4 ms·
She says she will "roar back" and considers that a threat of retaliation that might deter them, but she is talking to people who don't mind roaring at all. She
by dkarl 13y ago
She says she will "roar back" and considers that a threat of retaliation that might deter them, but she is talking to people who don't mind roaring at all. She really is missing the point of cultural sensitivity -- cultures that are louder and more confrontational aren't required to play by the rules of cultures that work more quietly, just to cooperate with them. There isn't any accusation here that Linus unfairly judges the work or contributions of people who don't "roar." They just want him to stop yelling because their cultural bias causes them to perceive him as a threatening and potentially violent person.
- tptacek 13y agoThe premise of your argument is that it's reasonable for a project manager to invoke "Finnish Culture" as a justification for calling people on their team names and singling them out for expletive-laced approbation in public. I don't know a lot of Finns, but do you honestly think a typical Finnish person would be comfortable with having their culture summed up that way?
- hamburglar 13y agoI thought the Finnish culture excuse was pretty weak, but I think he'd be perfectly justified in saying "I don't plan to stop cursing at people who I think deserve it. If that means nobody wants to work on my project, then so be it." Because it's pretty obvious that there are plenty of people with enough enthusiasm for working on the kernel that they're willing to work with a profane curmudgeon, or perhaps people who do it because they actually enjoy that type of environment. And trying to frame this in terms of Linus being an abuser or advocating violence or preying on the weak is just extremely dumb and insulting to people who are actually victims of real abuse. It's emails on a mailing list calling your code shitty and/or calling you stupid for writing shitty code. For fuck's sake, if you're victimized by that, maybe every open source project isn't for you.
- tptacek 13y agoShe also didn't say she was "victimized" in any way.
- hamburglar 13y agoShe didn't claim that she was vicitimized, but she definitely took it to that level on others' behalf: > Good lord. So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known better"? > You know what the definition of an abuser is? Someone that seeks out victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between the two of them". They pick victims that won't fight back or report the abuse.
- cromwellian 13y agoMaybe she should, some people are scared to speak up for themselves. And look at the sexist flak she's getting https://plus.google.com/photos/116960357493251979546/albums/5901285206596474753/5901288095984358098?pid=5901288095984358098&oid=116960357493251979546 https://plus.google.com/photos/116960357493251979546/albums/...
- dkarl 13y agoYou're begging the question. The question is, is that behavior intrinsically offensive? What does it mean? With Linus, as far as I can tell, all it means is that you've done one stupid thing and have taxed his patience by trying to justify it. Other cultures would express the same thing via what Linus calls "false politeness" and "backstabbing." So they have harsh words for his style of communication, and he has harsh words for theirs. Why do we assume that one of them has to change? And why do we assume it should be Linus? Their argument boils down to invoking the fear and discomfort they feel in response to Linus. Unreasonable fear based on cultural discomfort isn't good grounds for asking someone else to change their behavior. Take a guy like me who grew up in a house where everybody sat quietly and read books and nobody ever raised their voice. Maybe I don't feel entirely comfortable when I go someplace where everybody is loud and open about everything, including their unpleasant feelings. In a different time, I would just call them animals. I would judge them for all the danger and aggression that I intuitively attributed to them. And for a long time such judgments were unquestioningly accepted. But times are different. You can't hold someone responsible for whatever meaning you read into their behavior. You have an obligation to question your interpretation and see if your assumptions are reasonably consistent with the facts. Is it reasonable for anyone to fear violence because of harsh comments directed to them by Linus Torvalds? Of course not. We all suffer from unreasonable fear because of cultural preconceptions, and we ought to doubt ourselves first before claiming that other people should change because of how we emotionally react to them.