I feel like the whole CoC debate is just:

"Stop using harmful language!"
"F*** you! How else can I tell you that your commit sucks donkey-b***?!"
"You are banned!"
"I'm taking all of my work with me, you c****!"
"No you are not"
"Yes I F***ing am"

Maybe we can reach a compromise, where we can insult bad coders, just not on the basis of their race/gender/sex? Or, fork a version of the code base for "inclusive-sjw-types" and another for "loud-mouth-a**-holes"?

Like it's really a debate on work ethics. Positive change negative reinforcement...

No one actually cares about insults, we care about terminology. Using master - slave in servers makes total sense, and is the generally accepted terminology. Blacklist/Whitelist - every one knows what this does. Nobody for fucks sake wants to change all this to something "politically correct". I couldn't care less what you consider politically not fucked.

@Jilano honestly. Me.
I think respect is earned. Let people talk down or push away bad coders from important projects.

Like, if your code sucks. And it has no room in my repo. Get the fuck out.

This is a battle between perfectionists who use crude language (with some legit racist/sexist/assholes) and people who can't handle criticism (with some bad political actors).

@Jilano Yeah, most of these sjws have that awful "include coc" as their first commit, adding a text file, because they don't fucking know how to develop, as they're to engaged wasting their time adding "includiness" in repositories no one ever wanted their fucking politics in.

@systemctl I think this is where you missed the point. I made this in relation to linux's CoC and the Linus apology.

He basically apologized for being a dick to bad coders and rejecting their work.

Which I think is rather stupid. BUT, at the same time, I'm trying to understand both sides and not throw shit at each other.

It's a culture-clash in work ethics.

@gitoutofhere I don't think he apologized for rejecting their work.
I am not sure to what extend he is a dick but there is a differense between rejecting bad work (and saying the work is shit) and needlesly insulting people.
And as far as I understand he apologized for the latter.

Bs

You know what's funny, one of my family members has Asperger's and if anyone here knows how irreverent and crude aspi people are about their remarks on you or your work, then you know they would be the first to be banned by these pussy PC busybodies.

Yes, the CoC actually makes it wayyy easier to discriminate and kick out mentally and socially challenged people. Irony I only get to see with the far left.

@Jilano I would say it's more about "put this CoC in action so you ban all the people I don't like"

@systemctl well said, they couldn't care less about people, they want control.

OP has it backwards.
@Jilano explains it quite well, as does @JKyll.

The CoC is literally called "the post-meritocracy manifesto" and says interpersonal skills are more important than development skills. It pushes for hiring, not the best, but the "most inclusive." It also specifically calls out cis white men. (Sounds pretty racist and sexist to me.)

Apply this to a restaurant where interpersonal skills and skin color are more important than the ability to cook. Now to a hospital where race and talking ability are more important than medical knowledge or surgical skill.

All these people know how to do is, not talk, but manipulate and attack and discriminate. The bitter irony is that these tolerance and anti-discrimination rules actually dissuade tolerance while allowing and encouraging active discrimination. They also strongly encourage lower-quality contributions to the kernel. In short, they cause significant harm and improve nothing.

That is maybe the reason why Electron is so bad, they also agreed to the CoC 🤔
Just kidding. I dislike the CoC too and think it is a bad attempt to intersectionalism and wants to solve problems the wrong way, but as long I am not affected by it personally (thus working at the kernel) it will not disturb me whatsoever. But in all, the CoC just seems to be "dont be a dick and thats it" and will not destroy society.

They are trying to force political correctness onto people/organisations where there isn’t necessarily an issue.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make sure merge requests aren’t rejected because of the contributors race rather than because their code is shit.

But, it is worded so that they can remove people who they don’t like, or to be more precise, who’s views they don’t like. They would use the CoC to get people banned from projects over something they said on social media that is not connected to the project in any way.

There seems to be much confusion about the whole CoC controversy (CoCntroversy?).

The issue here is not the adoption of _a_ code of conduct. Linux already had something like that, called the Code of Conflict. The problem relies on the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct specifically.

The Contributor Covenant is a political weapon. It's political, as confirmed explicitly by its author, and a weapon, as demonstrated also by its author by having tried to get someone off a project for something completely unrelated to the project and heavily (and probably disingenuously) misunderstood.

Don't fall for the lies: the Contributor Covenant is purposely based on a premise of being nice, inclusive and welcoming, while at the same time allowing them to cast away anyone they want. They will push it forcefully on projects to gain leverage over them, while meeting all criticism with “but it just says to be nice to each other, what's the problem with it?”.

@gitoutofhere : Oh that'll be fun... I can clearly see that one year later the commit ratio will be:

SJWs Fork : 0%

Jerks Fork: 100%

:-)

Don't worry about the attention whores. They won't contribute anything anyway.