3 ms·

To coopt Bender, why not go start your own [software project] with [diversity] and [inclusion]? You could fork the entire FSF’s software suite, and mold a cult

by asguy 6y ago

To coopt Bender, why not go start your own [software project] with [diversity] and [inclusion]? You could fork the entire FSF’s software suite, and mold a culture around it that matches your priorities. That’s the beauty of free software, you don’t need to ask permission. Or write petitions. You just go and do it.

nikanj 6y ago
Alas, good awareness of social justice issues does not automatically go hand-in-hand with good technical ability. The unpleasant neckbeards are often surprisingly good at actually writing code.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Not in this case, though.
- woodruffw 6y ago
  I think this estimation severely tests conventional wisdom around the quality of code in most of the GNU projects. Unless, of course, you meant good at writing large volumes of code, which the GNU projects have historically excelled at. But we all know the other bit of conventional wisdom about that.
jpttsn 6y ago
But if that’s true, then either whoever is behind this criticism doesn’t know it, or they have other goals.
pessimizer 6y ago
The primary flaw in that plan is indicated by following the first "in 2009 if not earlier" link. After fairly quoting Stallman, in context, the author says: "Do I believe that Richard is attempting to deliberately denigrate women? Not in the slightest. But I also don't believe that someone entirely gender-blind would have made the above joke." If the requirement to be in the WokeFSF is to be, and to always have been, entirely "gender-blind", everybody would be guilty and eligible for expulsion. As this requires selective enforcement, it becomes entirely political. If I can't have ever expressed the desire to have sex with even a hypothetical woman, even as a metaphor, or have ever said that I wanted to prioritize outreach towards women or minorities in some context, I'm not qualified to join. To be "gender-blind" I have to never have supported affirmative action or quotas, which I have, energetically. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't specifically that people capable of delivering wouldn't join a WokeFSF, it's that everyone joining a WokeFSF would be in a precarious position. People who remain in an FSF that tolerates it's leader joking about taking away people's Emacs virginity are not in a precarious position, even if they find those jokes gross and don't enjoy engaging with some of the leadership. Nobody is going to toss you out of the non-woke FSF for being too woke, but the opposite isn't true.

by asguy 6y ago

nikanj 6y ago

Alas, good awareness of social justice issues does not automatically go hand-in-hand with good technical ability. The unpleasant neckbeards are often surprisingly good at actually writing code.

tptacek 6y ago
Not in this case, though.
woodruffw 6y ago
I think this estimation severely tests conventional wisdom around the quality of code in most of the GNU projects. Unless, of course, you meant good at writing large volumes of code, which the GNU projects have historically excelled at. But we all know the other bit of conventional wisdom about that.

jpttsn 6y ago

But if that’s true, then either whoever is behind this criticism doesn’t know it, or they have other goals.

pessimizer 6y ago

The primary flaw in that plan is indicated by following the first "in 2009 if not earlier" link. After fairly quoting Stallman, in context, the author says: "Do I believe that Richard is attempting to deliberately denigrate women? Not in the slightest. But I also don't believe that someone entirely gender-blind would have made the above joke." If the requirement to be in the WokeFSF is to be, and to always have been, entirely "gender-blind", everybody would be guilty and eligible for expulsion. As this requires selective enforcement, it becomes entirely political. If I can't have ever expressed the desire to have sex with even a hypothetical woman, even as a metaphor, or have ever said that I wanted to prioritize outreach towards women or minorities in some context, I'm not qualified to join. To be "gender-blind" I have to never have supported affirmative action or quotas, which I have, energetically. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't specifically that people capable of delivering wouldn't join a WokeFSF, it's that everyone joining a WokeFSF would be in a precarious position. People who remain in an FSF that tolerates it's leader joking about taking away people's Emacs virginity are not in a precarious position, even if they find those jokes gross and don't enjoy engaging with some of the leadership. Nobody is going to toss you out of the non-woke FSF for being too woke, but the opposite isn't true.