24

Hooo boy. Has anyone seen the drama unfolding on StackExchange at the moment?

Comments
  • 7
    Nope, what's up?
  • 15
    Nope.

    Are they shutting down?
    Closing registration?
    Banning all users with rep>=25k?
    Not accepting questions anymore?
    Adding a CoC that strongly favors those with higher minority/victim scores?
    Being bought out by Facebook?
    Removing the upvote button?
  • 16
    @Root

    "Adding a CoC that strongly favors those with higher minority/victim scores?"

    Bingo.

    They fired Monica (one of the most well-known and respected mods on the site) because they thought she might break their new (not yet published) code of conduct about pronouns.

    Since then, heaps of mods have resigned, and the community is kind of in uproar.

    https://meta.stackexchange.com/ques...

    https://meta.stackexchange.com/ques...
  • 11
    But that's what the Codes of Conduct have been for since their inception, i.e. for the fun of a few trolls who use the victim olympics to wreak destruction. Why the uproar now and not back then when they came around with the CoC?

    Have people been really that stupid that they didn't realise the infiltration?
  • 13
    @AlmondSauce

    "We’re finalizing the policy internally now and will ship it ASAP. "

    These self-important fucks, like they 'ship' policies, the same as someone shipping code.

    What a load of self-involved navel gazing bullshit. I blame that self-promoting aggrandizing cunt Coraline Ada Ehmke for starting this shitapple practice of treating 'policies' and minor changes to fucking readme as equivalent to being an actual "contributor" and not say another set of wagon-riding wannabe retards.

    I hope she chokes on that COC and dies of herpes in misery and obscurity along with everyone else that supports this paint huffing stupidity.

    Thanks for bringing this shit to our attention so we know where to avoid so we don't catch the cancer.
  • 8
    @Fast-Nop

    Some of us would like to develop without having to participate in mental gymnastics to accommodate the politically insane and the people who pander to them while leading mobs.

    Some of us would like a place where we can go, places we're already used to, without these people showing up to smear their proverbial feces on the walls and whine about their victim complexes.

    Some of us would just like to fucking code without these people claiming out one side of their mouth that its "NOT ABOUT POLITICS!" and making it about just that out the other side of their mouth.

    Some of us would just like to code, and be jewish and portuguese without people fucking pandering to us.

    Some of us would just like to code and be left the fuck alone without this plague of dipshits flooding over every site screaming into everyones ears from a foot away like the sound of a brown tidal wave of entitled marxist crybaby bullshit come to wreck everything we hold dear, just because.
  • 8
    @Wisecrack Yeah sure, and that's why this CoC shit should have been put under fire early on. Solve big problems while they are still small, Laotse said.

    There was no shortage of warnings against the SJWs sneaking in their CoCs because SJWs fucking always lie.

    But the warnings were dismissed, and now it's time for popcorn and "told you so". Maybe after a cycle of wreckage and reboot, people will learn not to repeat that mistake. If not, shit will happen over and over. That's what Buddha said.
  • 3
  • 13
    I look forward to the new highly useful StackOverflow due to the CoC.
  • 6
    I agree with the sentiment of all of the ranters in this thread so far. I'm grateful for finding some sanity here, you guys are logical and awesome.

    @bkwilliams πŸ˜‚ wtf is chad stevens doing there?!

    @Root sharp! Got it on the fifth guess, have a sliceπŸ•
  • 7
    @bkwilliams I think it's about time for the anti-CoC "CoC".
  • 6
    @bioDan I think Chad is the token male. All the others were female bodied and they needed something to stop the obvious outrage that they'll just pawn off as "misogynist" anyways.
  • 3
    @pk76 SQLite did that, then relented, because you will bow the knee or you will be unpersoned.
  • 2
    @bioDan All of the rest were sarcasm lol
  • 8
    All but producing any needed content!
    Shall they choke to death on their CoCs and so they will.

    I am live attending the destruction of democracy right here in the name of SJW culture and 'social goals' whose only goal is to whitewash governmental lazyness.

    But they compensate by paying my transit and fewd. So I get fat for this weekend and watch the world burn.
    It truly is popcorn time.

    Though the ugliness is soul crushing. All that lost potential. Such stupidity. It's a school book for the imposter syndrome and - I mean it - can be used for studies on the decline of society values.

    All I can help you guys with is emphasising not to go into government projects or politics. Or accept the utter idiocy and go full honk honk.

    Enjoy CW3.
    Its gonna be good times for dev and information technology in general.
  • 8
    Nobody yet mentioned that last month they retroactively relicensed all content to CC BY-SA 4.0 (previously 3.0) https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/...

    The problem is CC BY-SA 3.0 doesn't grant them rights to relicense content, so according to CC FAQ *their license to all their content was terminated*. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/...
  • 12
    I waited far too long for one of you to misspell and end up writing cock instead of coc. I’m disappointed. Here I go.

    Cock.

    I’ll see myself out.
  • 4
    Honest and innocent question not meant to offend anybody: How many of those with an alternate gender are there?

    Because I have never met one of them. Non-straight people, sure. A couple who actually changed their gender with an operation. But none who were unsure about their gender.

    My annectodal impression would be that there are so few of those, it'd make more sense to have alternate rules for fans of Chelsea London or something, but ... obviously I must be wrong.

    So somebody link to some hard numbers please.
  • 8
    @mksana The real answer is "no-one really knows, because no-one really cares if you've come there to ask a programming question."
  • 3
    @AlmondSauce Fair point, I guess. πŸ˜ƒ
  • 1
    @bkwilliams I don't stand for the SJW bullshit either but uncalled for stereotyping isn't gonna help.
  • 4
    @dr-ant right, that is why I only use true stereotypes and not made up one.
  • 1
    @bkwilliams πŸ™„

    Perhaps my comment wasn't clear. Lashing out with stereotypes isn't going to help.
  • 3
    I couldn't be happier if the whole of SE burned to the ground, SO be damned. Anyone who assumes collectivist principles has lost every last shred of respect in my eyes
  • 6
    @pk76 I'm actually considering putting a CoC in my git repos that just says "fuck off"
  • 3
    @dr-ant SE is beyond help anyway.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop what I'm saying is, oppose for the right reasons. Stack overflow is shitting on the community with their flawed CoC. That is the issue. Maybe it's beyond help but unnecessarily shitting on other people (like in the pic: changing the face of coding) doesn't help either. If anything, it validates the SJWs. If the opposite to SJW implies racist/bigot, then how can a SJW be flawed?
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop The CoC uproar now is almost certainly not really to do with the code of conduct, but to do with Monica's firing.

    The CoC was just the reason used for firing her (before it had even been released), and the first non-apology just drove everyone to get the pitchforks out.

    The same employee then (on Twitter) only inviting "black or brown" people to a StackOverflow event didn't exactly help either.
  • 4
    @dr-ant Opposite of SJW doesn't mean anything because that can be anyone. SJWs themselves ARE the racists and sexists because they adopt marxist principles which are collectivist in nature.

    Opposing these cunts only means you are for liberty
  • 3
    @dr-ant the mental gymnastics here are strong.

    Despite a developmental disability, SJW's will attack me and tell me how privileged I am because of my sex and skin color.

    Opposing SJW's isn't a position of bigotry; it's far more complicated than that. It's about opposing how one determines the worth of someone. SJW's overemphasize sexual identify and skin color, and is why the term "reverse racism" often gets thrown around.

    A lot of SJW opposition are people who beleive we should all just coexist naturally, not forced. And have equal issue with the classically bigoted people.
  • 4
    @pk76 Exactly. It's really simple: individualism (everbody has the same worth and should be treated equally) vs collectivism (people are divided into groups based on arbitrary factors like skin color, and the groups are judged as a whole).

    There's a good reason the best societies that have ever existed where/are individualistic. Because the individual feels pain and oppression, a group can't. So when you treat people not on their own merit but based on their standing in a group you necessarily either oppress or unfairly priviledge most people because everybody is not exactly THE average person.

    Now the question is why would you feel the need to equalize across groups anyway (e.g. women representation in tech)? Because they are also post modernists which believe there is no difference between anyone (like biological sex). Thus when there's a difference across groups that MUST be because of discrimination and cannot be natural. This misunderstanding is the root cause of the SJW bigotry
  • 4
    @dr-ant SJW are both racist and sexist, that's what the comic appropriately portrays. Their racist hatred for whites and Asians as well as their sexist hatred for men means that the only ones who have to actually show competence for getting money are white/Asian men. The useless diversity hires can leech money based on sex, race and mental illness.
  • 5
    @Fast-Nop exactly. And I don't want special treatment due to my disability. How incredibly demoralizing and demeaning it is to be viewed as "that" rather than for my knowledge and skills?

    I'm not a token. Whether bigotry or favoritism, it hurts the group. I'm an individual with my own skills, and I want to be considered in that regards and only that regards.
  • 5
    @pk76 That's the funny thing. In their efforts to "equalize" they are being massively biggoted by implying black people, women or poeple with disability are somehow inherently worse than white men and thus need to be given advantages to compete with them. How dumb is that?
  • 5
    @12bitfloat while simultaneously ignoring my disability and calling me privileged for my skin color and sex; thereby showing their actual bias and bigotry.

    There's a hierarchy of worth to these people, just like there is to the classically bigoted.
  • 5
    @12bitfloat The US: disproportionately many black people in prison. SJW: that's racist!

    Also US: much more men in prison than women. No SJW: that's sexist!
  • 3
    @12bitfloat @pk76 @Fast-Nop

    Again. I'm not saying opposing SJW is wrong. I don't believe in their ideas either.
    However. The comic not only shows competent people getting sidelined but it shows other factions in negative light. A Muslim women has no real job but tinkers with clocks. Really? You're taking a jab at SJWs by showing them how biased you are? You can't beat racism (any -ism/hate) by racism. That's just creating more noise.

    The problem isn't inclusion. It's merit/excellence. This is what needs to be addressed and you can't do that by insulting people. Nor can it be done by diversity hires. Both are equally ineffective and equally divisive.
  • 2
    @dr-ant To be fair I hate that about the "anti-sjw" side, too
  • 4
    @dr-ant Islam is a religion, not a race, so your argument doesn't even make any sense.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop I knew there would be at least one person correcting me on that.😁

    That's why I clarified in the parentheses any ism or hate (which should've covered communalism, bigotry, religious intolerance, discrimination of any sort, hateful stereotypes and as, english stack exchange tells me, religiomisia). Too lazy to type everything.
  • 5
    @dr-ant Islam is seriously at odds with women's rights not only in theory, but much more important, also in practice. You see that everywhwere where Islam is the dominating religion.

    Avowing equal treatment for women and respect for Islam are mutually exclusive. That's not racism, but logic.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop and that introduces why this issue is so complex in reality. You _have_ to make a stand. Historically some stands could be improved. But you simply can't actually be inclusive of everyone, as some hold exclusive ideas. You wind up with a paradox.
  • 3
    @pk76 Actually, I developed a somewhat nerdy RPG style scheme for SJWs, with base scores and action modifiers that did manage to get that paradox solved (and a lot of others):

    Existence:
    +4 not white
    +2 not male
    +1 not hetero

    Actions:
    +4 for actions incompatible with Western culture
    -4 for right wing extremism

    Just play it through, it will work out. :-)
  • 6
    @dr-ant Stereotypes != racism / *ism. There can be overlap, ofc, but e.g. racism is hating someone because of their race and ignoring everything else about them. Stereotypes are expecting someone to act like a member of their group -- which is usually true because of how groups (and stereotypes) work.

    You can be both racist and expect stereotypical behavior, or either one, or neither.

    Expecting someone that looks British to have a British accent is a stereotype. Same with expecting someone from Spain to love beans and wine, or a black person to love fried chicken. Same with expecting someone from the deep south to love peaches and sweet tea. These aren't racist. They have a basis in fact, and are statistically valid observations.

    Saying "José is great, but he's a fucking beaner! I fucking hate beaners" is racist. Saying "José? I bet he's great at rolling burritos πŸ˜…" is not.
  • 2
    @dr-ant Adding the word "so" before telling total nonsense is quite a cheap way of trying to make it look as if the other one had been saying anything like that.

    The problem is it makes you look really stupid if the other one calls it out.
  • 3
    @dr-ant That's not what he did at all. Holy shit is this a stretch.
  • 3
    @dr-ant he said they are often at odds with women and it's logically difficult to resolve inclusion of both. Not impossible though, as historically so we're Christians and yet this has improved immensely.

    How much you're twisting this goes to show the very problem that we're expressing with SJW's.

    Look how uninclusive you're being just because someone isn't valuing your specially protected class more than another.
  • 0
    @Root Stereotypes != racism/hate. Agreed.
    However we have to be careful of the overlap. I bet José is great at rolling burritos vs Nobody knows what Durkadurka's job is but she likes to build clocks.
    I feel the latter one is more hate than humour.
  • 2
    @dr-ant or she never disclosed what her job is, but had mentioned her love of clocks.

    People don't all disclose the same information. For over a year on this site I didn't even disclose who I was, what I've worked on, etc. And even still, no one knows who I work for, or anything about my work history other than that I cooked at least one place.

    You're jumping to the conclusion you want to see, rather than asking what possibilities could create the situation.
  • 0
    @pk76 you've got to be kidding me right now!
    I'm the one twisting words?
    Did you even read?
    Was the topic even about accepting Islam? It was about what the comics represented. I expressed my disagreement with reasons.
    I don't get what I'm missing in my expression that makes you think I'm asking you to be accepting of Islam when I am, as clearly as I can, reiterating that we don't have to insult a muslim PERSON to make fun of the SJWs.
  • 5
    🀑 honk honk
  • 2
    @12bitfloat

    The entire text should be "suck it!"
  • 3
    @Wisecrack But for real. Maybe:

    1. Don't be a dick
    2. If you advocate for collectivism your are irrevocable banned from contributing
  • 4
    @dr-ant

    "With their flawed coc."

    There is no good coc, they're all flawed because the idea is flawed, not in principle but in practice. As usual it's about equality of outcome not equality of starting conditions.

    For example, I'm a minority. Maybe if my life starting conditions had been better (and not riddled with abusive meth head step dads and schools where I was singled out regularly for being the only 'white' kid, but I digress), then maybe I'd be further along in my career.

    On the other hand, I made a ton of shit choices and have to own them.

    Naturally these people whine and blame their supposed victimhood, while harassing and assaulting anyone that doesn't do the same..and not just the ultimate evil 'whites', but minorities that don't follow the party line because just being a shade darker than a ghoul MUST imply my beliefs HAVE to be aligned with my 'allies' and 'comrades' from the university circuit.

    It's honestly disgusting and degrading.
  • 4
    @Wisecrack I don't know because there really is something called "hate speech". Speech *can* go too far. It's just FAR away from what the SJWs claim it too be. Libel is off limits for example, and that's good.

    So I'm not opposed to a CoC in principle. Especially because it just says the same thing that's an unwritten rule anyway. Without a CoC if there would be a person continously making fun of another contributor, he would probably get kicked out anyways because that's not acceptable
  • 4
    @dr-ant I think you are missing the point.

    The joke in the comic is not about any person, their skills, likes, or contributions. You don't have to take offense for the Muslim girl, or any other person in there for that matter.

    The joke is on the company that hired those individuals to put a checkmark on a diversity requirement. The people and skills/likes are not important. It's just to emphasize the meaninglessness of diversity in a company.

    So what about chad you might ask?

    Well, there's a diversity quota for a single white male as well.

    You might say "But he's white and he's the only one who knows how to code!" Yes. A white male which knows how to code is a represantation for the average programmer in the US since the 80's and still is today. Tough luck.
  • 3
    @Root

    I've always found the "blacks love watermelon and fried chicken" meme bizarre.

    Like, don't MOST people love watermelon and fried chicken? They're delicious!

    Like dumb blonde jokes, jokes about fried chicken, dumb polish jokes, etc, etc, most of it originates from culture spread by hollywood.
  • 5
    @Wisecrack idk man. I'm Irish and I love potatoes and beer something fierce. I definitely know more ways to cook with potatoes than any non-Irish I know.
  • 1
    @12bitfloat

    " Especially because it just says the same thing that's an unwritten rule anyway"

    If it's a rule already, why does it need to be written down?

    What happened to basic civility?

    "I don't know because there really is something called "hate speech"."

    Like all human emotions it is

    irrationalize to demonize what we haven't taken the time to fully comprehend.

    Hate is a tool. If you're going to hate, hate well.

    There are plenty of good reasons for hate, and plenty of people worth hating.

    For example: meth heads, wife beaters, child abusers, people who steal from

    the poor, people who betray the public trust, chronic liars, chronic thieves,

    people who blame actual victims, people who *pretend* to *be* victims and

    so discredit actual victims, those who mistreat the homeless and small animals,

    etc, etc.

    I don't think this reflexive rejection of hate is healthy or rational.
  • 1
    Nor do I think there should be any restriction on 'hate speech' because

    at the end of the day there are definite groups of people who should

    be ostracized and marginalized from society, like all the people commiting

    the behaviors I mentioned above. That is, if we want a functional society.

    But more broadly, hate speech is freespeech, and the regulation of it, like

    most regulations on human liberty, are always pushed on the pretense of

    being 'well meaning' and then exercised in the worst ways, against the most

    vulnerable or voiceless in society.

    "making fun of another contributor, he would probably get kicked out anyways because that's not acceptable"

    Depends on whos being made fun of. If they support giving aid or comfort

    to people who ought to be marginalized? Sure, all aboard the OSTRACISM TRAIN!

    If they're a sperg who can't communicate for shit and clog up communications

    with continual drama and totally devoid of merit? Thats also deserving.
  • 1
    If someones just an asshole to them for a sake of being an asshole, get rid of em.

    No one needs a Coc for the mere unilateral exercise of power. A 'CoC' is the

    pretense that merely justifies such an action and will always devolve into

    just that if it doesn't start out as pretense.
  • 2
    @Wisecrack the CoC defines what that subset of the overall community considers to be an asshole.

    For example, take hostility that occurs outside of a project scope. Some people feel it doesn't matter. Some people feel it reflects badly upon the project. In either case someone is being an asshole. There is no clear answer, even if I have my preference.
  • 1
    @pk76

    Some stereotypes are true pk76.

    The idea is we don't have time to get to know everyone in society. As we were developing as a species, we developed a way to rapidly draw patterns and conclusions about various members of groups, based on disparate information gleaned from personal experience. It was just accurate enough to be useful toward survival.

    So yes, stereotypes exist, and they can often be a good starting baseline but lets face it: the world has changed *a lot*, and it is much bigger than it used to be and a lot of what we used to assume was true can be wildly misleading because of all the possible exceptions in the modern world.

    I think *today* it is important to take people with a grain of salt, and don't assume too much. The world would grind to a halt without people being willing to give each other the time of day.
  • 2
    @Wisecrack I don't mean this with any disrespect, but are you ASD? Because so am I and I know this is something I had trouble with a lot in the past. That was a joke.
  • 4
    @Wisecrack Do you agree that things like libel should be a crime? Don't get me wrong I'm VERY much on the side of free speech. I also think there are things that are indeed of limits.

    Always remember what freedom is.
    I actually don't like the word freedom because it's not that accurate. Liberty is more fitting.

    Liberty means freedom that doesn't infringe on other peoples liberty. Because well, that's how a society has to work.

    My point is not that freedom of speech should be restricted in whatever many ways because people feel bad. I'm all for the freedom of being mean or making an "offensive" joke.

    My point is that there *are* rational restrictions on free speech thus proving that a CoC can have a role.

    That said, I generally agree with you that people thinking restricting free speech in general is positive are stupid
  • 2
    "the CoC defines what that subset of the overall community"

    Yes, but what if the community is wrong? What if joe dirtbag with his drama is really the muckracking power hungry asshole using his supposed victim status to say, oust someone who doesn't support or merely doesn't like him?

    Lets be clear, these people are narcissistic vampires.

    Frankly I couldn't care less what people 'feel', and likewise no one else should care either. Thats outside the scope of any and all projects.

    The code is what matters. Everything else is inviting ruin by incrementalism.
  • 2
    If someone's being an asshole, maybe the mob is wrong. Since when has it been

    ethically incorrect to be an asshole? What *is* an asshole? Is it someone who states the facts in an insensitive way? Is it someone that doesn't go along to get along with the mob?

    Is it someone that doesn't reflexively agree with the person leading the mob for their own benefit? Is it someone that makes callous jokes as men are wont to do when bonding?

    More importantly who invited all these self important people with their definitions of assholery? Aren't they the assholes for squatting the high hill of 'allies to minorities and the downtrodden' when all they do is hurt us and use us as pawns to further their own political victim hierarchies?

    It's a pretty dick move for someone, anyone, to show up to a party, house, or industry (coding)

    uninvited, and crash the thing and demand everyone has to party the way they want or else face consequences and be forced to leave.

    I think THEY'RE the assholes.
  • 2
    @Wisecrack and don't you want a document that says "we as a community behave this way" that you can look at and go "oh god no" before wasting your time with it?
  • 1
    @pk76

    This is actually kinda brilliant pk.

    If only otherwise smart people and humans weren't prone to bandwagonning without thinking.

    Edit: Haven't been diagnosed with ASD, but people in my family have, along with BPD.

    We're a bunch of assholes.

    @12bitfloat - absolutely, libel and slander *should* be regulated, and we have laws for that, except they're not enforced, because like all standards, it is only ever enforced unevenly as a weapon in the back and forth gaping charbydis-like maw of petty power politics.
  • 0
    @bioDan yeah I get the joke about diversity hire. For the last time my problem is not with the joke but with its expression. To you the people/skills in the joke are not important because joke is about diversity hires. To me, that makes the joke tasteless. I'm not faulting the comics for sympathizing with the white male. I'm faulting it for its implications on other people.
  • 1
    @dr-ant

    The fact that you read the commentary as "sympathetic to some white guy" and not "hiring based on ethnicity or genitalia or political position is bad" speaks volumes about who you are.

    If you support this idiocy just say it, we're not gonna crucify you. No one likes people who play the middle. Have some chutzpah.
  • 1
    @dr-ant

    In fairness you're not a bad dude.

    I'm just a bit of a dick so take what I say with a grain of salt.
  • 1
    @Wisecrack Haha!
    Your comment did make me chuckle.
    Thank you.

    The fact that you cared enough to comment a day later tells me you aren't too shabby yourself.
Add Comment