5 ms·
Good news! That was at the end of the article, so you didn't miss things you might have been interested in. But the "ranting" isn't particularly ranty and has
by gjm11 10y ago
Good news! That was at the end of the article, so you didn't miss things you might have been interested in.
But the "ranting" isn't particularly ranty and has (it seems to me) a specific purpose: the author is concerned that some people reading his article might be discouraged from getting into open source software by the biases he describes, and wants to encourage them not to be. "But it can't stop you", he says: that's the point.
So I think the author is deliberately making a tradeoff: by inserting that material, he hopes to encourage any readers he has from "less privileged" groups not to give up if things get difficult, even if it means that some people from "more privileged" groups who don't like reading about privilege and bias and codes and conduct are put off. Is it a good tradeoff? I dunno. It doesn't seem obviously bad.
- teacup50 10y agoIt comes across as offensive and discouraging to those that believe that "intersectionality" is in itself discriminatory, both towards the racial/gender classifications being infantilized, and the racial/gender classifications who are assumed to be privileged. As an extension, the entire presumption of the necessity of a "code of conduct" is in itself "problematic", in that it ascribes problematic behavior to what are in fact welcoming, professional, pro-actively inclusive communities that simply do not accept at face value the discriminatory precepts (racial, gender, or otherwise) of intersectionality.
- teacup50 10y agoThe downvoting demonstrates exactly why the article's well-poisoning is offensive; the tautological ideology of intersectionality leaves no room for dissent in the marketplace of ideas, as any dissent merely proves the original premise of structural discrimination and privilege that applies to blunt categories of people on the basis of gender and race, and thus dissent is not to be considered an invitation to dialog, but damaging ignorance at best, "hate speech" at worst, and worthy of silencing regardless.
- yoo1I 10y agoThe marketplace of ideas just, rightly, rejected your elaborate but essentially baseless claim that anti-discrimination victimizes everyone who is not in the group being "de-victimized". It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
- teacup50 10y agoYour reformulation of my claims is inaccurate. Beyond that, I cannot refute an argument when none was presented.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]