3 ms·

> Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to

> Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels. No one within the group had a problem though. Coraline Ada came from outside the group and caused the disturbance. > This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight. It's good that this instance is being brought into the spotlight because it shows the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source.

mordocai 11y ago
I didn't say it was so if someone in the group had a problem. I said it was in the group's best interest. Someone making the group look bad to anyone is bad for the group because it limits the(already pretty small really) potential pool of new contributors. As far as "showing the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source"... you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. Identify politics have always been huge in the open source world. People work on projects, shun projects, ostracize projects, all because of identity politics. Identity politics has been a large part of open source (and free software before it) since the beginning.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  Do you claim to know what's in the best interest for the Opal project? Or Ada knows best? I don't think so, it's pure meddling. > you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. I must not because it used to be widely acknowledged that no one on the internet cares if you're a dog. Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years Even in the very narrow sense you mean this isn't remotely true. Maybe take some trips back to old Usenet content? But mordocai is absolutely right. "identity politics" is the foundation of free and open-source software.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. While I don't agree with ESR on everything, I'd say he's a better source about this than mordocai: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642
      - magicalist 11y ago
        > Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. Who on earth said open source was based on feminism (whatever that could mean)? Please reread my above comment. Meanwhile it never hurts to reexamine that age old assumption that every generation's fight is a novel one. The hacker ethic is fundamentally a set of political beliefs and if you really believe that those SJW boogeymen are the first to try to exclude people based on not aligning with some holy set of political opinions, then, again, you're missing out on the entire history of the FOSS movement. You don't even have to go far; ESR has some great writings on that very topic :)
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Switch "identity politics" with "gender/racial identity politics" and their statement becomes (almost) accurate. The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream. It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find. I find it intellectually dishonest to stretch "identity politics" to be about "Free vs Proprietary" in the context it was used in, because context will always matter more than a strict dictionary definition. The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong. You do indeed have to have a very narrow scope of identity politics (gender, most specifically) to become accurate. In modern usage, in regards to SJW/feminism, "identity politics" is almost exclusively about "gender politics". [0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw

mordocai 11y ago

I didn't say it was so if someone in the group had a problem. I said it was in the group's best interest. Someone making the group look bad to anyone is bad for the group because it limits the(already pretty small really) potential pool of new contributors. As far as "showing the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source"... you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. Identify politics have always been huge in the open source world. People work on projects, shun projects, ostracize projects, all because of identity politics. Identity politics has been a large part of open source (and free software before it) since the beginning.

exstudent2 11y ago
Do you claim to know what's in the best interest for the Opal project? Or Ada knows best? I don't think so, it's pure meddling. > you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. I must not because it used to be widely acknowledged that no one on the internet cares if you're a dog. Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years.
- magicalist 11y ago
  > Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years Even in the very narrow sense you mean this isn't remotely true. Maybe take some trips back to old Usenet content? But mordocai is absolutely right. "identity politics" is the foundation of free and open-source software.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. While I don't agree with ESR on everything, I'd say he's a better source about this than mordocai: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. Who on earth said open source was based on feminism (whatever that could mean)? Please reread my above comment. Meanwhile it never hurts to reexamine that age old assumption that every generation's fight is a novel one. The hacker ethic is fundamentally a set of political beliefs and if you really believe that those SJW boogeymen are the first to try to exclude people based on not aligning with some holy set of political opinions, then, again, you're missing out on the entire history of the FOSS movement. You don't even have to go far; ESR has some great writings on that very topic :)
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Switch "identity politics" with "gender/racial identity politics" and their statement becomes (almost) accurate. The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream. It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find. I find it intellectually dishonest to stretch "identity politics" to be about "Free vs Proprietary" in the context it was used in, because context will always matter more than a strict dictionary definition. The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong. You do indeed have to have a very narrow scope of identity politics (gender, most specifically) to become accurate. In modern usage, in regards to SJW/feminism, "identity politics" is almost exclusively about "gender politics". [0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw