4 ms·

There is nothing more significant, their stated reason was "tone policing": https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 https://twitter.com/cmaxw

There is nothing more significant, their stated reason was "tone policing": https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 reply

bitwize 7y ago
Note that "tone policing" is only an offense when non-SJWs do it. When SJWs do it, it's known as "calling out" and should be encouraged. Example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329 https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329
bitwize 7y ago
Punishing him for "tone policing" is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off. In Scientology terms, he had an SP in his vicinity making him a PTS, and refusing to disconnect from the SP despite a direct order from his E/O meant he had an SP declare issued against him. (Understanding Scientology will give you major clues into how social justice operates.) Note that associating with John Sonmez is an unforgivable crime, but saying "white men in tech ain't shit" or "all whiteness is racist by design", as Kim Crayton has done, is not. This is because an often unstated assumption of codes of conduct is "we prefer the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups". (The GNOME Code of Conduct explicitly states this, almost verbatim.) That is to say, racism, sexism, and harassment are CoC violations if they are seen to "punch down", but not if they are seen to "punch up" by the CoC commissars who deliberate in secret. This is why Uncle Bob's letter will go unheeded. If action is taken by the Linux Foundation because of his letter, it will be against Uncle Bob himself for posting it. He suggested that legitimate actions taken against one who punches down are harassment, which is itself punching down, therefore harassment and a CoC violation.
- josteink 7y ago
  > Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off. Not saying you are wrong, but if that is indeed the case, then someone should come out and say that out loud. Right now, having a person banned for no clear reason what so ever, only creates uncertainty and division in the community. Edit: Having looked into it, "John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off", actually seemed to be trying to take the heat away from a woman being verbally abused and attacked on twitter. One can obviously argue about the way he did that, but how on earth does trying to defend a woman make him a "brogrammer"? Your position seems somewhat biased.

There is nothing more significant, their stated reason was "tone policing": https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 reply

bitwize 7y ago

Note that "tone policing" is only an offense when non-SJWs do it. When SJWs do it, it's known as "calling out" and should be encouraged. Example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329 https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329

bitwize 7y ago

Punishing him for "tone policing" is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off. In Scientology terms, he had an SP in his vicinity making him a PTS, and refusing to disconnect from the SP despite a direct order from his E/O meant he had an SP declare issued against him. (Understanding Scientology will give you major clues into how social justice operates.) Note that associating with John Sonmez is an unforgivable crime, but saying "white men in tech ain't shit" or "all whiteness is racist by design", as Kim Crayton has done, is not. This is because an often unstated assumption of codes of conduct is "we prefer the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups". (The GNOME Code of Conduct explicitly states this, almost verbatim.) That is to say, racism, sexism, and harassment are CoC violations if they are seen to "punch down", but not if they are seen to "punch up" by the CoC commissars who deliberate in secret. This is why Uncle Bob's letter will go unheeded. If action is taken by the Linux Foundation because of his letter, it will be against Uncle Bob himself for posting it. He suggested that legitimate actions taken against one who punches down are harassment, which is itself punching down, therefore harassment and a CoC violation.

josteink 7y ago
> Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off. Not saying you are wrong, but if that is indeed the case, then someone should come out and say that out loud. Right now, having a person banned for no clear reason what so ever, only creates uncertainty and division in the community. Edit: Having looked into it, "John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off", actually seemed to be trying to take the heat away from a woman being verbally abused and attacked on twitter. One can obviously argue about the way he did that, but how on earth does trying to defend a woman make him a "brogrammer"? Your position seems somewhat biased.