4 ms·

To be honest, for those not (already) involved in this whole debate, it is very difficult to make an informed opinion here. What I see is a screenshot of a Git

by orless 9y ago

To be honest, for those not (already) involved in this whole debate, it is very difficult to make an informed opinion here. What I see is a screenshot of a GitHub issue (https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212 https://twitter.com/ohhoe/status/899748838302302212) which was already redacted and does no longer provide any links. Tweet in support of "anti-CoC article" is there (https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841 https://twitter.com/rvagg/status/887652116524707841) but that alone would not assert a "harmful person" in my opinion. I understand the fork is not on political reasons which may be very well grounded. But I don't think they are not explained to the public well enough. There must be a clear answer to "Why should I care?" but there is not. This will probably lead to ignorance and dismissal.

stillkicking 9y ago
That "anti-COC" article is as anti-COC as James Damore's memo was anti-diversity. What it does is highlight how speech codes can be used by the socially hyperfluent to bully and dominate the less fluent, by placing an unreasonable burden on a speaker to have 100% prediction accuracy of every potential negative response. http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe... That SJWs call it a strawman is just another example of how they always refuse to follow their own rules of empathy and inclusion.
- comzeradd 9y ago
  James Damore's memo was anti-diversity.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Maybe under diversity's new Orwellian definition
  - P0T8-TO3 9y ago
    There's a huge difference between anti-diversity, and anti-forced-diversity for the sake of diversity. I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc. Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate. This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode. That's terribad debating and awful human communication. James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.

by orless 9y ago

stillkicking 9y ago

That "anti-COC" article is as anti-COC as James Damore's memo was anti-diversity. What it does is highlight how speech codes can be used by the socially hyperfluent to bully and dominate the less fluent, by placing an unreasonable burden on a speaker to have 100% prediction accuracy of every potential negative response. http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/ http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-spe... That SJWs call it a strawman is just another example of how they always refuse to follow their own rules of empathy and inclusion.

comzeradd 9y ago
James Damore's memo was anti-diversity.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Maybe under diversity's new Orwellian definition
- P0T8-TO3 9y ago
  There's a huge difference between anti-diversity, and anti-forced-diversity for the sake of diversity. I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc. Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate. This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode. That's terribad debating and awful human communication. James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.