I was at the KiwiCon where Ranty Ben got kicked out. I want to be fair: I thought his talk was stupid and not very useful. But I don't think he should have gotten kicked out. The organizers wouldn't even say why he got kicked out. They didn't say how he specifically violated the Code of Conduct. Was it the ASCII art Goatcx in PGP signing art? Was it the comment about how if you did x to secure yourself you'd be "about as inconspicuous as a tr* Polynesian girl in the desert" or "lesbian f* porn" ?
Hackercons have never really been professional. Later on in that same conference, a Mac kernel hacker did a talk on gdb where he said it was so terrible it'd be like grabbing pig balls. He had a Photoshoped image of the organizer holding some pig balls. The organizer came out, looked at it as the audience laughed and walked off. Obviously they were friends; it was a joke, but I ask you ... what if he had chosen one of female organizers instead?
In such an environment, where is the line? We do we even consider kicking someone out because one person was offended? I realize non-hackercons need to be more professional. Yet, we don't throw people out for preferring emacs vs vim, and we shouldn't throw anyone out for their political beliefs.
In attempting to gather such dead ends under a hash tag, https://twitter.com/hashtag/LinuxFoundationKangarooCourt
The mob generation of these accusations are more thoroughly documented in https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
Clearly false, borderline slander.
Actually what Somnez did was trying to take heat away from a specific tech-women being attacked in a twitter flamewar, by instead creating heat for himself.
He did this by being generally obnoxious and impolite, and thus an obvious target to follow/tack on to instead. This part was clearly successful and the harassed woman got less heat for it.
However he told lots of tech-people to "shut up". The problem? Some of those people were women.
If he found their opinion offensive or racists, should he not have told those people off because they were women? Should he have treated them differently? Really?
Personally I don't think so. Because IMO that would be the text-book definition of actual sexism.
If I fire an arrow in the dark, and it kills a person of color, does that make it a racist act of manslaughter?
Of course not. Racism denotes the motive of the attacker, not just the nature of the victim. Both have to be present for racism to be a factor.
That may or may not apply here, but I would need to see the video. Regardless, I've seen the 'ascribed motive' attack applied practically nonstop during this whole debacle, conjuring racist motives on the basis of a person of color making an accusation of racism, and not any acts of Charles Wood himself, including the aforementioned video. If that was key evidence, no one has brought it forward.
I stopped when I realized that not once, in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored. Actually in most cases, removing them provided a smoother environment/community/event.
I stopped caring about hate speech removal when it is actually about hate speech. Now I worry about state censorship more and stop defending trolls and Nazis.
I saw the opposite, where repeated removings/suppression of people with different views resulted in the creation of echochambers from which little of value emerges.
Someone has a talk saying "Linux is the worst thing that ever happened in IT", let her in. Someone has a talk saying "Arabs are inferior people and if you shut that opinion down you are a snowflake", shut him down.
Like you, I used to conflate the two, now I see how different it is.
You'd have to be completely insane to conflate "Linux is bad" with "Arabs are inferior," and I don't believe that you ever did.
Supporting a democratically elected candidate, especially outside of the conference in question, can not be conflated with claiming "Arabs are inferior" at a fucking talk at the conference.
You people are so swept up in ideology that you are willing to immediately jump to completely unrealistic positions, that nobody on the opposite side holds, and sidetrack the original discussion into arguing about the position you imagine that your opponents hold.
You're fighting ghosts to feel self-righteous.
> Supporting a democratically elected candidate, especially outside of the conference in question, can not be conflated with claiming "Arabs are inferior" at a fucking talk at the conference.
How about "African countries are shitholes"? "Mexicans are rapists"? You wear a person's symbol, you claim ownership over their ideology. And I know historical comparisons are tired, but there are a few racist and genocidal leaders who were democratically elected.
As a European friend, I am sad you are at that point in the US, but yes, one side of your politics is really fucked up to the point of being toxic. It is racist and misogynistic. A community has to choose between being inclusive of women and minorities and being inclusive of people who reject them.
> You're fighting ghosts to feel self-righteous.
When you grew up in some parts of Europe, you learn to fight when some ghosts rise. More than half of the people I work with could not contribute in a world where sexism and racism would reign.
Trump never said "Mexicans are rapists," he said something along the lines of "They're not bringing their best people... their rapists" which could be misconstrued as "they're."
He did say that African countries are shitholes, while complimenting my country, which wasn't great for our public image worldwide, but I did chuckle at it. It's the sort of off-hand stupid wording you'd hear at a bar late at night, which I figure is part of his appeal to the people that actually like him. Not a good look for a president to be sure.
Trump is not the ghost of Hitler, it can be fun to argue in that kind of hyperbole but he really isn't. And ~50% of the American voting public chose him over Hillary, because it was a shit sandwich vs giant douche race, you can't reasonably suggest banning all those people from Linux conferences.
Argue however you want about that you should be able to express your opinions, but please stop trying to sugar-coat Trump. His rethoric is toxic, it's marginalizing minorities and it's affecting how it is to live as a part of a minority and it shows, not only, from the hate crimes rates.
What's the context? He was talking about people coming here illegally.
Basic common sense would dictate that many gang members, drug runners, criminals in general that we know are coming here, are doing so illegally. As he said, I'm sure some Mexicans that come here illegally are good people, but pretty much all of the influx of criminals from outside our country come here illegally (including people regularly facilitating illegal travel).
You can choose to lie (to yourself and others) about the context of his statements, as if he was referring to ALL Mexicans, but anyone interested in knowing the truth should indeed find his statements for themselves, completely in context.
He's said enough things to criticize that one shouldn't need to stretch the truth to do so, but the desperation of ideologues knows no bounds.
That is a very different situation to choosing to wear a MAGA hat. Choosing to wear a MAGA hat at a large event is a conscious decision to broadcast your endorsement of Trump's policies, ideology, and everything else. It means you want people to know you agree with Trump's stance on immigrants, women, and all the other shit.
Maybe such people still shouldn't be banned from a Linux conference, but they absolutely should be considered as racists and misogynists.
However, you're being disingenuous. He didn't wear it at a large event, he thought it would be a fun idea to put it on in front of Trump Tower and share a picture of it with his friends on social media. That's something I might even do as a fun tourist picture, and I really don't like Trump.
This conference is not banning him for conduct at the event, they are banning him for an innocuous social media post on his personal twitter account, a week before the event has even begun. They are just policing the political views of attendees. That's what people have a problem with.
When did it no longer be okay to express unpopular political views?
I find such reasoning absolutely ridiculous. Personally it brings me great sadness that the ideals of free speech - the ideals, not the legal meaning - have been so happily stomped on.
It's not good, it's not healthy for anyone, and I'm wondering how long its going to go on for.
You have to keep in mind, that for the most staunch Trump opponents, any mention of him is likened to a personal attack, they honestly believe that supporting him is on the level of full blown white supremacy and fascism.
And in that climate, even thought it goes against my principles, I would advocate for everyone to just keep their political leanings to themselves at all times in these "professional" gatherings where it shouldn't matter where you stand politically. At least until things calm down.
I would love to see hostile tensions like these die out online very soon.
Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech? You? Why do you get to make that call and not somebody else? The distinction you're attempting to draw does not exist: you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech.
Honestly, I have yet to find a minority that I find problematic to include to classify hate speech at a tech conference. I am super vocal about my hostility toward every religion, I just shut it up at tech conferences. And when I do talk about the religions I find stupid, I am not calling their supporters names. That's really that simple.
> you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective.
On inclusion of other people? Hell yeah. Except I am giving objective criterion to judge it.
> Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech.
I agree with that sentiment. However, I see nothing of value in purely offensive speech. Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.
Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process.
> Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior.
Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules.
And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content.
I have yet to find a single example of that.
> Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori.
Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to?
On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech:
1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country.
2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling.
3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country.
4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay.
I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned?
Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
And yes, people have tried to turn these prejudice into eloquent pages with precise terminology or into stand up comedy and have been shut down for it.
Shockingly, France is not a den of conformism yet. It is in the US that Charlie Hebdo covers are censored and where people "agree to disagree" instead of exploring their disagreements.
So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right?
You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation.
Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.
I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences.
Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
But... would I let myself attend an industry conference that's also being attended by someone who voted for a politician whose opinions or policies are hostile to me?
Yes. Of course.
I'd also attend a conference that's being attended by someone who thinks I'm going to hell when I die. I'd even attend a conference where one of the speakers thinks that. Because I don't have to trust conference attendees or speakers with my life or health; I don't have to interact with them at all, and if I do, it'll be in a busy public place; and if they were the kind of person to go into a blind rage when they meet someone like me in public, they probably would've done it already and gotten caught.
For a conference organizer, the primary question is how to make it a positive experience for as many visitors as possible, and that's the criteria they will use when determining who gets to visit.
If allowing a particular person to visit means several others will refrain from visiting, is it then a good idea to permit that? That's a value judgement for the organizers to make.
And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.
That's part of it, but it's also a value judgment for everyone else to make.
In many cases, the rest of us in society care enough about how those decisions are made that we've passed laws prohibiting businesses from rejecting customers for certain reasons.
For example, if your market research shows that allowing Jews into your event results in lower overall attendance, because too many of the other potential attendees are anti-Semites who refuse to go to an event that allows Jews, you still don't get to ban them. We've established that making those opportunities equally available to all religions, ethnicities, genders, races, etc. is more important than maximizing profit. Even when that discrimination isn't illegal, it's often frowned upon by the culture.
And one reason for that is that we distinguish between the business deciding you can't visit them, and you deciding you can't visit them. We expect businesses to be inclusive, even if that means more people choose to exclude themselves -- because this way, the people who are excluded at least get a choice.
>And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.
I've got no reason to attend a Kubernetes conference anyway, but I have the same interest as any other member of society in ensuring that people get treated fairly.
There's no universal legal protection against an entity responding to another person's general beliefs, if that entity consider those to be harmful.
We do not want to obstruct society from holding people accountable for harmful behavior.
Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous.
* Nobody asked you.
* Who do you think you are that I would need your permission?
* I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack.
* What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
* see above
* your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u"
* while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them.
I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you.
If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.
The whole point of this conversation was the suggestion that there might be non-"hateful" ideas being repressed, and important conversations that are prevented, that are prohibited by hate speech legislation. To suggest that I might actually want other people dead is a far reach.
I'm not quite sure what there is to misinterpret. Whatever your intent may be (and if it is different that what I describe here, please clarify) your words are pretty confrontational. You suggest I might want people dead, and then seem to vaguely imply you might have some ability to stop me if you don't like what I have to say. You talk about "letting" me share, and about "proactive intervention". What exactly would "proactive intervention" look like? Are you a moderator, or someone else with authority here? Are you someone with the ability and willingness to dox random anonymous strangers on the internet? Or are you just another member here with the ability to downvote/flag?
You would make it literally illegal to counteract such behavior online.
Your rule would necessarily punish Facebook for banning stalkers, punish reddit for banning racist subreddits if they're not strictly illegal, and so on.
The rule you suggest would protect their ability to harass others regardless of if that's what you intend or not. You can't just handwave away those consequences.
Can you prove that it's in fact not super trivial to circumvent bans on non hateful ideas (in non-totalitarian states)? Are here not millions of more websites besides Facebook et al? Is it not easy to go to another website?
The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives.
You're suggesting it's a better tradeoff to forcibly kill quality standards online so that everybody can express literally anything that's not illegal, when it's equally possible to just... Not make a law like that, and instead encourage people to go to other websites.
Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of (the edge cases where certain collective decisions are socially harmful are covered by antidiscrimination law).
This extends also to website owners. This means that I as a forum moderator (in a different place, on reddit) has the freedom to ban others from my forum for engaging in what I consider abusive behavior. I get to decide if and when I want to take action.
The admins on Hacker News can likewise ban me from here.
Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.
Each and every one of us decides over our own "domains".
In spaces where I'm not a mod/admin (most of them, that is), "letting you" only means not reporting the account, etc.
Today's trade-off is that every person either accepts the rules for approved content that somebody else has set on their own website... Or your start your own website. Or both at once for that matter, it's trivial to visit multiple websites at once since most browsers have tabs.
If your opinion is banned in one place online, it's easy to go to another to post it. That's how the web worked since the very beginning!
What proposed rule? Please quote me so I know what you're talking about.
> Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of
Exactly! Which is why I oppose hate speech legislation. I believe that I, as an adult, have the freedom to hear whatever opinions or ideas I wish and the responsibility to come to my own conclusion on the truth of such ideas. To use the force of law to restrict the expression of ideas merely because they cause offense conflicts directly both with my rights and responsibilities.
> Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.
My question to you, is what are you specifically threatening the context of this specific conversation? It sounds like you're not threatening anything beyond the powers granted to every user on this site, which makes your initial comment look like nothing but useless posturing.
The answer is everybody, in their own respective spaces.
It's not me but not others. It's me AND all others.
If I run a bar, I get to kick out customers who voice despicable opinions. Exact same thing applies if I run a shop, a web forum, or a conference for that matter.
All of us gets to kick out people who behave badly from our own private spaces, nothing obligates me to tolerate abuse.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean the right to an audience. It means you get to say your opinion without the government interfering - and then other people get to decide how to react to it.
Freedom of speech without the right to react and respond to what others say would a horrible idea. Partially because it entirely invalidates the reason for why speech is supposed to be free. If you can't change things based on what you learned from what you heard, why even bother letting people speak?
If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it.
I suspect that if I banned the followers of a religion I found "offensive" from an establishment I owned, you'd be writing a very different post. The problem with the free association argument from censorship proponents is that they've never consistent about it. They're happy to talk up the rights of institutions to exclude right up until the moment that they themselves are excluded.
A functioning society is one in which you don't put your livelihood at risk by agreeing with 50% of the population on a matter of public importance. Violating this principle is tyranny, and I don't care what elaborate justifications anyone comes up with to explain it away. You don't get to try to win political fights by personally ruining regular people on the other side.
Of course that becomes a problem is a large part of society does the same. Which is why such laws against the exists. But I wouldn't be the one pursuing this.
Especially for online spaces. There's just too many options for it to be reasonable to be pissed about getting banned from just one or a few places. It's always possible to create your own online space, if necessary. And right to speech isn't a right to an audience. You get to speak your mind, but people will only listen if they want to.
But keep in mind that there's a bet good reason for why most antidiscrimination laws deliberately limit the contexts in which they're applicable and what groups they protect. Very few jurisdictions protect opinions on their own.
I don't care if an antivaxxers works at a bakery. I'd be pissed if I hear one worked as a nurse at a hospital I go to, and that they refuse to carry out vaccinations. Some opinions are dangerous when held in certain contexts, and requires a reaction. This is simply about safety and protecting society. You can hold an opinion that terrible opinion elsewhere, where you don't hurt people.
At some point, you have to understand that the person putting their livelihood at risk is the person themselves, and that firing them is just as justified as firing a drunkard from a machine shop.
This is pretty off-topic given that there was nothing interpretable as hate speech done here. But I want to note that was how the two left wing echo chambers I saw started (the right wing ones took a different turn).
Initially they just banned people who made statements that were simple expressions of hatred. But people generally express views on a bit of a bell curve, so all the people whose curves had a portion inside the banned space left (often self-censoring for a while, then leaving). After that, the cultural interpretation of the rule changed a bit and it started including statements about groups (e.g. Mexican immigrants are [way more likely to be] rapists). Once all the people who expressed such a view were gone/silenced there was a popular update to the forum rules that clarified and banned a bunch more things. This process repeated a number of times.
First comes the change in rules, the vocal population changes. Then a cycle of changes in enforcement and interpretation of the rules interleaved with changes in the vocal population. Then another rules change. Repeat a bunch of times to end up with an echo chamber that I think the hn population would consider "full of ridiculous SJW nonesense" based on the commentary I've recently seen here.
If you find someone's opinion disagreeable, you don't shut it down, you refute it. Shutting it down just tells me you have no counter arguments, so maybe they have a point and I should listen to it.
Understand the Streisand Effect.
I mean, you can reasonably define hate speech as something any reasonable person could agree is actually potentially harmful (like promoting some kind of prejudice in some dangerous ways), and I presume that's how it's defined under legal terms, but colloquially people most likely won't be doing that.
One of the other individuals involved in this row has said previously "white men in tech ain't shit". Should this individual be allowed to participate in tech conferences?
- hate speech to be objectively defined
- due process to exist in processing complaints
> "white men in tech ain't shit". Should this individual be allowed to participate in tech conferences?
All I can tell you is that it would probably be judged hate speech in France and fined if said publicly. I know nothing of the rules and penalties this specific place's CoC implements. And I'll be the first to say that it is problematic if the rules in the matter are not written.
But I am sure the tech world, through its typically clumsy approach of human affairs, will end up having enough jurisprudence to piece out a workable code.
Extremely unlikely. Members of the P.I.R. (black/arab racialist party) and other organisations who swim in the same waters have been spouting many many worse things. Or a few of the crazy chicks who took over the U.N.E.F. (student union) and have said stuff like "the whites should be gassed".
This says much more about you than about those people. Shame on you.
I think history is a better guide because we can more clearly see what was valuable. Things that were censored in the past:
* Evolution, esp of humans from other apes
* Capitalism/market economics (in socialist states)
* Currently mainstream views about biology (e.g. Lysenkoism)
Free speech is a "hits" business: most of the value comes from a few incredibly valuable ideas that someone powerful is trying to censor. The damage done to Russia and China under communism easily exceeds all the extra "smoothness" that they got out of censoring those who disagreed with them.
There is a formal legal definition of hate speech in the countries where these laws apply and it would be nice if people arguing against those laws would accept that, instead of continuously conflating things that are not hate speech.
I am now mostly worried about state censorship, which do remove things like the items you list.
Censoring hate speech and people who promote exclusion of minorities? I have not a single example of it being detrimental to a healthy debate.
How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.
Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back.
And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation.
So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it.
Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
Anyone can stir up outrage against a made up situation.
Some extremists carry the American flag. Does that mean someone who flies the American flag as a patriotic symbol are the same? Clearly not, because that would be attributing an extremist position to the majority using the most tenuous of associations. I don't see how that's a productive start for any discussion.
Just see my list of links below. It's undeniable that the very reason why people use the term MAGA is to voice support for hypernationalism, as a way to justify racism and hatred. This is what the term was created to be.
There's nothing tenuous in the association when the president himself is retweeting white nationalists using the term, when he's using it in blatantly racist ads, when it's used to justify walls, when it's used to justify abandoning international responsibilities, etc.
The flag wasn't created by a group campaigning on hate. MAGA however is.
MAGA is used by the majority as a show of support for the president, their party, and general conservative beliefs along with American pride. You refuse to believe those people, and yet believe any extremist who claims MAGA. Why?
If you have such dogmatic views and think half the country is "campaigning on hate" then unfortunately there's no rational debate to be had here. By the way, CNN had the leader of the white nationalists on prime time. By your own definition, CNN is now a white nationalist channel. Do you disagree?
"...openly supports the violent extremists that use these hats and similar symbols..."
I'd like to see all the many examples where people wearing maga hats and saying maga were "violent extremists".
Really interested to learn about all of this extremist violence I've apparently been missing by these maga people, looking forward to your response.
If you had read the news you'd know about it.
You're either lying or ignorant. In either case you're blatantly wrong.
The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else. The majority is the extremists in that case, and they specifically changed the direction and removed the dots from the Asian versions to do so.
The president does not support violent extremists, openly or otherwise. "Nazis" are not a real problem anywhere in the modern world.
India haven't stopped using the swastika, actually. But the context of its use typically makes it obvious they do not use it to support nazi ideology.
You haven't read the president's Twitter stream? Because it's pretty blatant.
There's literally academic studies on it. You believe otherwise requires ignorance.
Also I'm from India and as I just explained, the Indian swastika is a different design and direction. The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else, they made it for themselves which is why it's only associated with them.
If you won't listen to the majority group that uses the term telling you it's positive for them, and instead apply the extremist interpretation, then what exactly do you need to hear as a counter position? Seems like it's not open to any other understanding.
I have seen the arguments for "why it's positive for them" and they're bullshit. They're using it to justify racism and corruption and to defend politicians on their own side that even break the law (like a certain raid of a certain meeting concerning classified information).
I'm open to actual evidence, not just mere statements of disbelief. Can you provide counterevidence?
He still has won an election in a country that pretends to be democratic, so I'll politely assume he was the choice of the majority.
As soon as some entity gets a license to start banning speech, you have given bad ideas an advantage over good ones.
This is because a bad memeplex can co-opt the censorship apparatus and kill off any competitors without having to face them in a fair fight.
The criterion you mentioned about hate speech etc is extremely flexible and dependent on a bunch of definitions and interpretations that the censors will be in control of - exactly the kind of thing that the free speech principle protects us from!
The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities.
Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy.
There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority.
Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
Turtles, all the way down!
I spent maybe 40 minutes last night trying to find out what Charles did that violated the CoC. The best I could do was find this: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1187181890920312833
It seems like he was kicked from the conference for having the nerve to make a youtube video with his opinion.
If someone can show me something more significant... PLEASE... because i've been searching, I just haven't found it.
The first offense is from his twitter account:
>Latter Day Saint (Christian), Conservative
The second offense is that there is a picture of him with a MAGA hat somewhere on the Internet.
That was enough for someone to say they're uncomfortable attending the same conference as him.
Because he is a Mormon, he tried to solve the issue the Mormon way, offering them to discuss the issue. This was considered "tone policing" by the anonymous "Linux Foundation" account.
The raging assholes enforcing this fake social justice nonsense must be unambiguously called out by anyone with half a brain.
(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.
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.
What a time to be alive!
This is exactly parallel to her current tweet which LF responded to.
Live by Twitter, die by Twitter.
I wonder about the callous ignorance of Sarah Mei, who purports to be a feminist but ignores such an important program written by another woman.
In the US, DD is a cup size for a brassiere, and thus indirectly refers to breast size on women. DD for sometime has been considered to be an uncommonly large breast size for a woman, especially a woman of otherwise more common proportions. DDD, being the next cup size up for reasons I don't understand (instead of cup sizes going E, F, etc), would therefore imply a woman even bustier than the supposedly uncommonly-busty DD-breasted woman.
Yes, I think it's silly, too. Human mammary tissue has exactly fuck all to do with programming.
Unfortunately we'd probably just rename it something less offensive like ECMAScript.
what a shitshow that would be
I'm so sick of this cancel culture bullshit. Didn't they learn about sticks and stones as a kid? Honestly, so many people these days need to eat some concrete to harden the fuck up.
Your amerocentric view of the world assumes that because we speak the same language we have the same culture. We do not. In my culture, telling someone to eat concrete is not taken literally. Its not a call to violence. Its a way of telling someone they need to increase their mental fortitude, that being upset because someone said something you didn't like is not a productive way to go through life.
Unfortunately, this kind of extreme SJW mindset seems to be winning ground in the name of inclusion by scared useful idiots. Tech used to be a relatively sane area where logic and accomplishments was what mattered, now you need to kiss these lunatics asses unless you want to be painted as a horrible person that hates everyone but white straight males.
It reminds me about how several of the subreddits for lesbians have been taken over by transsexual women that ban lesbian women if they argue about not being attracted to penis. Saying you're against MtF transexuals competing against regular women in sports labels you as a TERF and persona non grata in some circles, and those circles are gaining power.
Because of these grifters I don't even want to identify as transgender any longer.
But all of this is on all their permanent records and when the pendulum swings the other way, they will have ample time to reflect.
As someone in fire and EMS, around here, among us, including the females (this area has quite probably the highest proportion of females in fire and EMS in the country), there is an inherent pride in the title 'fireman', regardless of gender.
To us it implies "I don't 'fight' fire. I am a [man] of fire, who intrinsically understands it, lives and breathes it, and knows how to master (uh-oh) it".
Good for them! I'm personally agnostic about this, but you sound as if you know them all and you know what they think. It can be tricky to separate ones perception from reality.
The Linux Foundation seems to be a broken organization.
Was Stalin known for unfair, politically biased code of conduct enforcement? Sorry, I don't see the need for hyperbole here. Even in context, yanking a ticket from KubeCon is hardly the same thing as being purged from the government, tried for imagined crimes and sent to a Gulag.
To Godwinize for clarity: this is like using "Hitlerian" to celebrate a public policy achievement in passenger rail scheduling.
In Stack Overflow's case this seems to be headed towards a Slander/Libel. I hope we don't end up in a world where this is the only way to follow $GROUP_THINK.
Note that this is pretty much what you would predict if CoC's were inherently politicized statements, as much as a MAGA hat. Which is exactly what opponents of CoC's have been contending for a long time.
Aren't they, though, if it happens that what CoC's say align much, much more with one political group than another? This obviously implies that the latter group believes in conducting themselves quite differently than the code mandates, and they need to suppress those beliefs (or at the very least, not act on those beliefs) while engaging with the group whose code it is.
The goal should be to increase the overall effectiveness of the group, and avoid marginalisation or exclusion of any potential contributors.
I personally don't think the idea behind a code of conduct is bad at all, or that formally banning gender/orientation/race/etc.-based harassment and discrimination in open source projects is bad. It's just that the Contributor Covenant creators and advocates seem to have a much wider and stricter stance on what falls under that category than what I personally agree with, and some of them have a history of launching what I consider unjustified McCarthy-style witch hunts towards people who otherwise share a lot of their views.
And I think a lot of other people who don't fully agree with all of their positions are kind of forced to keep quiet about it and just enforce what's increasingly becoming the status quo. The people not afraid of the backlash and who openly oppose it are often pretty right-wing and tend to spend all day lambasting SJWs on Twitter, or whatever, which is often much further than what an average CoC-detractor may be trying to do. The more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to be honest about your opposition to it, which over time makes left-leaning people less honest about their opposition to it. They don't have a good middle option. Like what all the other polarization in the culture is causing, a left-leaning person who isn't fully on-board usually has no good option but to capitulate.
I've heard/seen multiple accounts of anonymous drive-by commenters saying something to the effect of "I've noticed you have no code of conduct, and there are several pull requests by PoC that you have refused. You might want to consider adopting the Contributor Covenant." A sort of stealthy protection racket: "Nice project you have here. Wouldn't want a discrimination lawsuit to ruin it all."
I suspect the anonymous commenters are either Coraline Ada Ehmke herself, or one of her lieutenants.
> And I think a lot of other people who don't fully agree with all of their positions are kind of forced to keep quiet about it and just enforce what's increasingly becoming the status quo. The people not afraid of the backlash and who openly oppose it are often pretty right-wing and tend to spend all day lambasting SJWs on Twitter, or whatever, which is often much further than what an average CoC-detractor may be trying to do. The more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to be honest about your opposition to it, which over time makes left-leaning people less honest about their opposition to it.
I'm left-leaning, and I'm sick of this shit. I've gotten downmodded here on Hackernews and elsewhere for it, and I'm kind of glad to see that others on various communities not related to Kiwi Farms or the alt-right are starting to come around. Back in the day, open source was the closest thing around to the promised cybertopia of AT&T commercials. It wasn't all holding hands and getting along, but you learned to grow a thick skin, focus on technical concerns, and -- with a bit of learning and practice -- be a bit nicer. I've seen Christians, Muslims, and atheists, people on the left and right politically, collaborate in this way. And it's being ruined by this sort of entryism. Open source (the Linux development process in particular) was built to be resilient to sabotage by government agencies and corporations. If I were just such an agency or corporation and I wanted to undermine or destroy open source, I would be paying very close attention to, if not actively exploiting, social-justice entryism because it seems to have found a weak point.
Sure, they can contend that all they want - funny how their actual actions are far more revealing than their words.
What people have been "traditionally marginalized" in the world of FOSS, which now needs protection which will not be afforded to others?
As I see it, most CoCs are heavily biased political tools, weaponized by default to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.
As such they promote group-think and discourage diversity. Any forward thinking individual should naturally be opposed to such regression.
Could we try to be less orwellian? Are we really banning people who say things we don't like on YouTube?
I feel like we’re on track to having to sign a sworn affidavit that you’re not a Republican, and don’t support any Republicans, to get a job, renew your driver’s license, rent an apartment, get a checking account… it sounds ridiculous, but did where we are now just a few years ago.
I don't think it is served by trolling peoples internet history to discover if they ever committed any thought crime. Our country will be better off the more MAGAers either age into the grave or get off the stupid train. Keep in mind that many of them are already decent citizens in the way they comport themselves in their lives, in the way they treat the people they interact with. They have just bought into a moronic ideology and will vote to enable further stupidity that will hurt their fellows in a way they would never due if given that straight choice between good and evil directly.
Isolating that person instead of communicating with them is a missed opportunity that serves only to signal our virtue to our fellows. It is a choice to enhance our social status instead of our society. It's positively trumpian and it plays right into his hands by making that person more isolated and thus more vulnerable.
Doing the right thing is hard. Do it anyway.
That's tone policing and a CoC violation. Marginalized groups have the right to be incivil.
Your ideology is constructed in order to grant 'incivility' (the moral permission to commit violence) to people based on whatever parameters are useful at the moment.
It's a horrendously incoherent worldview, and will shake itself to pieces.
"The “Linux®” Trademark
For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy."
It's clear the Linux Foundation has been given too much power. Whenever a group of people get too much power or money, someone in the group, almost by definition an asshole, will abuse it.
I'm not sure why this is a hard distinction to grasp.
> how can ... If they cannot trust
Being banned from a private venue is an expression of the right of free association. It is not a violation of anyone's rights, because one does not have a right to attend a private venue. It is not a form of political oppression or censorship, because one does not require attendance at a private venue to express one's political beliefs.
Therefore, because the rights of banned attendees have not been violated, nor their speech suppressed, nor has any violence been imposed against the banned attendees, or critics of the code of conduct, said code of conduct is not equivalent to the policies of the Chinese government or a social credit system.
1. People should be able to control their own business
2. If they reject a group of people for a given reason, they can
3. Businesses that done reject this group will gain more business. (Both from the newly released group, and from patrons who are not rejected but are against the discrimination)
4. The rejected people could start their own business as a competitor
5. Discriminatory people/businesses are immediately identified.
It seems like it could just work itself out, but in Patrice I'm not sure.
If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees.
If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees.
To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.
I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me.
People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points.
What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.
But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
So my position is that organizations and individuals should, generally, be free to speak, and free to organize as they see fit (including hiring, or not, someone). Because it's the best way to minimize conflict.
I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot.
I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
In your view, how does this transfer of legitimacy take place?
Have you thought through the implications of trying to do this to at minimum 1/3 of the population of the US? And what that 1/3 or more are concluding from this opinion being widely expressed in the US right now?
"A person like that does not belong in our society much less should be given my time."
What you're saying now only covers the last part of your statement, what about the "does not belong in our society" part?
And why are you evading the questions about what effects these type of statements have on the 1/3 or more of the US that's targeted by them? You really think that's a free action?
Would you still be ok listening to “a quality presentation by Hitler” if you were Jewish and your grandparents died in the Holocaust?
(Yes to the Hitler question too.)
Hitler would have to be presenting something really outstanding to make it worth my while. Hitler and Pol Pot are extreme examples of mass murderers, of course. I'm resorting to such hyperbole to make a point: I'm not going to deny myself access to helpful information just because I can't stand the person offering it, nor do I believe it is reasonable to ask others to do so.
Operation Paperclip is a good example of this principle in practice involving actual Nazis.
More importantly in America it can't be a moral crime to vote for the wrong side else we can't continue as a republic. Our country requires the ability to have regularly scheduled revolutions without being torn asunder.
The Republic is dead, there is no credible path forward that's going to continue it, in part because one side has stopped accepting the results of our "regularly scheduled revolutions" if they don't win. Which perhaps not counting G. H. W. Bush has been steadily more clear with each Republican Presidential election victory starting with Nixon before Watergate.
What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.
> If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees.
Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.
Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.
* Yes, everyone agrees
* Almost everyone agrees on this one
* Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned.
I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.
And really, what can you do about it? If you are not already set for life you can't afford to step out against it unless you are willing to risk your livelihood.
The others are basically just people who were unfortunate enough to be saying the "wrong" thing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Saying that Cancel Culture doesn't do harm because people aren't afraid to wear a MAGA hat, is like saying the Drug War doesn't do harm because people aren't afraid to drop acid. Regardless of what percentage of people are caught, it's unjust to destroy someone's life because they put the wrong substance in their body or the wrong idea in their mind.
I personally love building, coding, etc. I rather watch two people argue about emacs vs. vim; I vote vim. Or spaces vs. tabs; I vote spaces.
Remember the days when you could sit at work building something for your customers without having to hear about someone's political or religious views?
Pro Tip: Treat politics and religious like bedroom talk. Keep it out of the work environment. Leave it for the bar/pub, with your friends or on social media.
Now real talk - tabs vs. spaces? ;)
But for real talk - I prefer tabs. They feel cleaner and you don't have to count. It's just one button and you're done. Who want's to push spacebar that many times?
Take back the tab comment and we'll be okay! ;)
If it has no effect, people stop doing it (same applies for overt racism, actually). If you want politics out of IT, then just ignore it. That's what they should've done, instead of calling it into everyone's attention like they did.
CoCs are not laws. The purpose of laws is to define what is allowed by what is explicitly prohibited and by these being all that is prohibited. CoCs on the other hand are an ill-defined subset of what is prohibited that is selectively enforced for political goals. They do not bring any of the benefits of codified laws. They do not clarify what is and isn't allowed since they are so general that none of those who wouldn't grasp these rules intuitively would grasp them after reading a CoC. I see no value added by CoCs, only potential for abuse.
> I can't wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it's been infiltrated by SJW's Hahahah
> Some people are saying that the Contributor Covenant is a political document, and they're right.
When the whole CoC was shoehorned in the Linux Kernel, many people warned that this was going to happen. We were just hand waved with "No such thing would happen" because the people behind the CoC were not racist, etc, despite when the previous events like the whole opal mess indicated otherwise.
The really ironic thing here is that America(and Silicon Valley) was built on historical events like this. A whole lot of geniuses and skilled people were driven to America by similar groupthink lynchings happening in Europe and Asia up until and including WW2. They built America into a powerhouse. If this continues to happen then Silicon Valley is going to get a painful history lesson they could have easily avoided.
Hard men make good times
Good times make soft men
Soft men make bad times
And so the cycle goes
Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person? From the history, it appears that CoC’s were designed to stop Linus Torvalds, specifically, but he’s still around (but he does seem to be afraid of CoC enforcers now).
Yes. Though, most CoC violations are handled privately for those involved so we don't hear much about them.
That really sounds like abuse of power with extra steps. Either ALL of these violations should be private or NONE of them should be. Selectively enforcing something like this is just bias and vendetta politics
I have been a part of many projects with out these types of CoC's where people have been removed from the project because they were an asshole, or the project is forked and the assholes are left behind
Historically that was the way of open source.
Today however it is much different... Politics and Social Status seem to matter more than Code, merit, and reality
IMO that shouldn't fly with the Patriot Act, and it shouldn't fly here either.
I served on the exec board of a non profit org that used our CoC to adjudicate behavior (sexual predator, harassment, etc) that was not covered by our bylaws.
One big difference, why our CoC proved useful, was we had a trial. Plaintiff, defendant, evidence, testimony, jury, deliberation. All of it.
It was a lot of work. And EXTREMELY painful. But it worked. A popular leader had a day in court. And our org emerged stronger for it.
Now I'm of two minds on this. I do sometimes miss the more freewheeling culture of the '00s, and feel like the need for constant compliance has drained the tech scene of some life... but honestly it's a small price to pay if the only alternative is tolerating fascists in your midst.
Said instance is the only reason this thread exists, no?
Read their tweets, many of them are openly and proudly racist, sexist and ageist.
Are they really? Or do they just dare to hold views that have nothin to do with sexism, agism or racism but instead just violate the "proper" political orthodoxy?
> you fucking suck
Changed her Twitter name to "Kill All Men".
Drank coffee from mugs with things like "Male Tears" on the side.
Especially when they don’t permit the “joking” excuses to anyone else.
If you replace one gender with the other or one race with any other race (etc, etc) and the new sentence is offensive, then so is the previous one.
Is kill all women offensive? Then you obviously shouldn't say kill all men.
Well let’s see, what do you think about using “old”, “white” and “male” as pejoratives? No one ever seems to have violated a CoC for it.
Everyone has the right to appeal, sue for injury, etc.
Any entity acting as judge, jury, and executioner is the problem. Secret laws, secret courts, secret rulings are the problem.
Suboptimal CoC's are not (even remotely) the problem. Broken laws, policies, rules, procedures can be fixed. If we have proper governance.
We know this.
CoC's like the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence exist to capture values, principles, culture, intent.
Which side are you on?
Pick a side.
The thing that stops me and almost makes me side with the CoC crowd is that I've spent the last 8-10 years watching a wave of fascist and hyper-reactionary ideology sweep across hacker culture.
The existence of so much actual fascism, race nationalism, Naziism, ideological misogyny ("red pill" and "incel" stuff), etc. in so many corners of hacker/geek culture make the hard core SJW crowd look like they have a point. The stuff that revolves around places like Gab and /pol/ makes the craziest examples of "call out culture" and "cancel culture" look sane and maybe necessary.
It's like this.
Say you're in Salem. Say you're horrified at all the witch hysteria. Now imagine you go for a walk in the woods and come upon a circle of people chanting and sacrificing babies over a bonfire...
Hmm... now maybe those witch hunters have a point!
I feel a little like that.
What I really think is that everyone on the right, left, and just about everywhere else lost their damn minds for some reason starting about 2010-2012. The MAGA hat crowd and the "cancel culture" crowd are all insane and this is all crazies fighting with crazies.
This install is totally borked. Format and reinstall the OS.