4 ms·

I vouched for this one. At the very least it's a sincere perspective worth discussing and disagreeing with vocally; not flagging to death. It didn't strike me a

I vouched for this one. At the very least it's a sincere perspective worth discussing and disagreeing with vocally; not flagging to death. It didn't strike me as a troll. KirinDave: I think this mentality is somewhat destructive. Your feelings on the matter are justified given your situation but to some degree you're just being the same kind of asshole you're mad about too. > Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. Yea, so? Those consequences aren't free from criticism. Whether they're disproportionate is perfectly topical. Public mob retaliation is notoriously so. I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too.

KirinDave 8y ago
I appreciate the vouch. Some folks on twitter sent me some screenshots of folks coordinating on both IRC and a Discord to bring more accounts in to flag and downvote my posts. One of them was specifically defending ESR. This entire thread and article is not about the terms of the CoC. The article has no real complaints about its specific clauses or content. People here do not claim content greivances either, they claim it's part of "identity politics" (as opposed to non-identical-based politics which totally are white men's politics) down their throats, and talk about the final consequences and slippery slopes they vaguely threaten to invoke. This article and this discussion are about cutural control. The Linux leadership has made a decision and specific people who promote bias-white and bias-male identity politics are looking to threaten a challenge for that control. > I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too I don't think this is about being an asshole, or civility. For many people this about the right to live, or the right for essential human rights, or the right for redress for centuries-long policies of inequality and destruction. The fact that folks want to paint the simple act of being open about political contributions (which used to be required) as a bias in and of itself is telling. Let's have this debate in public. With our real names and faces, and even stakes for everyone.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
  >This article and this discussion are about cultural control. God you are delusional.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed here. If you do this again we will ban you.

KirinDave 8y ago

I appreciate the vouch. Some folks on twitter sent me some screenshots of folks coordinating on both IRC and a Discord to bring more accounts in to flag and downvote my posts. One of them was specifically defending ESR. This entire thread and article is not about the terms of the CoC. The article has no real complaints about its specific clauses or content. People here do not claim content greivances either, they claim it's part of "identity politics" (as opposed to non-identical-based politics which totally are white men's politics) down their throats, and talk about the final consequences and slippery slopes they vaguely threaten to invoke. This article and this discussion are about cutural control. The Linux leadership has made a decision and specific people who promote bias-white and bias-male identity politics are looking to threaten a challenge for that control. > I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too I don't think this is about being an asshole, or civility. For many people this about the right to live, or the right for essential human rights, or the right for redress for centuries-long policies of inequality and destruction. The fact that folks want to paint the simple act of being open about political contributions (which used to be required) as a bias in and of itself is telling. Let's have this debate in public. With our real names and faces, and even stakes for everyone.

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
>This article and this discussion are about cultural control. God you are delusional.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed here. If you do this again we will ban you.