6 ms·

The community change I cannot take is how the social injustice movement has permeated it. When I joined llvm no one asked or cared about my religion or poli

The community change I cannot take is how the social injustice movement has permeated it. When I joined llvm no one asked or cared about my religion or political view. We all seemed committed to just writing a good compiler framework. This makes me sad.

chickenfries 8y ago
This comment made me think that someone had disparaged them for their political beliefs or religion, but after reading that doesn't seem to have happened, unless they left it out for some reason, but that would be odd. In fact, if I understand the letter correctly, the straw that broke OP's back was this: > https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/ https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/ To which I say... really? Ok, that's too bad that you don't want to be a contributor anymore because there is a diversity scholarship... somehow I don't see that as a long term problem for LLVM though.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 8y ago
  Nope. People have publicly declared that out of fear of the social justice movement they will ban people, refuse to communicate as soon as disagreement with the prevailing political view manifests. That's what's in the CoC that's objectionable. > made me think that someone had disparaged them for their political beliefs Funny how you do that in a post that disparages him for his political beliefs. But your post is nothing compared with the attacks elsewhere in this thread. Scroll down and read a bit, and you'll see plenty of that happening. Before you say "but it's not about excluding people", let me remind you about James Damore and Brendan Eich. Those were valuable people, attacked and damaged because of their (in Damore's case PERCEIVED, not real) political beliefs. We all know that the majority of Hacker News supported those actions (although how many supported them because they were afraid to be attacked, and how many actually supported those actions is not clear). And why do people do this ? Attack others for political reasons ? Most, of course, because they're afraid of SJWs. Because of what happened to Damore and Eich and many others. But SJWs, ostensibly, do this for tolerance of course ! THAT's why they're EXCLUDING people for their political views. For tolerance. Alaternative view: the SJWs are just socialites looking to exclude others, that's all. Aggressive and ... not interested in the only thing that matters : technically interesting work. I commend this person for speaking up.
  - imbokodo 8y ago
    > Damore and Eich...THAT's why they're EXCLUDING people for their political views The actual exclusion can be seen by walking around the engineering departments of FAANG companies (or Market Street startups) and seeing virtually all male, white or Asian faces. One in eight Americans are black - where are they? That is the real exclusion. Damore was fired for effectively boasting about this exclusion. It's illustrative that you ignore the massive exclusion of blacks and others from non-sweeping, non-cafeteria server jobs, and get ALL CAPS semi-hysterical that those who are dumb enough to align themselves with these exclusions and subjugations are the victims and excluded ones.
    - rhapsodic 8y ago
      > Damore was fired for effectively boasting about this exclusion. He did not boast about it, "effectively" or otherwise. That's a straight-up smear, attacking his character when you can't counter his logic.
    - eptcyka 8y ago
      Maybe I'm absolutely wrong, but as far as I could tell, Damore's memo did not mention race at all.
      - sanxiyn 8y ago
        You are wrong. Race is mentioned multiple times in Damore's memo, such as "At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases", etc.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    > Before you say "but it's not about excluding people", let me remind you about James Damore and Brendan Eich. Bingo. James Damore may be the tipping point where people start pushing back against this bullshit. To me, he's Galileo to Google's Catholic Church. He's the heretic that dared to defy the high priests of PC, and he got put on the rack for it.
- badsectoracula 8y ago
  I do not know how that looks to other people but to me these rules look both sexist and racist.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    I look at it more holistically. Men are not underrepresented in the industry and open source community. Neither are the various races not addressed by this particular scholarship. There are other programs you can apply for to get paid to work on LLVM or other open source projects, such as Google Summer of Code. I don't see how this program could actually have a detrimental effect on anyone, let alone a racist or sexist one.
    - bmarquez 8y ago
      My issue is that the scholarship lumps all the Asian groups together, as if Indians or Chinese have the same language, culture and representation in technology as Hmong or Cambodians. It just plays into racial stereotypes[1] in America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Issues_faced_by_Southeast_Asian_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Issues_faced_by...
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        I agree, as an Asian who is not Indian or Chinese, the scholarship could be made more inclusive. The invisibilty of minorty asian populations is a problem in America in general.
    - proactivesvcs 8y ago
      If the courses are run specifically for a group of people, based on their attributes, this subjects them to bias before they even walk in the door. One way that this sort of sexist/racist approach could be detrimental is if it's served by one, or few, organisations, the courses could accidentally (or, in extremis, purposefully) be using methods that cause entrenchment of existing partitions between different groups of people. Perhaps one set of courses teaches in a certain innocent manner, and the minorities that consume the course therefore learn in a particular way, or leave out key issues. There's also the possibility of being indoctrinated against those groups that are not welcomed; again, not necessarily on purpose - I don't intend to demonise such organisations. Somewhat analogous to recent machine learning/algorithms being found to be prejudiced as their programmers may be unknowingly prejudiced - e.g. facial recognition working poorly for faces of people with dark skin.

chickenfries 8y ago

This comment made me think that someone had disparaged them for their political beliefs or religion, but after reading that doesn't seem to have happened, unless they left it out for some reason, but that would be odd. In fact, if I understand the letter correctly, the straw that broke OP's back was this: > https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/ https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/ To which I say... really? Ok, that's too bad that you don't want to be a contributor anymore because there is a diversity scholarship... somehow I don't see that as a long term problem for LLVM though.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 8y ago
Nope. People have publicly declared that out of fear of the social justice movement they will ban people, refuse to communicate as soon as disagreement with the prevailing political view manifests. That's what's in the CoC that's objectionable. > made me think that someone had disparaged them for their political beliefs Funny how you do that in a post that disparages him for his political beliefs. But your post is nothing compared with the attacks elsewhere in this thread. Scroll down and read a bit, and you'll see plenty of that happening. Before you say "but it's not about excluding people", let me remind you about James Damore and Brendan Eich. Those were valuable people, attacked and damaged because of their (in Damore's case PERCEIVED, not real) political beliefs. We all know that the majority of Hacker News supported those actions (although how many supported them because they were afraid to be attacked, and how many actually supported those actions is not clear). And why do people do this ? Attack others for political reasons ? Most, of course, because they're afraid of SJWs. Because of what happened to Damore and Eich and many others. But SJWs, ostensibly, do this for tolerance of course ! THAT's why they're EXCLUDING people for their political views. For tolerance. Alaternative view: the SJWs are just socialites looking to exclude others, that's all. Aggressive and ... not interested in the only thing that matters : technically interesting work. I commend this person for speaking up.
- imbokodo 8y ago
  > Damore and Eich...THAT's why they're EXCLUDING people for their political views The actual exclusion can be seen by walking around the engineering departments of FAANG companies (or Market Street startups) and seeing virtually all male, white or Asian faces. One in eight Americans are black - where are they? That is the real exclusion. Damore was fired for effectively boasting about this exclusion. It's illustrative that you ignore the massive exclusion of blacks and others from non-sweeping, non-cafeteria server jobs, and get ALL CAPS semi-hysterical that those who are dumb enough to align themselves with these exclusions and subjugations are the victims and excluded ones.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    > Damore was fired for effectively boasting about this exclusion. He did not boast about it, "effectively" or otherwise. That's a straight-up smear, attacking his character when you can't counter his logic.
  - eptcyka 8y ago
    Maybe I'm absolutely wrong, but as far as I could tell, Damore's memo did not mention race at all.
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      You are wrong. Race is mentioned multiple times in Damore's memo, such as "At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases", etc.
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  > Before you say "but it's not about excluding people", let me remind you about James Damore and Brendan Eich. Bingo. James Damore may be the tipping point where people start pushing back against this bullshit. To me, he's Galileo to Google's Catholic Church. He's the heretic that dared to defy the high priests of PC, and he got put on the rack for it.
badsectoracula 8y ago
I do not know how that looks to other people but to me these rules look both sexist and racist.
- chickenfries 8y ago
  I look at it more holistically. Men are not underrepresented in the industry and open source community. Neither are the various races not addressed by this particular scholarship. There are other programs you can apply for to get paid to work on LLVM or other open source projects, such as Google Summer of Code. I don't see how this program could actually have a detrimental effect on anyone, let alone a racist or sexist one.
  - bmarquez 8y ago
    My issue is that the scholarship lumps all the Asian groups together, as if Indians or Chinese have the same language, culture and representation in technology as Hmong or Cambodians. It just plays into racial stereotypes[1] in America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Issues_faced_by_Southeast_Asian_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Issues_faced_by...
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      I agree, as an Asian who is not Indian or Chinese, the scholarship could be made more inclusive. The invisibilty of minorty asian populations is a problem in America in general.
  - proactivesvcs 8y ago
    If the courses are run specifically for a group of people, based on their attributes, this subjects them to bias before they even walk in the door. One way that this sort of sexist/racist approach could be detrimental is if it's served by one, or few, organisations, the courses could accidentally (or, in extremis, purposefully) be using methods that cause entrenchment of existing partitions between different groups of people. Perhaps one set of courses teaches in a certain innocent manner, and the minorities that consume the course therefore learn in a particular way, or leave out key issues. There's also the possibility of being indoctrinated against those groups that are not welcomed; again, not necessarily on purpose - I don't intend to demonise such organisations. Somewhat analogous to recent machine learning/algorithms being found to be prejudiced as their programmers may be unknowingly prejudiced - e.g. facial recognition working poorly for faces of people with dark skin.