3 ms·

>Generalizing to whole groups of people who support an amorphous thing, calling them "psycho-sadists", and saying they want to "run their own little Stasi" is..

>Generalizing to whole groups of people who support an amorphous thing, calling them "psycho-sadists", and saying they want to "run their own little Stasi" is...not exactly how I would foster an inclusive human community. Please be mindful that chmod775 didn't talk about about everybody who is (at least publicly) in support of CoCs. But rather the very vocal minority of people who try to push CoCs everywhere, then viciously start insulting people who express dissent or even just some concerns about such CoCs, and once they get their way start abusing the CoCs to start witch trials and kangaroo courts seeking not to inform people of their (alleged) mistakes and give them opportunity and help correcting their behaviors (if correction is deemed necessary by the larger community), but seek to outright banish people without due process[1]. You saw some of those people act when you were at mozilla I'd think, when it came to Brendan Eich and gerv[2]. I am not talking about people rightfully disagreeing with or criticizing Brendan Eich and gerv, I am talking about people slinging mud and insults only and trying to banish them from public life at all cost. And as you were mozilla at the time (right?), you probably remember the rift between mostly US and mostly European community parts over the proposed CoC at the time[5], with mostly the Europeans raising a lot of concerns about the CoC proposals and a CoC in general. Which is fine, and there were a lot of constructive discussions[6], except for the people who started accusing everybody who said a CoC (like that) is not necessary and could be actively harmful was a homophobic ass or sexist or whatever, trying to squash any discussion from the get go[7]. It's those latter people you do not want in your community. And a lot of them I'd describe as "psycho-sadists" as well, who become very giddy and outright ecstatic when they succeed in banishing people, instead of expressing dread that such steps had to be taken. [1] Brendan Eich, Linus or RMS, or google Rod Vagg or Larry Garfield [2] gerv was[3] another prominent member of the mozilla community from the UK. He also rejected "gay marriage", but from what I remember not the equal rights portion, "just" the terminology, arguing against it by saying it was a defined traditional religious term, and gay partnerships should have equal rights but should not be called "marriage". He was wrong on that one[4]. I remember people calling him every name in the book, and wishing him he'd die from cancer[3]. [3] Sadly he passed away after a long fight with cancer. I know at least one of the people who wished gerv to die from cancer was fully aware of his ongoing long battle with that disease. [4] Yes, I said "wrong", don't CoC me please. [5] Early proposals of the mozilla CoC e.g. suggested that to be compliant one has to endorse things like e.g. the right to be homosexual. Which sounds nice at first, until you realize that some of mozilla's community members are from countries that put people in jail for such endorsements. [6] At least I for one thought I learned a lot about problems I wasn't even aware of both on the pro- and contra-CoC side. [7] A lot of those not-very-nice people were not even mozillians, but people who just came to mozilla to "participate" in the CoC discussion.

jlebar 6y ago
I recall I left Mozilla before the same-sex marriage fight, but I'm familiar with it. Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together. I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them. If you want people to be kind to each other, and if you're against cancelling people for their opinions, it's got to start somewhere. I also want to speak to your two other examples, Linus and RMS. WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him. It's cool that Linus has made your life better. He's also made a lot of people's lives worse. Where's their due process? WRT RMS, I take issue with the idea that he was not given due process. In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position. The Epstein email was a last straw. But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process. Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people. https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... Where's their due process? How do they factor into your calculus of who's worthy of our compassion?
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  >I recall I left Mozilla before the same-sex marriage fight, but I'm familiar with it. Ah, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure about that timeline. I just remember you left early-ish. >Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together. You must have skipped the comments from the community and outside then that included gems such a wall of "FUCK YOU"s or the literal wishes for gerv to die of cancer. I also remember the side-dramas e.g. over the term "homozillians" which was claimed to be homophobic and prompted similar vitriol (nevermind that it was the name a group of LGBTQ+ people within mozilla gave themselves) [Another edit: to be clear, not everybody who demanded or favored their resignation falls into the psycho-sadist stasi group, either.] >I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them. No, we're excluding them and call them sadists and stasi because they act with the same mindset of stasi: observation, propaganda, demagogy, and the stated goal of "destroying" other people, and because they joyfully celebrate whenever one of their perceived enemies gets banished, not dreading the anguish that was caused (maybe unavoidably) but enjoying the pain and anger they caused. I've seen plenty such giddy stasi-sadists rummaging around in everything RMS ever wrote and celebrating victory when he resigned from the FSF (some going so far to publicly wishing him to become homeless and freezing to death in the next winter). This is where we should draw the line and where the "paradox of tolerance" actually makes sense: at the extreme fringes, be it racists and white supremacists on one side, and yes, as hurtful at this truth is, the extremes of what we both probably would consider our side as well. >WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him. That's fine. Their decision. I know a lot of people I wouldn't want to work with either. >[Linus has] also made a lot of people's lives worse. Utter bullshit and baseless allegation. Why would you say such a thing without providing any shred of evidence? >Where's their due process? Due process? For what? Perceived offense? Unsettling remarks somebody made? "Wrong" opinions somebody holds? There is none and there won't be and there shouldn't be. And as you may or may not know, people criticized him for his erratic behavior, and while it took quite some time, he tried to improve his manners (not just since the Sharp-thing). But no matter how much or little he has and/or will change, there will be always people who want his head. The "due process" is (where we didn't cross into criminality): you criticize people for their behavior in a constructive way, if they listen and work on themselves great, if they don't then they don't and it's up to you to decide if you want to work with them or if their behavior is too much. > In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position Again bullshit. Even worse bullshit, as it perpetrated the lie he was a major harasser. >But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process. Right, you go ahead and demand due process and stand your ground when the internet mob comes for you with pitchforks. This is naïve thinking. at best. It's outright victim-blaming at worst. "Why didn't he just answer long and public why he had a matress in his offide? Why didn't the rape victim answer long and public why she thought it was OK to wear sexy clothes and makeup?" >The Epstein email was a last straw. You mean the Minsky email, where he called Epstein a criminal, and suggested that Minsky himself might not have known what was going on? [Edit: Yes it was an uneasy read, and maybe rather flawed thinking, and deserving of criticism (not his head) but many people claimed he defended child abuse, which he did not] >Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people. So he is a weird guy and can put people in unease. He has had a mattress in his office, and he awkwardly hit on some women because he is a bit of a social retard. Big fucking whoopdie-doo. Some of the bullshit that blog post (and others) accuse him of isn't even first-hand experiences, just off remarks like the "if he hits on you, say you're a vi user" remark. What's the conclusion here? That because RMS is awkward in social interactions he better not try to date ever, he doesn't deserve relationships and a sex life because he might make people unwelcoming of his initial advanced uneasy? >It's cool that Linus has made your life better. > But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? By the way, now you're putting words in my mouth I never spoke or wrote.

jlebar 6y ago

I recall I left Mozilla before the same-sex marriage fight, but I'm familiar with it. Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together. I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them. If you want people to be kind to each other, and if you're against cancelling people for their opinions, it's got to start somewhere. I also want to speak to your two other examples, Linus and RMS. WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him. It's cool that Linus has made your life better. He's also made a lot of people's lives worse. Where's their due process? WRT RMS, I take issue with the idea that he was not given due process. In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position. The Epstein email was a last straw. But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process. Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people. https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... Where's their due process? How do they factor into your calculus of who's worthy of our compassion?

rndgermandude 6y ago
>I recall I left Mozilla before the same-sex marriage fight, but I'm familiar with it. Ah, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure about that timeline. I just remember you left early-ish. >Just as I wouldn't call Brendan or gerv a psycho-sadist, I also wouldn't call the people who called for their resignations names, nor group them all together. You must have skipped the comments from the community and outside then that included gems such a wall of "FUCK YOU"s or the literal wishes for gerv to die of cancer. I also remember the side-dramas e.g. over the term "homozillians" which was claimed to be homophobic and prompted similar vitriol (nevermind that it was the name a group of LGBTQ+ people within mozilla gave themselves) [Another edit: to be clear, not everybody who demanded or favored their resignation falls into the psycho-sadist stasi group, either.] >I think name-calling, especially of a large group which shares only one thing in common is antithetical to building inclusive human communities. Literally we're excluding people and calling them Stasi members because we disagree with them. No, we're excluding them and call them sadists and stasi because they act with the same mindset of stasi: observation, propaganda, demagogy, and the stated goal of "destroying" other people, and because they joyfully celebrate whenever one of their perceived enemies gets banished, not dreading the anguish that was caused (maybe unavoidably) but enjoying the pain and anger they caused. I've seen plenty such giddy stasi-sadists rummaging around in everything RMS ever wrote and celebrating victory when he resigned from the FSF (some going so far to publicly wishing him to become homeless and freezing to death in the next winter). This is where we should draw the line and where the "paradox of tolerance" actually makes sense: at the extreme fringes, be it racists and white supremacists on one side, and yes, as hurtful at this truth is, the extremes of what we both probably would consider our side as well. >WRT Linus, I personally know many talented people who wouldn't touch Linux development specifically because of him. That's fine. Their decision. I know a lot of people I wouldn't want to work with either. >[Linus has] also made a lot of people's lives worse. Utter bullshit and baseless allegation. Why would you say such a thing without providing any shred of evidence? >Where's their due process? Due process? For what? Perceived offense? Unsettling remarks somebody made? "Wrong" opinions somebody holds? There is none and there won't be and there shouldn't be. And as you may or may not know, people criticized him for his erratic behavior, and while it took quite some time, he tried to improve his manners (not just since the Sharp-thing). But no matter how much or little he has and/or will change, there will be always people who want his head. The "due process" is (where we didn't cross into criminality): you criticize people for their behavior in a constructive way, if they listen and work on themselves great, if they don't then they don't and it's up to you to decide if you want to work with them or if their behavior is too much. > In fact he was allowed to stay for years, despite harassing women and acting inappropriately in his position Again bullshit. Even worse bullshit, as it perpetrated the lie he was a major harasser. >But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? He says he was "pressured" by MIT and resigned. Do you think he couldn't have fought it? It sounds like he decided not to fight it. That's different than not being given due process. Right, you go ahead and demand due process and stand your ground when the internet mob comes for you with pitchforks. This is naïve thinking. at best. It's outright victim-blaming at worst. "Why didn't he just answer long and public why he had a matress in his offide? Why didn't the rape victim answer long and public why she thought it was OK to wear sexy clothes and makeup?" >The Epstein email was a last straw. You mean the Minsky email, where he called Epstein a criminal, and suggested that Minsky himself might not have known what was going on? [Edit: Yes it was an uneasy read, and maybe rather flawed thinking, and deserving of criticism (not his head) but many people claimed he defended child abuse, which he did not] >Again with RMS, it's clear that his behavior was deeply upsetting to a lot of people. So he is a weird guy and can put people in unease. He has had a mattress in his office, and he awkwardly hit on some women because he is a bit of a social retard. Big fucking whoopdie-doo. Some of the bullshit that blog post (and others) accuse him of isn't even first-hand experiences, just off remarks like the "if he hits on you, say you're a vi user" remark. What's the conclusion here? That because RMS is awkward in social interactions he better not try to date ever, he doesn't deserve relationships and a sex life because he might make people unwelcoming of his initial advanced uneasy? >It's cool that Linus has made your life better. > But also: What makes you think he wasn't given due process? By the way, now you're putting words in my mouth I never spoke or wrote.