>Meet Silicon Valley’s Secretive Alt-Right Followers. I investigated the role of “alt-techies” in the extremist movement emboldened by Trump.
>“The average alt-right-ist is probably a 28-year-old tech-savvy guy working in IT,” white nationalist Richard Spencer insisted when I interviewed him a few weeks before the election.
> If it puts off any Alt-Right White Supremacists and drives them away from the Linux community, then that's an excellent outcome.
What?! Why?
How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing? Or is it just that anything bad or exclusionary happening to your political enemies is a good thing?
And why are you advocating driving away minorities and anti-racist people from working on the Linux kernel by tolerating White Supremacists in violation of the Linux Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, who consider other human beings genetically inferior and not deserving of the same rights and respect as white people? Are you ok with rapists and murderers, too, or do you just have a special place in your heart for defending White Supremacy?
>Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
>The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
>Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
>Public or private harassment
>Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
>Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
White Supremacy is clearly inappropriate in a professional setting. Or do you disagree? Do you have a dog in this battle? Can you name any White Supremacist kernel hackers who the community can't get along without?
You really need to take a deep look at yourself, and decide which side of history you're on. Advocating and defending White Supremacy online could and should have detrimental effect on your employability. Do you stand by your beliefs enough to share your real name with us, or do you insist on remaining anonymous?
"Advocating driving away minorities" There is no evidence that the term "master" drives away minorities. As to driving away anti-racist people, a reason that comes to mind is that they make changes like this rather than actual productive work; in other words, their contribution seems so far to be clearly net-negative.
> Are you ok with rapists and murderers, too, or do you just have a special place in your heart for defending White Supremacy?
Well I got in trouble at work for defending pedophiles, so no, it's not just white supremacists I defend. It's everyone, including Muslims, fundamentalist YEC Christians, racists, trans people and the very woke. I mostly defend them by encouraging no politics where it isn't topical, but have also spoken up plenty of times.
Well you've been very purposefully deceptive in your defense of racists in this thread, repeatedly attributing words and thoughts to me that I did not say and think, so there is probably a very good reason you got in trouble at work.
You seem to have a lot of preconceived false notions that you project onto other people, and you're spending a lot more energy attacking people than defending them. I'm sure you co-workers and managers really cherish your argumentation techniques. If you get fired, Tucker Carlson is looking for a head writer.
I'm sure you can find some other forum more appropriate for defending White Supremacy, like the ones Tucker Carlson's previous head writer hangs out on -- why don't you take it there instead of here, edgelord?
> Well you've been very purposefully deceptive in your defense of racists in this thread, repeatedly attributing words and thoughts to me that I did not say and think, so there is probably a very good reason you got in trouble at work.
Having read this and a number of your other replies I'm now reasonably sure you're confusing me with someone else.
Would you object to me sending you an email so we can get on the same page and we can talk without replies being scattered about the place?
> How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing?
You don't really believe driving out the alt-right white supremacists would result in a smaller overall community, do you? They're a small group that has an outsized ability to repel other people.
What are you talking about? Are you even responding to the right message?
Tell me please, what are my secretly held preconceptions exactly, and how do you know that?
By writing double quotes around the sentence "It's about marginalized people." you are clearly claiming that I said that, which I absolutely did not. When and where do you claim that I say that?
Why are you deceptively trying to attribute a quote to me that I didn't say?
Do you have no better argument than blatantly misquoting me to make a straw man to attack?
Sorry, let me clarify what I'm saying, because I agree that message was too brief.
In the first sentence, I was talking about my preconceptions, not yours. The fundamental premise of changing 'master' to 'main', as I understand it, is that this supposed to make Linux "more inclusive" by preventing black people from being exposed to a term that has slavery connotations. However, I hold the preconception that the actual point is that certain people in the "left-progressive-online/idpol" cluster want to feel good by exercising power to make other people do things that will, as an added benefit, piss off the right (basically the left equivalent of "own the libs") which is not as beneficial a purpose as making Linux more inclusive for minorities. Then your comment, being a plain description of the latter sentiment, confirmed this preconception outright, which amused me. The quote wasn't meant to be attributed to you but rather the general claimed motivation for this change and changes like it.
I never said your message was too brief, so no, we don't agree your message was too brief, because I didn't say that at all.
I said your message was deceptive. Do you agree with me that your message was deceptive?
And are you going to tell me what my secretly held beliefs are, and how you know, like I asked you to?
Why do you feel the need to deceive, by quoting me saying something I clearly did not say, and claiming to know what my secretly held beliefs are? Are straw man arguments and deception and putting words I didn't say into my mouth and beliefs I don't hold into my mind the best you have?
If fighting against racism pisses off the right, then so be it. That just means they're racist, and they deserve to be pissed off. How about coming up with a political ideology you're not ashamed to put your real name next to, anonymous coward?
You seem unconcerned about the people who might feel marginalized and harmed by the rampant use of offensive language, and really concerned about people who could simply substitute another word with no impact.
It's a really, really false equivalence.
If you're offended by being asked to behave civilly you really have a bigger problem to deal with.
I mean one way to do it would be that when someone brings up a specific term that they feel is a problem, we decide to change the term or not, and if we choose not to, we can revisit later.
If someone brings up that they feel the verb abort is an issue, the community can have that conversation. There are no shortage of idioms that are synonymic -- halt, stop, terminate, end -- and it would be trivial to make the changes if it came to that. Either the decision will be to replace with another idiom, or to keep the existing one.
If Linux had never used master/slave, and instead used primary/secondary, no one would open up a discussion to say "replace primary with master, primary is unclear and too much work to type" or whatever. So clearly there's no obligation to use the disputed terms, just as there wouldn't be for "abort". Are you hung up on using "abort"?
Like, we don't need some cosmic answer once and for all about whether or not ever possible term will ever be offensive. We can just respond to people who bring the issues up. If they seem to be bringing it up in bad faith (for example, if the username is "DefendTheWestGroyper" and they have an anime avatar, probably you don't need to take them seriously) then that can be part of the conversation too.
If this is the worst bikeshedding you're experiencing in a team project then you've got an uncommonly productive group. But also you can just opt out of the conversation. If you try to submit a PR later with a banned word in it, someone will flag it. The consequences on the code side seem de minimis.
I'm not being asked to behave civilly though, I'm being asked to coddle infantile behavior of thin-skinned people taking things out of context.
I'd much rather have a civil discussion about substantive changes we can make to society as whole, not wasting everyone's time with trivial and performative conformance.
