4 ms·

Vague language is fine. This is a community, and we ought to be able to figure out for ourselves like reasonable adults what is and is not appropriate. If that

Vague language is fine. This is a community, and we ought to be able to figure out for ourselves like reasonable adults what is and is not appropriate. If that isn’t happening, particularly because of the project leader, I don’t see how a CoC is going to matter. The problem here is giving in to activism by having a CoC in the first place. That’s how it starts. It ends with this twitter mob bullshit policing reasonable free speech and ruining careers over legitimate discussions. Their mentality is that there is no room for nuance or discourse - if you don’t fully embrace their agenda, you will be destroyed. And they get off on this. Just look at CoralineAda’s twitter feed. Same thing that has been happening to Jordan Peterson for years. Also, Linus taking time off could be bad for everyone. This isn’t a black and white issue. The cost of him being an asshole was that the project may have had fewer contributors than it would have otherwise. But people forget that the cost of not having Linus means we would have never had linux. That is not a net win. None of this is meant to suggest that it’s just fine to be a dick if you’re a good enough contributor. But we must realize that personality traits are complex and often intertwined, and we don’t get to cherry pick them. Quite simply, when it comes to the human race, this is the best we have. The thing in Linus that makes him a dick is likely related to the thing that sustained his drive to create what he did. If there was a non-asshole Linus also creating Linux from nothing and giving it to the world, sure, go with that guy. But until we have perfect people, we should carefully consider what we are throwing away, and whether the trade is worth it. I wouldn’t contribute to Linux after seeing how he treats people. But so what. A hundred of me can’t hold a candle to him. I can’t imagine trying to oust him and depriving the world of his product for the benefit of my hurt feelings.

maxerickson 8y ago
Jordan Peterson is a hill you even want to spill blood on?
- repolfx 8y ago
  "Them's fightin words"? Why, what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? He's rather the celebrity these days, I saw his book in the number 2 position at the bookstore only a few days ago. Your post doesn't seem to have any substantive in it. Just a vaguely threatening implication that referring to Peterson by way of example will attract some sort of retribution.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    There's no implication of retribution, it's a turn of phrase based on the idiom "hill to die on", which people often invoke when taking a side on a controversial issue. The implication is that defending him is not worth, like, getting a splinter or paper cut or something.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Well, let me rephrase. Why wouldn't he be worth defending?
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  He sure is. Oddly, every time I encounter someone who has a knee-jerk downvote reaction to seeing his name, it seems to be the case that they have no idea who he is or what he has actually said. People actually think he is some alt-right figure, which couldn’t be more inaccurate, and certain groups of activists love to promote that.
  - beat 8y ago
    Jordan Peterson isn't alt-right. But sadly, he is beloved by the alt-right, who don't understand him any more than the left does.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > People actually think he is some alt-right figure, He's a socially conservative figure, somewhat popular with the alt-right because social conservatism is a central feature of the alt-right (it may be “alt”, but it is still “right”), though his a commitment to Western liberal (in the classic sense) democracy gets him criticism on the alt-right (which is used to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.) Example of both the praise and criticism (focussed more on the latter) from a site which self-characterizes as being within the “reactionary rationalist” subset of the alt-right: https://greyenlightenment.com/sjws-and-democracy/ https://greyenlightenment.com/sjws-and-democracy/
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      To late to edit, but: “the alt-right (which is used to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.)” Should be: “the alt-right (which is opposed to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.)”
  - tptacek 8y ago
    It really depends on what your definition of "the alt-right" is. If by that term you mean "white nationalist political activist", obviously he's not that. The term is inchoate, people imbue it with different meanings depending on context, and not all of those contexts exclude Peterson. "Intellectual Dark Web" would be a more fitting category if it weren't such a self-parody. It's I think worth saying that serious people who have almost certainly put more energy into understanding where Peterson is coming from than any of us here, including having interviewed him in person, have come away from the experience attributing some pretty damning beliefs to him. For instance: I don't think you'd easily win the "he's not an outspoken misogynist" argument. Obviously, that by itself doesn't put him in the "alt-right". But, of course, casually and comfortably engaging with people like Stefan Molyneux muddies the waters on the "alt-right" thing, too (again: in some common meanings of the term).
lucisferre 8y ago
> Just look at CoralineAda’s twitter feed So, I just did, and you are right, it is nauseatingly wholesome. Someone should put a stop to that. > Same thing that has been happening to Jordan Peterson for years Despite Saudi Arabia's claims, I can assure you that Canada has not, in fact, imprisoned Mr. Enforced Monogamy.
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  Nobody wants to read a Jordan Peterson argument thread, so we should kill this tangent, but you just proved my point here. If you knew anything about him whatsoever, you’d know that he is absolutely opposed to forced monogamy.
  - type0 8y ago
    Don't bother, people who don't understand rhetorical questions are not worth arguing with, specially when they're driven by political agenda.
    - lucisferre 8y ago
      Just what exactly was rhetorical?
- scruple 8y ago
  "Fuck you Matz" [0] is "nauseatingly wholesome?" I guess we have very different opinions about what makes a person wholesome. [0]: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029170073938944000 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029170073938944000
beat 8y ago
"We would never have had linux". Ah, but we do have Linux. And it can survive without Linus, if needed. In fact, it must survive. He's 48 now. What do we do in 50 years? Do we assume something else is going to come along that's so awesome that Linux becomes obsolete and gets abandoned? I don't think that's a good assumption. A better assumption is that computers are now stable tech, like internal combustion engines, and that Linux is the best OS we have, and could be around for centuries. Which is an amazing legacy for him, but... it's going to be a legacy, sooner or later. And what if he has a heart attack tomorrow? I just lost a friend to a heart attack this week. Not much older than Linus, and in great health. It happens. Do we just give up, or does Linux go on without him?

maxerickson 8y ago

Jordan Peterson is a hill you even want to spill blood on?

repolfx 8y ago
"Them's fightin words"? Why, what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? He's rather the celebrity these days, I saw his book in the number 2 position at the bookstore only a few days ago. Your post doesn't seem to have any substantive in it. Just a vaguely threatening implication that referring to Peterson by way of example will attract some sort of retribution.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  There's no implication of retribution, it's a turn of phrase based on the idiom "hill to die on", which people often invoke when taking a side on a controversial issue. The implication is that defending him is not worth, like, getting a splinter or paper cut or something.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Well, let me rephrase. Why wouldn't he be worth defending?
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
He sure is. Oddly, every time I encounter someone who has a knee-jerk downvote reaction to seeing his name, it seems to be the case that they have no idea who he is or what he has actually said. People actually think he is some alt-right figure, which couldn’t be more inaccurate, and certain groups of activists love to promote that.
- beat 8y ago
  Jordan Peterson isn't alt-right. But sadly, he is beloved by the alt-right, who don't understand him any more than the left does.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > People actually think he is some alt-right figure, He's a socially conservative figure, somewhat popular with the alt-right because social conservatism is a central feature of the alt-right (it may be “alt”, but it is still “right”), though his a commitment to Western liberal (in the classic sense) democracy gets him criticism on the alt-right (which is used to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.) Example of both the praise and criticism (focussed more on the latter) from a site which self-characterizes as being within the “reactionary rationalist” subset of the alt-right: https://greyenlightenment.com/sjws-and-democracy/ https://greyenlightenment.com/sjws-and-democracy/
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    To late to edit, but: “the alt-right (which is used to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.)” Should be: “the alt-right (which is opposed to democracy at least in the Western liberal form.)”
- tptacek 8y ago
  It really depends on what your definition of "the alt-right" is. If by that term you mean "white nationalist political activist", obviously he's not that. The term is inchoate, people imbue it with different meanings depending on context, and not all of those contexts exclude Peterson. "Intellectual Dark Web" would be a more fitting category if it weren't such a self-parody. It's I think worth saying that serious people who have almost certainly put more energy into understanding where Peterson is coming from than any of us here, including having interviewed him in person, have come away from the experience attributing some pretty damning beliefs to him. For instance: I don't think you'd easily win the "he's not an outspoken misogynist" argument. Obviously, that by itself doesn't put him in the "alt-right". But, of course, casually and comfortably engaging with people like Stefan Molyneux muddies the waters on the "alt-right" thing, too (again: in some common meanings of the term).

lucisferre 8y ago

> Just look at CoralineAda’s twitter feed So, I just did, and you are right, it is nauseatingly wholesome. Someone should put a stop to that. > Same thing that has been happening to Jordan Peterson for years Despite Saudi Arabia's claims, I can assure you that Canada has not, in fact, imprisoned Mr. Enforced Monogamy.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago
Nobody wants to read a Jordan Peterson argument thread, so we should kill this tangent, but you just proved my point here. If you knew anything about him whatsoever, you’d know that he is absolutely opposed to forced monogamy.
- type0 8y ago
  Don't bother, people who don't understand rhetorical questions are not worth arguing with, specially when they're driven by political agenda.
  - lucisferre 8y ago
    Just what exactly was rhetorical?
scruple 8y ago
"Fuck you Matz" [0] is "nauseatingly wholesome?" I guess we have very different opinions about what makes a person wholesome. [0]: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029170073938944000 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029170073938944000

beat 8y ago

"We would never have had linux". Ah, but we do have Linux. And it can survive without Linus, if needed. In fact, it must survive. He's 48 now. What do we do in 50 years? Do we assume something else is going to come along that's so awesome that Linux becomes obsolete and gets abandoned? I don't think that's a good assumption. A better assumption is that computers are now stable tech, like internal combustion engines, and that Linux is the best OS we have, and could be around for centuries. Which is an amazing legacy for him, but... it's going to be a legacy, sooner or later. And what if he has a heart attack tomorrow? I just lost a friend to a heart attack this week. Not much older than Linus, and in great health. It happens. Do we just give up, or does Linux go on without him?