who present themselves as speaking out against oppression - no they are just bullies!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 23 2018, @01:16AM
This style of CoC doesn't come from a need within the organization. They come (in my observation, exclusively) from recent diversity-hires who want to remake the organization around their own particular snowflakery. Before the fresh snowflake arrived the organization got along fine without a big hairy CoC, but now it's necessary?? Hmmm.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:54AM
Sorry for my latecomer comment. This is a very messy room- I'll leave quickly.
I agree with your wisdom, TMB. My concern about this CoC, and others, is the vagueness. So now pretty much anyone is guilty of aggressive criminal intent just because something is misunderstood. I'm not talking about the clear overt misdeeds, but the very subtle communication that someone misinterprets and exaggerates. (kinda stating the obvious there, I know...)
The big problem that concerns me is that now the power is passed to the jackboots. Like you said: "virtual lynchings". Trouble is- it's not virtual. Many people's lives have been, and are being destroyed, without any "due process". Even Trump commented on that recently. The media love fry someone who has been accused of something, but try to find a major headline about someone being found innocent.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:46PM
The CoC poses a barrier, not technically, but de facto, to the freedom to tinker with free software by a category of people whose main problem is not conforming to the current system's plans to reshape society. (Yes, I don't believe in the good faith of people coming up with concepts like white privilege). Now, this freedom is enforced by the gpl, which bsd folks did not subscribe to because it is a hassle. Which is very funny, because the CoC is going to be exploited sooner or later.
The fact that the previous CoC was loosely inspired by catholic religion and satanically shoved down throats by the same system should not prevent catholics to call some things natural and others innatural. As long as they don't interfere to the right of unbelievers to do their innatural things.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:36PM (6 children)
Some people are scared because they've historically been demonized and brutalized -- not online, not with words, but with bats and knives and guns. And now that gay/tranny/other non-majority folks aren't being frightened into silence, they are still afraid and want to make sure that doesn't happen any more.
Some people are scared because the folks, who used to be beaten into silence by a small minority of violent scumbags, aren't so silent anymore.
And while they wouldn't go out and beat these people to death, they think they may be a bad influence or that they are trying to impose their beliefs onto them. Or even worse, that they will be judged and found wanting in some "meaningful" way by those whose concept of appropriateness differs from theirs.
The rest of us are caught in the middle.
Personally, I'd rather see these codes of conduct be quite simple. Perhaps something along the lines of Wheaton's Law [knowyourmeme.com].
I don't (and won't) reject quality software projects just because they adopt a code of conduct, as its the software that's important, not the personalities of those who are involved.
Rather, I take the position that Heinlein [wikiquote.org] put forth quite succinctly:
If my words or actions are found to be offensive to some, I can't control that. I can only control what I say and do. And I have no interest in trying to tell others what specific things they should or shouldn't do. Again, Heinlein [goodreads.com] is quite succinct about this:
I am not telling anyone to do anything specific, rather I'm laying out my thoughts on this, somewhat fraught (I'm not sure why), subject. My hope is that it will spur thought and perhaps even discussion.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:08PM (5 children)
Bullshit. Nobody is scared. Scared people do not seek out violence. SJWs do. "I don't feel safe" from the mouth of an SJW means "I dislike what you say and want your right and ability to say it removed by force.".
As for Wesley? Fuck Wesley. He's the biggest shithead on Twitter, which is really saying something.
Yet you find it perfectly reasonable that they not only do but go as far as to tell others what they should say or even think? Sorry but I am not backing your first Heinlein quote on this. I will not accept rule by the most discriminatory, bigoted, authoritarian scumbags on the planet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:40PM (1 child)
That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man [youtube.com], Buzzard.
Aside from Wil Wheaton (I only referred to the idea "don't be a dick," not anything else -- try to keep things straight), please tell me who (individuals, not your broad brush against those who you "dislike what [they] say and want [their] right and ability to say it removed by force." and what specific acts you decry and detest) are these "SJWs"?
If you are unable or unwilling to make anything other than vague and unsupportable pronouncements, I have no choice but to find your argument lacking in rigor.
That's not really a big deal to me because
So go ahead and set whatever ground rules you think appropriate and I will act according to mine. See? Wasn't that easy?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:52PM
Re: Wesley, that's what I was talking about as well. The irony of a prick of such gargantuan proportions being its author is staggering.
Specifically? They're thought police, they're violent as hell, they're intolerant as all fuck, they're the biggest bigots in the west of every variety of bigotry, they utterly destroy the hypocrisy scale, they're authoritarians of the worst variety, they're against free speech, they're against freedom of association, they're in favor of persecuting others by all legal and illegal means for the crime of disagreeing with them, and now I'm tired of thinking about things that piss me off. Google them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:43PM (2 children)
BuzzBro, thou art over-reacting, again. We are not trying to tell people what to think, we are just trying to show them how! You, too, could be a suave gentleperson of high moral character and impeccable social skills! No one is forcing anything on you, you are just ostracizing yourself from all polite company, so that you are left with SoylentNews, Ethanol_fueled and Runaway5678, and that curmudgeonly aristarchus.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:54PM (1 child)
I'm fine with that. You can have a far more intelligent discussion with EF than you can with any SJW.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:51AM
[laughing] I've noticed that. Speaking therewhich, where the hell is EF? this discussion is way too rational without him!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:20PM
My business experience shows me that it works, and I want to do everything possible to see that regular Americans can enjoy the same opportunity for success and security that I have had. That means the American Dream unencumbered by bureaucratic ineptitude, government regulation, confiscatory tax policies, racism, discrimination against women, or discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. We must all have equal access to the to the American Dream.
I'd love to see more people from places like FreeBSD, more immigrants from countries like FreeBSD. Because their dream is the American Dream. MAGA!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday February 23 2018, @04:54PM
1) Rules aren't specified. For example, nowhere does it say that it is against the rules to engaging in harassing behavior. Sure, it's strongly implied, but they don't explicitly state that. Nowhere is there a "don't do X" explicit rule.
2) Second, we have an ambiguous gatekeeper, the FreeBSD Code of Conduct Committee which gets to decide if you're allowed to participate or not. No reference on who these people are or the mechanics of the committee and how it makes such decisions. At least, link or describe who these people are and how they got to be in that position of power.
3) Speaking of a "few rules" and then following up with a massive list of 19 examples of harassment (including some very obscure social justice subjects like "dead names" and "deliberate misgendering") and stating the list is not exhaustive.
4) The existence of non-reciprocal rules and introduction of extraneous considerations.
First, this allows at least rhetorically for harassment that reinforces oppression that is not systemic. Second, now we've introduced an irrelevant factor (particularly, when people disagree on what is systemic!) into the decision making process. It shouldn't matter where harassment reinforces systemic oppression or not.
5) It's all just about harassment. Where's the rules on other obvious sorts of community misconduct like spamming and solicitation, posting off topic, deliberate sabotage of code or the community websites, etc? There is this very telling obsession with a particular sort of behavior.
TL;DR, we have a document which doesn't explicitly list the "few rules" you're supposed to follow, has an ambiguous enforcement organization, introduces irrelevant ideological considerations of the social justice flavor, and focuses on harassment rather than a more complete coverage of the ways that community interaction can go wrong. Smells like "SJW" to me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 25 2018, @06:02AM
...Uzzard's posted something I largely agree with, if not entirely.
Fuck me, maybe the world really is going to end soon. I saw the CoC linked by someone else in my journal entry on Void and came away from reading it with the feeling it sounded distinctly Stalinesque. They probably have good intentions, but those are well-known as Hell's paving stones.
In case anyone from the FreeBSD team is reading this...when the site's resident crunchy granola dyke says your proposed code of conduct sounds like something that the alt-right would make up as a *parody* of social-justice activists, maaaaaaaaaybe walk it back a little? Please? It's far too broad.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...