WTF is going on. Can someone explain?

  • 30
    Tumblr decided to step out of its bubble and bring political correctness to the forefront of everything.

    So people want Linux to be less about Linux and more of inclusivity -,-
  • 26
    @lxmcf the more I read about it, the more it fucks up my brain. I don't understand the mindless approach these guys opt to get their point across. This is a massive shitstorm and where ever I read, people are against the sjw. Doesn't such stunts do more harm than good. When people demand special treatment based on gender or orientation, I believe it only cheapens their contribution to the community. The community asks for quality code and does not give a flying fuck about your identity. It's like wanting a backdoor shortcut because you're too unskilled to make it based on actual merit.
  • 37
    Here's what happened, and I called this shit.

    Developers wanted to contribute to a great project.

    Leftists show up and shit in the punch bowl.

    Developers leave because who wants to drink that koolaid?
  • 13
    @segfault0xff this may be the most succinct (not to mention hilarious) summation of events I have read.

    Hats off to you!
  • 5
  • 5
    @segfault0xff liberalism is a mental disorder 😂
  • 4
    what about decentralized git?
  • 2
    It just say “don’t be a dick to people” and a lot of guys lose their minds. I don’t know why. I mean it’s not hard to not being a douche.
  • 4
    Wow, this nen CoC is just so useless.
    It simply doesn't matter who you are as long as your contributions are good.
  • 5
    @Gustafssonz Or they could just write better code and no one would be a dick to them. If they don't have the skin to take it, then don't contribute. Linus attitude is no secret and people still contributed.

    I think it would have been better if those "excluded" people just forked Linux and left Linus alone. I wonder how well would that go for them.
  • 2
    Not that guy, but Im pretty sure the guy cant express himself or doesn't understand what is liberalism
  • 0
    @arraysstartat1 I propose the name Muhfeefeex.
  • 7
    I'll try to sum up what I understood.

    Some Linux devs are not happy of the Code of Conduct (CoC) which replaces the Code of Conflict (CC).

    The CC basically says "don't be a dick". The CoC gives unlimited power to expel people without much oversight.

    A good example of what can happen is the Drupal project, where a top dev was expelled because of his personal fetish, following Drupal implementing the CoC.

    A rebuttal to the need of implemeting the CoC is that contributions are already judged on their merits, since developers can be anonymous, and we don't need to fight discrimination, because decisions are not made based on race, gender, age, or anything discriminatory.

    So devs who are not happy are threatening to revok the licence they gave to Linux kernel to use their code, which is actually possible under GPL V2 (no longer possible with V3, but Linux kernel is under V2).

    That would cause some part of linux Kernel to suddenly be unlicensed. That's the shitstorm.
  • 1
    @Fradow But it's better to have less talented programmers contributing code who happen to be white cis straight males and more non-binary trans-helicopter dragonkin of color adding equal signs to headers in READMEs.

    Everyone knows that. 🤣
  • 4
    @kenogo You taking my comment seriously offends me. Apologize immediately!
  • 0
    @ethernetzero @kenogo I'm TRIGGERED. SARCASTIC LIVES MATTER.
  • 3
    @kenogo Shitposting aside, IMHO identity politics should stay out of the development cycle as much as possible, and the fact that the mission statement of the Contributor Covenant explicitly states meritocracy as being something harmful is really dangerous.

    In other words, who or what you are or how you do identify yourself is completely irrelevant to the quality of your code. Any code of conduct adopted by a project should focus only on interactions in the most strict context of the project itself, which the Contributor Covenant doesn't do.

    I think we can all agree that women and LGTBQ+ people deserve respect, just like any person, because that's what they are. But a simple Code of Conduct that says “Just don't be a dick to people” is enough. If people get offended by some response given to a PR of theirs and they bring their identity into the discussion, they're the ones poisoning the project with irrelevant discussions.

    Just my $0.02.
  • -1
    @kenogo fuck the alphabet wackos. They don't deserve special treatment.
  • 2
    @kenogo It also allows people to demand other people to be banned from the project because of something completely unrelated to the project itself and not involving any interaction at all in the context of the project, like a PR or something like that.

    Again, a code of conduct that says something along the lines of “In any interactions between contributors in the strict context of the project, behavior and language generally perceived as abusive won't be allowed” is not a bad thing. It's when the CoC extends that range to anything that anyone can consider offensive for whatever reason and in any context, be it related to the project or not, when it becomes a dangerous weapon wielded usually by malicious people in order to gain leverage on a community.

    EDIT: I'll leave here this article by Paul M. Jones: http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/...
  • 1
    @kenogo Actually, I did.

    But it only gives examples of what constitutes representing the project, so it can be subject to any interpretation you can pressure on people to accept.

    For example: Ada Ehmke, the creator of the Contributor Covenant, tried to enforce it to get a contributor of the Opal project banned. The reason was because that contributor was discussing people on Twitter, on his personal account, defending that transexuality is a mental disorder. He didn't call anyone a tranny in a PR or support thread, he wasn't discussing anything related to Opal, and still the very creator of the Contributor Covenant wanted to enforce it to get him removed from the project.

    Same thing has happened to Theodore Ts'o. A few days ago, someone was quick to demand him to be removed from the Linux project because years ago he said on Twitter that not all cases of rape are really someone being forced to have sex against their will, so he was accused of being a rape apologist.
  • 2
    @kenogo Does it really matter if they succeed or not, if just by maliciously attempting it they cause a flamewar, a PR nightmare and lots and lots of drama, division and infighting within the same community that was supposed to be turned into a nice and welcoming place by that CoC?

    I mean, if you try to enforce it to get someone off the project for petty reasons and, by doing that, you start a flamewar that divides the community and drives people away from it, then the CoC is not serving its purpose very well, is it?

    Of course, you can't control what will cause a shitstorm within your community. It could be a simple disagreement on a design choice or it could be the response to an ill-intentioned attempt to get someone off the project. But if a particular CoC can be easily abused to cause a shitstorm within a community, then you should question if it really does what it claims to do.
  • 3
    @kenogo I agree with you in that a pointless and heated discussion can be started by any reason and you have no control about it, no matter if you have a CoC or not. I said as much in my previous comment. What I'm concerned about is using the CoC as a pretext to enforce a political stance on the community by weaponizing it against other contributors for ideological reasons out of the scope of the project itself.

    If the purpose of a code of conduct is to make the community be more welcoming and then someone can use it to try and remove non-like-minded people from the community, then people that have a similar opinion will also feel unwelcome.

    Again, the very creator of the Contributor Covenant tried to get someone banned from a project because she considers that person to be transphobic, without that person having done anything wrong within the community. She tried to enforce the CoC to expel that person for having opinions different than hers. Doesn't that raise any red flags?
  • 0
    Was that victim blaming? Like in “if you dressed differently you won’t get raped”?

    Come on, it’s not hard being nice to people. It’s not hard being open minded and not being ignorant the first thing you do.
  • 1
    @Gustafssonz no it wasn't. Fuck yourself.
  • 1
    @segfault0xff @Gustafssonz
    yet some people fail miraculously at not being a dick.

    @kenogo @ethernetzero
    Gosh, I just hope this fucking tolerance topic can just die down at some point. I just dont get why people are getting so extremely furious about other peoples opinions. Even if someone thinks (THINKS) that rape is the womans fault, or that gay people should not marry or whatever, you can dislike them for that, but you cant denounce them or make them lose their job or anything. Thinking is something different than acting, its just an opinion. I could even say that murder looks kind of fun to me. Thats frickin free speech and all you "social justice" worriors are attempting to break that down, which is fucking whack and you dont get my support for that. you are fighting for the right things, using foul moves.
  • 1
    This entire ideology is fueled by the frustration of the minorities or the "oppressed" (in quotes because they are not oppressed "by" anyone) and their hostility against the majority or the "rich" (to put it in economic terms and to link it to the leftist agenda, which is definitely echoed in the social justice movement) and it is so hard to stop them because they are putting themselves in this divine light of "we are helping the poor", while they are really just fighting the rich.
    All that the sjw have ever done was assaulting majorities and making more people suffer, instead of helping the minorities, which they cant anyways, because there will always be minorities. Of course, we need to protect non-straight people from assaults, just like any other human being. No one can be punished for their sexual preferences, religion or race or gender or any category like that, no discussion here. but when you try to make everything "equal" you will destroy freedom. freedom implies inequality.
  • 1
    and being a minority at a disadvantage (the rich are also a minority by the way) will always be at a disadvantage. Short people will never reach the top shelf, tall people will always bump their heads. fat people will never be as attractive and skinny people will always be cold or get knocked over. ugly people will always be ugly and beautiful people will always be beautiful. That is what life is, unfair! and that is not anyones fault, that is just how life works. evolution, mutation, variance. better and lesser fitness for different things. most people will be poor, some people will be rich. that is like a universal law. because if you have something, you can make more. if you have nothing, you just have nothing and have to struggle.

    we should just let the leftist sjw college students, who are living in a miracle of human culture do their thing and ignore it, it is a shame that this mentality is resonating in the software community, being a technical community.
  • 3
    @simulate they're obsessed with splitting people into groups, and insist that some deserve special treatment and others don't.

    Equality my ass.
  • 3
    This entire goddam programming world is gonna fall apart once the arseholes get the changes they want. I'm not sexist or anything, but if they want to step into this "cis white male" world they can just waltz in and climb the ladder themselves like we all did, "cis white male" or not. If they want a goddam elevator, good fucking luck walking on rough ground without experience.

    Petition for us all to quit programming in protest. They wanted a diversified world, let's give one without all the experienced dev.
  • 3
    @PythonTryHard fuckin right man! They want to waltz in and tell a whole bunch of people how to act, think, speak. To everybody reading this, If you give a shit about freedom at all, it behooves you to tell these self-righteous SJW turds to fuck the fuck off. Because they will keep doing this as long as people will allow it. I say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
  • 2
    @segfault0xff Really though. I'm not having any of these bullocks. If they want their code to be used and appreciated, they themselves have to code the good shit, not getting free passes to push their shoddy commits.

    I've already having none of this ever since the master/slave controversy which I am not qualified enough to talk about but it ticks me off. They want to "revolutionize" the terms because they are "offensive" to people. What are you, ancient Roman slaves? No, we don't want your fucking "correctness" to function! We want the terms used decades in this world! Fuck the FUCK OFF!!

    I don't care if you're gay or some shit. If you code the good shit, you good. If you want to `git push --force` because "diversity" and "equality" I'll goddam force my entire collection of knives I bought down your fucking throats, up your fucking arses, into your fucking eyesockets and I'll make sure you die an agony death.

    ...........Sorry if I went overboard. I'm pissed. I hope my kb didn't die.
  • 1
    @segfault0xff Also are there any ways we can talk in private? I'd love to talk more with you on this.
  • 2
    Can't we all just focus on the work and not the person behind it?

    Reiser killed his wife and that's awful. But he made a good filesystem admittedly.

    Let's not bring gender or race or sexuality or anything else into it. If they write good code, then merge it and move the fuck on.
    This whole thing is making my head hurt and honestly it's pathetic.
  • 2
    @deadPix3l Petition to make you the leader of a new programming language project made to be as offensive to them as possible
  • 2
    @PythonTryHard I have no idea.. we are def on the same page.. maybe there's a pm feature or something. @dfox ?
  • 3
    @PythonTryHard I thought of writing an obfuscation utility that replaces all variable names with horribly offensive language.. I'd call it obcussator
  • 0
    @kenogo lol it was literally a joke man chill
  • 2
    @kenogo I think you just answered that yourself.

    Making fun of people, and mental health is completely funny. It's important to not take anything too seriously. And honestly as long as. You say it with no I'll intent, but for the sake of a joke, I think people's offense only makes it better.

    Lighten up?
  • 1
    @kenogo just to clarify:

    It's important to make dark, fucked up jokes. It's how people have the difficult discussions. Through humor. And truly some of the best things about humanity comes from humor, and some of the best humor comes from some pretty fucked up places.

    They don't mean it maliciously. Remember that. Even if you don't find it funny, it's not a personal attack it's a joke. And sometimes it's not the joke that's funny, but your offense to the joke. Which can be equally if not funnier.

    Jokes are like sarcasm: you don't have to like it, but taking it seriously means you've severely missed the point.
  • 2
    @kenogo you should get your own camp in order before worrying about anybody else's.

    Leftists have been pushing people around for a long long time. Telling people what to say, what to think, how to act. Setting fires, destroying property, and harming innocents when they don't get their way. And in extreme cases, GENOCIDE. Deplatforming people and basically mobbing people that don't accept their twisted rhetoric. So why act surprised when people push back against that sort of barbarism? Do these activities seem like things sane people do?

    But yeah, some words are the problem.
  • 1
    @kenogo those are two very VERY different statements. One is against someone's race, an unchangable thing that has had centuries of discrimination and slavery. The other is a word you use to describe how your beliefs are.

    Honestly, attacking someone's beliefs, especially political beliefs is almost always:
    1) Funnier
    2) less malicious (to my knowledge a large significant, portion of liberals have never been sold, enslaved, treated like property and raped for decades for being a liberal. It's not even remotely the same.)
    3) a vessel for political discussion (sometimes)

    Honestly both sides are fucking mentally insane. Have you seen the shit that each one says? There are so many very complex topics, each with a thousand viewpoints. And to have only 2 words to summarize your entire set of beliefs in this extremely complicated ecosystem of politics.

    It's batshit. It really is.
  • 0
    @kenogo it's a joke because I OBVIOUSLY don't ACTUALLY believe that being a liberal makes you literally mentally retarded.

    jeez lighten the fuck up, what ever happened to "nothing in comedy is off limits"??
  • 1
    @mjones44 @kenogo
    people nowadays are just desperately looking for ways to turn what you say against you so that they can assault you. That is the only way how they can still valve their frustration with the world into aggression without feeling bad about it. They can even feel like being part of the solution without actually grappling with a real problem.
  • 0
    @deadPix3l that's why I stay out of it whenever I'm able. I frankly don't give a flying fuck about social issues and the associated bullshit.
  • 2
    @kenogo are you stigmatizing brainless fucktoys right now?

    Your argument doesnt hold water, mental illness is already stigmatized, because it is a fricking illness. He was only insulting liberals, because they are obviously not mentally ill, generally. it was a joke in a sense that it wasnt serious.
  • 1
    okay, I think you are just acting stupid to keep up the statements you did before, because what you are saying is completely backwards at this point.
    He said
    "liberalism is a mental disorder 😂"

    He is assigning the label "illness" to "liberalism", which is a political stance, not the other way around; he is not assigning "political stance" to "mental disorder".
    I dont know how you are getting the idea that he is treating mental disorders as if they were a choice you make, like a political stance, that is backwards.

    And yes, you used "brainless fucktoys" in exactly the same sense as he used "mental disorder". In your example you have a blatant statement about some thing ("men") that assigns that thing a label ("brainless fucktoys"), which is exactly what he did.

    It may not be considered a "joke" in an academic sense, but it is definitely meant to be taken literally.
  • 2
    @kenogo alright. I'm starting to see your point. Which to be fair was not clear until now.

    It was not clear that you were offended not at the liberal part, but the mentally ill part. It was not made any clearer to demonstrate your point using race instead of just clarifying the mental illness portions.

    I can also see in this discussion that I'm the bad guy. I want to clarify that nothing I've said was meant with any ill intent and was not an attack at you, liberals, mental illness or anyone else.

    That said I won't apologize because I don't believe that anything I've said should be taken seriously and I think I was clear in my word choice, thus offense is your choice if you want to be, but it is not my fault. Please let me know if you feel differently.

    I think it's about time to wrap this long tangent up and get back to the original point: fuck the CoC! Why are they doing this shit?
  • 0
    @kenogo it's all good. And you definitely have the right to be offended by it. I was merely pointing out that being offended about that thing, in this rant, what does that get you? Seems like a wasted effort. I can see why you be offended, I just don't know how many winning sides started with "I'm offended" and in this specific case winning isn't worth a lot.

    That said, i fully understand your view, I think we both misarticulated ourselves, and I'm glad we can wind down into a calm understanding.
  • 1
    @kenogo just playing devil's advocate here but, who gets to decide what a joke is? you? just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean it isn't a joke. it's almost completely subjective.
  • 2
    Not really subjective, contextual is the better term. Your joke here was simply a statement, no twist, no punchline, no nothing. If you were to have a group of friends where you would usually throw jokes around such as "______ is a mental illness", then there would be certain context derived from the previous jokes, and then it would be concidered a joke. This is a somewhat anonymous dev board, so the context is generally dev related, and therefor we can all understand when we see a dev joke, but we would have a hard time understanding jokes from other backgrounds as we have no context.
    Don't get me wrong, Im all for full freedom and no censureship, just wanted to put this out there.
  • 1
    There was a context. This thread. Which is about liberalism being adopted by the linux code of conduct. He expressed his opinion on the topic and on liberalism in general using a phrase which was obviously an exaggeration, with the intent to make people laugh. In a way, the exaggeration was the punchline, because it is obviously inadequate and therefore surprising. You guys all know that it wasnt serious and it was a joke, but certain people are desperately trying to show how mature and ahead of the curve they are, so they strawman jokers who are just trying to crack people up. Of course dark jokes can go too far and you should not insult people randomly. But that comment was completely on topic and if anything it was insulting liberals, which is a choice and thus absolutely acceptable, because it does not target the nature of a human being, which they cant do anything about.
    That is where I draw the line. You dont make fun of redheads, black, white or disabled people.
  • 2
    My problem here is that the term liberalism is being completely misused. Liberalism has nothing to do with sjw agenda, its rather the complete opposite. These people are not liberals, ironically they are closer to "fashism". So generally the term liberalism wasnt mentioned nor is it really contextual here. If he was to say that sjws are mentally ill, I think it would be far more on point, even though its insulting people directly(although saying that sjws are mentally ill is a mere observation, not even an insult at this point). That is why I didnt really see it as a joke, but rather as someone really missing the point, as I even said somewhere in the beggining of the thread.
  • 1
    Yeah, thread did go a bit off, but it was kinda nice. And regarding the whole utopia thing, we don't really have any evidence that utopia would even be an ideal surrounding for humans, but from talking to you, I have a feeling that you are falmirial with that as well. Anyways, good thread.
  • 1

    Not so much political correctness, but civility and productive discussions.

    You don't think race, sexual orientation, politics, or body size should play any role in kernel development?

    That's exactly what this CoC demands!

    Don't like my commit? Then tell me why. Discuss the merits of my work, without bringing up my politics, who I have sex with, the color of my skin, or religion. That's irrelevant.

    The people who fear this CoC are people who don't want to be forced to stay on topic and only discuss the code. They betray themselves.

    It's like when every time a democrat tries to discuss the merits of keeping guns away from rapists, and then every republican freaks out thinking the left intends to take away his gun.

    They're not afraid of having their guns taken away. They're afraid everyone will find out they habitually rape children. Just like what happened to Roy Moore.

    That's why talks of keeping guns away from rapists doesn't bother me. And I own 18, for fucks sake.
  • 0
    Can't politics simply be kept out of an operating system?

    Politics and Linux do not mix.
Add Comment