8 ms·
Inclusive community activists are harming FOSS
- zmgsabst 3y agoThat’s because people frequently use DIE as a pretense for socially unacceptable behaviors: - political discrimination - racism and sexism That’s why institutions which are outspoken about DIE such as Harvard lose civil rights suits over their institutional racism. And why the party which has made DIE a central tenet supports antisemitism. Believing that DIE advocates are about diversity, inclusion, or equality is like believing that DPRK is a democratic republic for the benefit of its people.
- layer8 3y agoDEI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEI
- jachee 3y ago[flagged]
- catapart 3y ago[flagged]
- rpnx 3y agoI think there's plenty worth talking about here. Like the opinion that the previous internet, where everyone could be rude and not worry about offending others, was arguably better. I actually agree that the old internet was better. I'm not saying you shouldn't be banned from Twitter/X if you start using racist slurs online, but the way SJWs stalk people online is unacceptable, imo. Why is it bad? It gets to the question of why we censor people on platforms to begin with. Is it to affect the discussion as a whole or keep the platform pleasant? I'd say trying to influence the societal discussion by censoring people is a form of evil. We censor people (which is evil) because it is the lesser evil when their posts are disruptive. When you go SJW and stalk people, it shows your motive is not to protect the platform but to silence the target, which is imo an evil motive. Silencing bad speech is still evil because you appoint yourself as the decider of good and evil. Neither should the collective majority be the decider, as history is rife with examples where the collective majority was wrong. Thus I believe engaging in censorship is inherently evil, and must be justified by some other good so that censorship is the lesser evil. I also agree that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the values of open source and social justice. Open source software must be usable for any purpose, good or evil. The goal of open source is not "justice" but rather "freedom". We must be able to use software "for any purpose" and a key there is self-determination and non-interference. SJW tendencies do not get the whole "leave me alone and let me decide" idea that is at the core of open source.
- Always_Anon 3y ago[flagged]
- lproven 3y ago[flagged]
- arp242 3y ago"Paradox of Tolerance" is a question, not an answer. You can't use it as a cudgel to "win" any discussion.
- lproven 3y ago> "Paradox of Tolerance" is a question, not an answer. No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > You can't use it as a cudgel to "win" any discussion. Sure, one cannot in all cases, no. But when the discussion is "must we extend freedom of expression of beliefs to those who wish to deny others their freedoms?" Then yes, it 100% does, and the answer is NO. In other words, when the object is "but mah FREE SPEECH!" then the answer is "shut up, fascist."
- someuser2345 3y agoIt looks like the people the author complains about are pretty intolerant, and they promote hate speech by calling the people they disagree with Nazis. So following the paradox of tolerance, they are the ones who should be banned, right?
- almatabata 3y agoHe moderates a forum about growing tomatoes. Allowing a nazi to talk about tomatoes has nothing to do with Poppers Paradox. He literally said that if the guy brings his nazi ideology to the discord he will get banned. If anything allowing the nazi to interact with other people that grow tomatoes might help him grow out of his nonsense. Mods have enough work to do to keep their discord in order. He has no time to police every single users individual beliefs.
- mvdtnz 3y agoI'm guessing you asked chatgpt to summarise the post for you and it got it badly wrong. I'd suggest reading the original if your want to discuss it.
- rpnx 3y agoThis is a really good article but you aren't going to like it if you're on the pro-SJW side. I think it's a very good rationalization of the rational side of anti-SJW reasoning particularly as applied to Free Software. Dude is literally being slandered and called a Nazi and SJW people in the comments here are defending the slander and attacking the poster ad hominem while making straw man arguments. It is amusing but also makes me lose hope that rehabilitation of SJW types is possible. I personally think we need to divide communities into pro-SJ and anti-SJ spaces. SJ is self destructive, least of which because they tend to lose lawsuits when courts get involved. Defending literal slander is yet another example of that...
- antifa 3y ago[flagged]
- arp242 3y ago> I personally think we need to divide communities into pro-SJ and anti-SJ spaces Someone creates a highly artificial hypothetical scenario and then uses someone's answers on this non-issue as "proof" they're a Nazi with a bunch of semantic wank. This is as much bad-faith toxic twattery as I've ever seen. This isn't about "social justice" or "inclusivity", it's about someone abusing these concepts for their own narcissistic emotional gratification to settle their own personal scores. I agree it's rather sad and disappointing people seem at least somewhat approving of this utter toxic behaviour, which seems to be a result of the black/white "us vs. them" type of pattern matching. Everyone would be better served if this type of thing was more strongly denounced.
- 3y ago
- curtisblaine 3y agoHe's right that everyone should be able to participate in a community, no matter what are their political ideas, as long as they don't preach these ideas to the community. All this argument of "feeling threatened by the mere presence", used by various minorities, has always been a trojan horse to expel the wrong-think.
- FireBeyond 3y agoGnome specifically allows racist (well, against white people) and sexist remarks (against males or cisgendered folk), as long as you don't discriminate in action. Source: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct - > "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" > The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct.
- curtisblaine 3y agoWhich is OK, but it needs to work in both directions.
- g-b-r 3y agoI know little about these matters but they do say later Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved. Nor would unwanted sexual attention be tolerated, whatever someone's gender or sexual orientation. Members of our community have the right to expect that participants in the project will uphold these standards
- FireBeyond 3y agoRight. I discussed this in another thread. Acknowledged that they do not tolerate discriminatory actions. But if you "need" to be cisphobic in your words to "feel safe" in a community, that impugns on others, and when such behavior is endorsed as acceptable...
- FireBeyond 3y agoThe Gnome Foundation's Code of Conduct explicitly condones racism (against white people), sexism (against men) and cisphobia. Lest you think I'm exaggerating: > "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct. To be clear, it does say that discriminatory actions are prohibited: > Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved. "You're allowed to be racist/sexist, towards white people/males/cisgendered, just don't actually discriminate against them". "Safety vs Comfort". Huh. "It's more important that people be/feel safe than you feel comfortable" - I agree. But ... if you need to be able to express "cisphobia" and "reverse racism" to feel safe, then this is hugely problematic, and perhaps a deeper issue that just perhaps, an OSS community should not need to navigate on your behalf ... Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this one isn't more controversial. Source: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct
- tonfreed 3y agoI thought the timing of that one was interesting too. They ran out of money after wasting it all on outreach and then implemented this. It was probably always meant to be a distraction
- rpnx 3y agoWow, that's pretty shocking. Perhaps nobody noticed. I am not sure GNOME has ever been sane though, so perhapss this is of no consequence?
- dancemethis 3y agoFirst of all, the odds of "white cis men" as you put it being put to shame for free is... quite, quite smaller than people who don't share the social structure privilege. It's... not that people have a _need_ to do that. And let's be honest, you know it. And second, there's a reason reverse racism and cisphobia aren't things, and that "they" (kinda we; I'm in the group too) are deemed privileged: by default they do happen to have it quite easier over the course of their lives. Both in opportunities and general quality of life. And things got so bad there was finally some critical mass to try and get people less scared of contributing to Free Software because they are in a group that is _quite_ disproportionally bashed by groups disproportionally more in power. One shouldn't compare the reaction of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor, after all. Bullies are trash, bullies in power doubly so. If you think there's a _need_ to be able to hurt others, be it the group you are somehow against or think about them hurting you, I don't think the issue is in the CoC. Maybe if a good number of people hadn't done bad things for decades, no one would need a CoC. But this is the world we are living, where people define themselves by their ability to mock and shame others. One group happened to do it a lot more. Do you think it weird that it doesn't seem an issue at all? I just never thought of shaming others. Or feeling like the right to "need" it matters. I don't think this is the right mountain of freedom to die defending at all. What matters is code, helping a community grow, helping people get a modicum of privacy and freedom at least on their software. Not being free to harass.
- dojitza1 3y agoI believe that people that advocate banning people with extreme and/or dangerous viewpoints from public forums and communities also don't want child rapists and murderers to be rehabilitated. In my experience this is a relatively strong percentage pf people, which affects everyone, irrespective of the viewpoint axis. In this case, we have an example of a sjw/progressive viewpoint person which does not believe in 'those' people having any food left in them.
- g-b-r 3y agoOk I noticed who the author of the post is, he's well known, it's helpful to Google his name for the context of what he says
- Always_Anon 3y ago[dead]
- mid-kid 3y ago[flagged]
- beanjuiceII 3y agoYep
- worklaptopacct 3y agoI know one person that's the kind this post is referring to. They will more or less unknowingly sabotage their friendships because they are not able to understand that not everyone is up to date or even caring about their strict and ever-changing system of beliefs and opinions. As a result, they suffer from chronic anxiety and feel constantly burned out, because it's not possible to cut off "impure" coworkers. I believe this is just a type that won't change, and it's better to just cut them off.
- ChocolateGod 3y agoI saw a bunch of people comment about the author on various Mastodon networks and in any other context they could be defined as cyber bulling or harassment. There's arseholes on all sides of the spectrums, left or right, progressive or conservative, but the ones on the progressive side (and I'm a progressive type myself) are the worst in that anyone who doesn't agree whole heartedly with their views is made out to be scum of the earth, dogpiled, cancelled etc. They ultimately shoot their own cause in the foot by just fuelling the rise of populist and far-right parties.
- squigz 3y agoWhereas conservatives act as though you're stupid and naive if you don't agree with them
- ChocolateGod 3y agoI'll take that over trying to ruin someones career or life and being called a nazi.
- squigz 3y agoConservatives would never try to ruin someone's career or life, of course, or call people mean names.
- wrp 3y agoIn a technical environment, why can't this problem be avoided by insisting that all comments be strictly on-topic?
- millzlane 3y agoI thought that was kind of implied when you were on a projects site or support resources.
- rpnx 3y agoLook, the great people of hackernews flagged an article they don't like. Amazing.