Linus Torvalds On Linux's Code of Conduct (bbc.com) 755
Linus Torvalds oversees every line of code added to the Linux kernel, but in recent years the male-dominated community has become increasingly divided, reports BBC. Rows about sexism and rudeness led to the creation of a Code of Conflict (CoC) in 2015 which was short -- simply recommending people "be excellent to each other." That has now been replaced by a more detailed Code of Conduct -- which retains the acronym, but attempts to be more inclusive and eliminate insulting and derogatory comments and behaviour. Reader sinij writes: Recently Linux Community adopted a new controversial Code of Conduct authored by Contributor Covenant also known for authoring the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto. In an exclusive email interview with the BBC, Mr Torvalds shared his thoughts on his decision to temporarily step aside, the controversy behind the CoC, and the defects of the community he set up. His thoughts on CoC: The advantage of concentrating on technology is that you can have some mostly objective measures, and some basis for agreement, and you can have a very nice and healthy community around it all. I really am motivated by the technology, but the community around Linux has been a big positive too. But there are very tangible and immediate common goals in any technical project like Linux, and while there is occasionally disagreement about how to solve some particular issue, there is a very real cohesive force in that common goal of improving the project. And even when there are disagreements, people in the end often have fairly clear and objective measures of what is better. Code that is faster, simpler, or handles more cases naturally is just objectively 'better', without people really having to argue too much about it.
In contrast, the arguments about behaviour never seem to end up having a common goal. Except, in some sense, the argument itself. Have you read the Twitter feeds and other things by the people who seem to care more about the non-technical side? I think your 'hyped stories' is about as polite as you can put it. It's a morass of nastiness. Instead of a 'common goal', you end up with horrible fighting between different 'in-groups'. It's very polarising, and both sides love egging the other side on. It's not even a 'discussion', it's just people shouting at each other. That's actually the reason I for the longest time did not want to be involved with the whole CoC discussion in the first place. That whole subject seems to very easily just devolve and become unproductive. And I found a lot of the people who pushed for a CoC and criticised me for cursing to be hypocritical and pointless. I could easily point you to various tweet storms by people who criticise my 'white cis male' behaviour, while at the same time cursing more than I ever do.
So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt. "And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation. What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion. Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad. And don't get me wrong, please -- I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout. So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.
In contrast, the arguments about behaviour never seem to end up having a common goal. Except, in some sense, the argument itself. Have you read the Twitter feeds and other things by the people who seem to care more about the non-technical side? I think your 'hyped stories' is about as polite as you can put it. It's a morass of nastiness. Instead of a 'common goal', you end up with horrible fighting between different 'in-groups'. It's very polarising, and both sides love egging the other side on. It's not even a 'discussion', it's just people shouting at each other. That's actually the reason I for the longest time did not want to be involved with the whole CoC discussion in the first place. That whole subject seems to very easily just devolve and become unproductive. And I found a lot of the people who pushed for a CoC and criticised me for cursing to be hypocritical and pointless. I could easily point you to various tweet storms by people who criticise my 'white cis male' behaviour, while at the same time cursing more than I ever do.
So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt. "And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation. What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion. Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad. And don't get me wrong, please -- I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout. So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.
Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.
Coming soon to this thread: Those people.
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.
Coming soon to this thread: Those people.
I know, right?
If only "those people" would just accept their super low status and their incredible wrongness!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's more like: if only those people could behave constructively even in the face of people who aren't. If only those people could undergo some personal growth, like even Linus "asbestos underpants" Torvalds has eventually managed to accomplish. If only those people wouldn't use the PC gripe as an excuse for their worst feelings and urges. If only...
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Caving isn't personal growth. It's giving up on principals. Linus caved to save the project. It probably won't work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All or nothing, black and white arguments are the fave among practiced hypocrites who like to whine about hypocrisy (and that is something we see too much of on all over the political spectrum).
Torvald's argues that his essential stance and values have always been the same, but how he promotes his position has changed because circumstances have changed. Maybe that is right, maybe that is wrong, but I am not going to take your snowflaky opinion about Linus without you baking it up with...anything. Linus ha
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
"I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."
If you are claiming that isn't caving on his principles out of fear of unjust association I can't imagine what you WOULD consider caving...
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, this is incredibly stupid. Using his "logic", if there are white supremacists out there who also happen to be programmers, then Linus should stop programming so that he's not associated with those people.
It's an insidious type of capitulation.
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it
The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups.
If you actually listen to the most prominent "white supremacists" these days, none of them advocate violence. Their followers certainly do, but as far as the official ideology goes it's all about "separation of the races" via nonviolent means. Obviously any remotely fairminded person would disagree with that objective, but calling it "overtly evil" seems a stretch. There are plenty of other racial groups which seek to maintain a distinct population in which they are a majority, and nobody calls that "evil".
On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals. Even worse, they don't just target actual Nazis; they're perfectly fine with using violence against anyone whose politics lean even slightly right of Stalin.
There's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to condemn Nazis and white-supremacists as unredeemably evil, due to the history of those movements. However, putting aside the historical context for a minute and just looking at the words and actions of the two sides in the here and now, it's pretty hard to justify applying those labels only to that particular side.
I guess what I'm really asking here is how are you drawing that line? Is the historical context the important thing? If so, why wouldn't we consider Muslims to also be "so overtly evil that no sane person would want to be associated with them"? Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens. What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?
I hope you'll give this some serious consideration, and provide a serious response. It's something which has been bugging me for a while, and I'm honestly curious about how people draw these lines. Outside of a kind of ingrained cultural disgust for white supremacy, I'm not seeing any actual difference.
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:3)
But why single out them?
Because I needed an example. Apply it to whatever other similar groups you like; it doesn't change what I was saying. On the contrary it rather reinforces the point that there are many groups which historically were just as bad as the Nazis, or worse, yet we don't paint them with the same brush today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know all those times you complained about snowflakes and told Clinton supporters "this is why you lost"?
Yeah. Linus is right, it's not a debate, it's just people screaming at each other.
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
If they scream something constructive, I am glad they do because then I can hear them.
If they scream something destructive, I'm glad there's a mute button right next to their name.
Yes, it actually IS that easy on the internet to get rid of someone obnoxious. It has never been easier to ignore someone you can't stand.
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that's part of the problem. We can all create (or have social media companies create for us) tailored experiences that just give us exactly what we expect, confirm all our biases, and keep us in our comfort zone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can fork it and add your code, sure.
If your code is actually superior, it may catch on. The probability is that Linus was right in adopting a his stance, so you'll have not added anything beneficial (and perhaps something actively detrimental).
Options are always there.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like you agree that snowflakes and the reasoning why Clinton lost.
I do understand why, I'm just a bit surprised you admit it. After all, when you get down to it, they're all bigots screaming at each other. The rest of us would like to have it agreed that it is never okay to act prejudiced against somebody ever. Seriously, it's like being stuck with two roommates who keep having screaming matches over where the pile of rotting garbage goes, with 'disposed of (trash or compost, as appropriate)'
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately we live in an era where we can say the Earth is Round, and Nazi's are bad and have it seem like a political statement.
But being cavil to each other shouldn't be considered politically correct.
So in a development community:
A political correct response to a bad idea: That is a good idea, we will prioritize it. (Then make it bottom priority) The person who made the bad idea didn't learn anything new, and thinks his idea is a good one. However the person who did the respond is not necessarily hated.
A politically incorrect and uncivil response: Calling the person an idiot questioning his parentage and life style. The person who made the bad idea still didn't learn anything, and he is just pissed off at the community.
A politically incorrect yet civil response: We don't agree or like your idea, we find such faults in the design that we find unacceptable. The person has learned the reason for the rejection, and while may be angry that his idea and work didn't get the praise he feels it may deserve. The civil and rational response gives them the opportunity to learn and try again, perhaps with the direction the community is trying to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't angry, they are offended
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Funny)
and my response to that is basically
" To those i have not offended yet please stand by i will get to you shortly"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the "Nazis are bad" statement is only a political statement because "Nazi" has been redefined to "People I disagree with". If people would keep to the original definition, it wouldn't seem so political. And if you disagree with what I wrote, think about how many times Trump has been called "literally hitler" and how many times his supporters have been called "nazis".
Re: (Score:3)
That happens when your leader can't bring himself to call a group of people who self-identify as Nazis wrong.
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:3)
Ah, makes sense. It's really the criminal charges that matter to you. So if a bunch of Nazis have a nonviolent protest and a girl-scout punches one of them and is arrested for assault, you would, of course, condemn the girl scouts. Or if the Nazis clash with BLM, they all beat the fuck out of each other, and then a BLM guy runs over some Nazis with a car, you would condemn BLM and would insist that anyone who condemned both sides must be evil.
Glad I understand your position now. You're still all kinds o
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
And there it is, Double down: Trump is a Nazi same as all R presidential candidates back to Dewey.
It's just old, tired and stupid at this point. Not convincing anyone.
'This time it's real' is part of the derp.
They told me Nixon was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Nixon was no Nazi.
They told me Reagan was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, Reagan was no Nazi.
They told me George H.W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George H.W. Bush was no Nazi.
They told me George W. Bush was a Nazi, and I ignored them, because for all his faults, George W. Bush was no Nazi.
Now they're telling me Trump is a Nazi, and I'm ignoring them, because for all his many glaring, egregious faults, Trump is no Nazi.
I hope a real Nazi doesn't ever get close to power, because the people crying NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! at every Republican since Eisenhower have long since lost every shred of credibility.
(No, I didn't vote for the SOB, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to think he's a Nazi.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your dichotomy is false. There is no requirement that the "political correct" response include accepting the idea. Your 3rd example is also "politically correct".
The insistence that being "politically correct" requires the equivalent of handing out participation trophies is something those opposed to the idea came up with in an attempt to discredit it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's usually no reason for foul language. Except when it comes to flat earthers. Being uneducated bears no shame. Not wanting to learn does.
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
There's usually no reason for foul language. Except when it comes to flat earthers.
"Flat earthers... and conservatives...libertarians...Republicans...cis-gendered white males...those who have more money than me...or anyone I dislike or disagree with for any reason."
The problem here is the list of those it's PC to hate and abuse is fluid and changes with the political expediency and 'feelz' of the moment. This is intentional. Political correctness is a tool, a weapon really, for destroying a relatively cohesive society and turning groups against each other. It's a part of Post-Modernism which includes identity politics, whose entire goal by those who created it from the beginning was destroying Western Enlightenment principles and the modern West itself.
It's working a treat, too. Just look at the division, hatred, and destruction it has brought. Even Linux is being destroyed by it. This ideology is pure poison and it and those who promulgate it need to be stopped.
Strat
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Its funny how PC types attack the person and not the argument.
The poor dears don't have a lot of other options when they have no facts or logic to refute with but, feeling 'triggered', *must* respond somehow.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
fuck if you can't take a bit of foul language i suggest you fuck off to a convent..
In the context of what you replied to, I can say, it isn't that you said "fuck," it is that you said "fuck off."
It has nothing to do with the "foul" part, it is the "asshole" part that is bothersome.
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:3)
Eh, I don't see cunt or bitch as being denigrating of women either. If I call someone a dick, nobody in their right mind will say I'm denigrating men.
This is what people mean when they complain about political correctness. It's perfectly fine for a black comedian to talk about cracker ass crackas, but if a white comedian talks about nlggers everyone loses their fucking minds. It's fine to call someone a dick, but call him a pussy and ohmagawd you're a misogynist. It's hilarious and insightful to talk ab
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But I think it's pretty clear that Linus doesn't want to be associated with white supremecists and Nazis.
Were there ... a lot of those, in kernel development, before?
Re: Coming soon to this thread (Score:3)
Like it or not, that "just be less of a wuss, snowflake" attitude has become associated with some pretty awful people
So has the "ohmagawd, I'm OFFENDED!!!" attitude. Hopefully we'll see Linus start distancing himself from them as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let it find false positives- because after all, who wants code that uses shitake as a variable name?
Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?
There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?
Re: Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhhh. You're either with them or a Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
That which purports to be non-political is only passively reinforcing the misogynistic, white supremacist status quo and therefore no better than the enemy.
There is no neutrality towards progress, you are either for it or against it. If you don't support women and minorities you can only be a sexist and a racist, end of story.
Re: Oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right not everything need to be a trade-off, there is no acceptable middle ground between tolerance and bigotry.
If you criticize Muslims for throwing homosexuals off of buildings, are you being tolerant of homosexuals or are you being bigoted against Muslims?
The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.
Oh jeez, you've literally only just discovered the paradox of tolerance? You're going to be insufferable for your whole freshman year. My advice to you: read the wikipedia page, talk about it while wasted with your college buddies for like 6 months. Then it will be out of your system when you find a girl or guy, have to do some actual wo
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely no one believes that only nazis and fascists have a problem with this right?
I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?
We clearly lost the thread when it comes to basic freedoms in America, and it didn't happen by accident. Just like it's no accident that there are young people whose complaint about "make America great again" is "America was never great". It's pernicious education.
Who benefits from the suppression of free speech in America? People who imagine themselves your future rulers. People who want to achieve that "by any means necessary".
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
I think progressives really do believe that. I've seen too many "free speech is hate speech" posters at free speech protests to think it'a all a sham. And how are protests against free speech even a thing at colleges?
I think it's just a very small, but noisy minority (and I wouldn't label anyone who's against free speech a progressive regardless of what they might like to call themselves) that appears to be much larger or more important because the internet makes it easy to propel such occurrences to a front-and-center position where everyone can engage.
I recall hearing that enrollment at Missouri (where that one professor shut down a student reporter at some protest and was captured on video calling for "some muscle") and Evergreen (where students tried to have a no white people day) are way down. It seems that people are generally aware of this and seem to be steering clear. Just because the silent majority isn't screaming back, doesn't mean that they aren't acting on their beliefs.
Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't. There's a certain sense of the paradox of tolerance in that, but at the same time if people aren't forced to confront their beliefs about why free speech is important, they probably won't hold them dearly. I almost think that it's necessary for there to be a continual opposition to freedom of speech for it to have any chance to survive. If no one bothered to question it for sufficiently long, I suspect that people would take it entirely for granted and it would be much easier for that liberty to erode.
Re: (Score:3)
Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.
Also, you can't really have free speech unless someone is free to argue that you shouldn't.
"Argue"? Of course. Riot through Berkeley smashing windows and starting fires? That's a different thing. And just in general, I'm not OK with public funds going to teaching that the US was never good, or that the basic rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are a bad thing. If you want to make a career of teaching such things, just the hypocrisy alone of doing it with tax dollars is pretty
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
Small but noisy seems to dominate social media though, and Twitter lynch mobs have ended several people's careers.
Eventually people will collectively realize that social media explosions are stupid and that they should be ignored. It's something new and society just doesn't know how to deal with it yet. And once we get this figured out, something else will be new and people will react badly when it comes to their interactions with perceptions of whatever the new thing might be.
If you're going to fund public education at all, I don't think you can reasonably restrict what someone wants to teach at such a micro level. Is it okay if someone can teach that the US was almost never good, expect for one instance? Go far enough and eventually you end up with you can only teach that the U.S. is the best ever and you get something that looks like North Korea. Further, anyone taking such a class with half a brain should be able to realize that the U.S. must be pretty good if you can stand up and declare that it's all shit without the government coming down on you. I suspect that a course like that is pretty useless and that the people who take it aren't going to amount to anything. In the long run everyone starts to recognize the pattern and people stop enrolling, just like the universities I mentioned previously.
If someone wants to proclaim that the U.S. is great and teach others about all of the good stuff it does or has done, then someone should be just a free to do the opposite. There are all kinds of sites that let students rate or discuss professors or courses these days. Eventually people will avoid the useless courses. And if there's someone who really just wants to hear what they already believe, they pay taxes as well and it's their own life. It's not any of my business if they want to live it in a way that I disagree with.
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Those simplistic utopian worldviews normally/historically dont survive long into adulthood but 'we' made the world too soft and easy for too long, many of these people genuinely believe they are victims and are oppressed while living in the most free and advanced civilization ever in history.
They will seriously try to 'save us' for our own good because they believe their ridiculous nonsense, and in that way do real evil.
All the while completely satisfied they are doing good as CS Lewis described: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Completely warped.
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
When "muh freeze peach" is being used by privileged white cishet males to silence women and people of color, you can bet we're going to rethink our values.
I am so very sorry that you're no longer allowed to abuse oppressed peoples with impunity and that those dirty women and inferior races are now being allowed into your privileged space... oh wait, no, I'm not sorry at all!
AC is just trolling, but I think there are people now who really believe it. Spend enough time where everyone around you repeats stuff like this, and it starts to sink in.
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not merely "not being arrested": the "hecklers veto" prevents free speech. Creating a "chilling effect" prevents free speech. If you ant to call someone an asshole, that's fine, that's alsomore speech, though actually presenting a rational argument might be more useful than name calling.
Violent protests to prevent speech from happening stand in the way of free speech. The government is supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and it's that threat of violence that makes government suppression of speech so bad, but any violent suppression of speech is bad, not only governments.
Also, universities might as well be the government for these purposes. Universities shutting down free discussion of ideas simply cannot end well. Restricting free speech to tiny "free speech zones" cannot be a good thing. Universities teaching, explicitly or by example, that free speech is bad needs to stop.
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you understand the term. The "heckler's veto" refers to disrupting an event so that no speech can occur. Preventing speech is not free speech (what could be more obvious?).
Public universities are the government. Private universities are not, and retain their rights of association.
Depends how much government funding they take, but more generally "people with government-like power over you" need the same restrictions as government for our rights to be protected. Universities have fairly extreme power over their students, much more so than most other situations adults are likely to encounter (maybe airports, but hat's government now).
Your free speech rights do not trump other's rights of association. They have the right to exclude you from their club, even if said club has university approval.
Sure, but what does that non-sequitur have to do with "free speech zones", which prevent speech in common areas? I'll assume you also believe that clubs who host a speech by a free speech advocate have the right to exclude hecklers.
After all, you just launched the goalposts into orbit to avoid discussing.
To avoid discussing what? You haven't clearly explained the strawman that you want to argue against. My OP simply stated that suppression of free speech is bad, and that it's a sad state of affairs when college students, of all people, protest free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some devs who are perfectly decent human beings who simply don't want political agendas pushed through software development code of conducts. Is that so unreasonable?
It strikes me that any code of conduct sufficiently well defined to be useful will carry the biases and values of those who craft the code of conduct. Those biases and values can certainly be judged to be "political agendas" by people opposed to them.
I'm probably mis-paraphrasing it, but there's some kind of statement about "all laws are political" because they arise from a political process. Some laws, like those prohibiting murder, seem apolitical but my guess is this is just because murder is widely ac
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Wittgenstein’s Ruler (@joyousandswift’s Maxim): "Most of the time, people’s observations about something else reveal more about the observer than what’s being observed." http://bit.ly/2KYABXT [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Coming soon to this thread (Score:4, Interesting)
If Linus hasn't already been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, this missive should put him there.
I completely agree with him on this, even though I've often been on one side or the other in a flame war. For the most part, the reason flame wars break out on the Internet is precisely because neurotypicals don't realize that text is an autistic media- that all emotion is stripped out of any given text transmission. Any emotions you feel when reading text were likely never intended by the author, and come from your own neurosis and inadequacies. Add to that a topic that is not objective and doesn't have a common goal, and you've got all the ingredients you need for a first-class flame war.
XKCD had a great cartoon on this many years ago: https://www.xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com] and repeated the theme just yesterday https://www.xkcd.com/2051/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Listen, I've been doing *this* a lot longer than most people in the industry (but not as long as some) ... about anything
and certainly longer than Linus. It's how the industry has always been - polarized
where sides can be taken.
Whether it's about C vs. C++, Makefiles vs. build systems, /bin/sh vs. csh, or tabs vs. spaces in source code.
I've seen a lot. I remember asking a very smart person (no, I do mean a highly qualified person) a Makefile
question. He became so upset that I would ask such a thing -- I'l
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree, for the average person some of the effects will appear to be an 'unintended consequences' somehow, as in 'how/why did that happen?' but its not unintended, that COC was expressly designed that way on purpose to sound good on the surface but have all the tools built in to control whatever it was aimed at via 'any means necessary'.
If people were pushing for more 'Common Decency' then I expect there would be much less kerfuffle.
Political Correctness is a gross totalitarian tool, its main u
So much for that (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation.
Oh, yes you are, yes you are ... you may not know it yet, but you are ...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any examples of people apologising for people white or straight? I'm both (kinda) and never apologised for it, or felt guilty for it.
Re:So much for that (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there are certainly people that will accuse you of being white and straight and try to make you feel guilty for it. (I am both and male in addition...)
Personally, I just put these people in the "fuckup" class and ignore them after they have made such an utterly stupid and despicably manipulative accusation.
I have seem people apologize for being male of for "their gender" while being male. I don't get that either. It is not a club that you were ever asked to be a member of or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Any links to these dubious claims?
Re: (Score:3)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about the "It's OK to be White" posters that were briefly put up as a few colleges as a prank? Do they trouble you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sorry that I'm white, but I know that people who are white have done some pretty shitty things to ensure that white people remain the dominant race in many societies.
Is that apologizing for being white? If so, I guess I'm apologizing for being white.
Really all this comes down to owning your beliefs and not adhering to labels. I think it's wrong to call people who are gay "fags" in most circumstances*. If you want to say I'm a terrible human being because I think that word can be used in certain c
Re: (Score:2)
http://nursesarena.com/news/au... [nursesarena.com]
The trolls have won (Score:4, Insightful)
We gave them too much attention, took them too seriously, and now we have to alter our own behavior, 'least we be associated with their scum and villainy. What a truly awful time to be alive.
Non-Binary (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-binary people can't fathom a world where the "Us vs Them" extremist thinking is bad. Therefore, if you don't care about PC language, and cowering before the LGBT Crowd's demands, you MUST BE A NAZI!!!!!!!
This isn't about Linus being a Nazi, because I don't even think he is, but when that is HIS fears(being called a Nazi), because he doesn't retreat at being labeled a "white cis male", that is really telling to where we are as a society. And only a few of us find this to be actually frightening?
I don't care what people are, really. I just don't want to be told what I must do, what I must say, especially when it is being backed by the full power of government. This is nothing more than Nazi like bully tactics. People should take a long look at how Nazi's actually worked. The Political Correct Left is more like Nazis than anything.
Re: (Score:3)
You may be the most consistently dishonest person I have ever seen on this forum.
I dont recall you ever showing any shame about it whatsoever and no doubt will double or triple down on your nonsense.
Political Correctness is totalitarian, it is gross, it is evil, and people who engage in it ought to be publicly ridiculed.
Re:Non-Binary (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read TFS? Linus adopted the CoC to avoid being called a Nazis.
I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to your interpretation, "I don't want people to think I'm a Nazi."
English is funny like that, and I suspect that OP interpreted it the same way I did.
Re:Non-Binary (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the whole quote and it will make more sense:
Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi
In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.
Re: (Score:3)
Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi
In other words he decided that he couldn't sit on the fence any more, because doing and saying nothing was effectively the 4chan option where anything goes, and it's fine to be a Nazi. He is not saying he is worried about being called a Nazi, he is saying that he doesn't want to give the impression that anything goes behaviour and content-wise on official Linux channels.
That's a very creative interpretation.
No, no it is not. It is an extremely literal interpretation. Which word did you find unclear?
Re: (Score:2)
Drink! AmiMojo right on time with the whataboutism!
With this thread, we will all end up in a rehab.
My problem (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".
Since the centre left is not criticizing these folks, they are opening the door to some godawful policies being put in place to police our thoughts and words when/if the next time they get voted in.
Re:My problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You can criticize them 'til you're blue in the face, they're fully resistant against reason and logic. It's like the religious right wing nutjobs found their pendant on the other side of the spectrum. Same rhetoric, different agenda.
Re:My problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually really hard for any group to criticize the angry part of their group.
Jordan Peterson really hits on something when he says, we have finally reached a state where we draw a line on the right. Anyone who speaks on superiority of people just on the basis of their race... has crossed that line and must be publicly denounced. We really do forget that globally, people cross that line all the time.
It's actually very unique for a group to criticize it's 'crazies'. The reason is simply their crazies do the dirty work.
I grew up Muslim. Whenever you get free speech issues, like say the cartoon thing. The vast majority of my family in Canada (and we're like 2nd/3rd pretty moderate generation) will say something like the following. Killing people is wrong, but they shouldn't be saying stuff about Islam anyways. Or you have like my family in the UK, where the crazies are one's who try to get rid of various ethnicities in their neighborhood. Now, no moderate person would voice their support of it, but they're just glad the community is now safer and better.
You had the same thing with the KKK back in the day. Not every white person liked the KKK or wanted the violence, but the KKK did the job they wanted. They kept blacks out of the neighborhood. They were on 'your' side. So most white people wouldn't go out there and really take on the KKK. It really took a lot to push that fight.
The far left isn't going to do it either. They enjoy that the threat of punch a Nazi or shame you out of the job keeps people in line. They will throw the same token rejection of violence or whatever that every other group days... while letting their crazies do their thing because it benefits them.
Blacks won't do it either. They will never fight black extremists because they're on their side. You see it happening in South Africa today. The government working alongside what is the black equivalent of the KKK, led by Julius Malema. It's really strange just to see the language and how the groups work. The ANC says it's not racist... but really can't go against the black KKK. Coded threats. Outright violence. All the while, the government sits backs and says: what's the problem, we're not racist. Let's just work it all out, while they work with people who openly chant kill whites, kill farmers.
Anyways, the long and short of it is. Very few people actually take on their crazies of their group that fights for them and their interests. Probably because no one is playing to lose. The weird line the West drew so cohesively and broadly against Nazis is actually kind of unique. Everywhere else in the world, the alt-right or whatever is pretty much regular behavior.
What does this have to do with Kernel development? (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet is the great anonymizer.
There is no way for someone to know that a contributor to the linux kernel is of a certain color, race, gender, or sexual orientation unless they volunteer that information.
And why would they? What does it have to do with Kernel development?
In my experience, this is the battle cry of the incompetent. When they don't get their way, suddenly it's because of your discrimination against their $trait that you couldn't have possibly known about in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever committed a patch to the kernel? You have to sign off with your real name and email address.
With that info, you are very far from anonymous.
And there are certainly people that can use that info to cross-reference your goings all across the internet
and learn lots of personal details.
Meritocracy or mediocre results (at best) (Score:2)
There simply is no other choice. It saddens me to see the Linux kernel community has given up the goal of producing a really good kernel and is apparently satisfied with being mediocre in the future. A pity.
The larger problem is of course people that value form over function, politeness over intent and generally want people to be as fake-friendly and as conformist as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad, but really it was inevitable. The larger any organization, the shorter the half-life before corruption sets in, and the original goals begin to fade. I'm impressed Linus held it together as long as he did!
After all, the various Unices that Linux replaced were all originally focused on making a great kernel as well. Of course, being corporate properties, that didn't last nearly as long.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Due to how long Linus held out, it will also take quite a while for the SJW destroyers to do their evil work.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be that path forward do you think?
Does the kernel get forked, one with an non meritocracy COC and the other without such an thing? People who want to contribute to the 'best code' version slowly migrate over and add more support over time and outperforms the PC (Politically Correct) version?
And 'conformist' is the exact right characterization as well, everything else will come second to that totalitarian dictum.
Why does a code of conduct have to specify people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we even have to know the sexual orientation, gender or race of programmers and engineers? Other than language difficulties from non-english as their first language speakers causing misunderstanding, here really shouldn't be any drama. Even stupid jokes should be excluded, its a technical list.
But when a code of conduct lists people to protect, it starts a once side argument. How about don't be an asshole to everyone, why does the CoC have to state a list of people that you shouldn't be an asshole too? This is is nothing but political propaganda and those politics should stay off technical lists.
All this "cis white males" are the enemy being pushed around is no better than someone pushing "color hair LGBTQ+" stereotypes need to be protected.
This "Us vs Them" is what these types code of conducts promote. If you have to list people to protect instead of language, you picked out a group of people as offenders and make the others victims. The Tribal nature of silicon valley that whites straight males are the enemy and then put into code of conduct is wrong, and it's being spread around projects is petty and a way to try to get back at people.
"Be Excellent to each other" shouldn't be written to imply "This means you, white cis males!".
Just because the world is divided in left vs right, worse than ever, we in tech should be above this tribal nature, not going towards it at full speed.
Re: (Score:2)
In an ideal world, Linus would have written such a code of conduct, one that mentioned no special groups, and it would have become an inspiration to other projects. But, hey, the man gave us Linux and Git, I'm certainly not going to criticize him for falling short!
Kant's second formulation (Score:5, Insightful)
... of the Categorical Imperative:
Emphasis mine here: acting ethically doesn't mean you have to cripple yourself by focusing solely on other peoples's rights. But they're part of the constraints you actually operate under, so it's best not to ignore them.
This isn't just an ethical prescription, it's practical advice. Treating your coworkers with respect doesn't precluding fighting over technical details. In fact, if you've never tried it you'll be amazed at how much more productive a heated but respectful argument is over one where everyone's objective is to beat the other guy by any means available. That's the difference between the best ideas winning and the loudest dickheads winning.
Re:Kant's second formulation (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the CoC is not that it sort-of advocates Kant's imperative. The problem is that it can and will be used to push people out of the project for purely power-related reasons. This is an attempt at a hostile takeover. Sure, it looks benign, but it is anything but.
On the plus-side, any ambition I may have had to contribute to the kernel is now thoroughly dead.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "clear policy" here. There is lots lots and lots of room for interpretation and manipulation. If you do not see that, then you are either completely unaware of history and how this has been done countless times before in one form or another or you are in on the evil.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Don't be an asshole
2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole
3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole
Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.
Re: (Score:2)
3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole
Just because someone says you're an asshole, doesn't mean that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole
Just because someone says you're an asshole, doesn't mean that you are.
Calling someone an asshole when they aren't being an asshole would be breaking rule #1: don't be an asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed a key part of #3: If someone says you're being an asshole, stop and analyze your behavior and theirs and figure out why they're upset. Do an honest analysis and don't assume the problem is with them. Then either "change your behavior" or "share your analysis back with the person who said you were an asshole and engage in dialog until you can both agree on a s
Re: (Score:2)
However it does mean you should give serious consideration to the possibility.
Everyone's an asshole some of the time. If you accept that, you don't have to feel defensive about it. It's maintaining the false pretense that your behavior is utterly assholery-proof that's the problem. As long as that's the basis from which most people argue, an argument is all about who argues for the fantasy version of themselves most effectively.
Re:Kant's second formulation (Score:4, Interesting)
...objective is to beat the other guy by any means available.
The problem modern political discourse is that both sides act out belief that they are oppressed side and are under attack, while in fact neither is. In turn, they justify their questionable behavior as self-defense or "they did it first".
How do you explain behavior of two groups of predominantly white, middle to upper class and educated, heterosexual people fighting each other over "oppression" of minorities? SJW are modern age puritans, this culture war isn't about LGBT or visible minority rights, rather these are co-opted. It is about undoing 60s sexual revolution and replacing Christianity with some alternative form of religious-like behavior.
Middle Ground (Score:5, Informative)
Linus points out that there are plenty of people on the other side of the political correctness line who are every bit as nasty as some of those who are against it. If your desire is to avoid being associated with the worst sort of people from side A, it seems that you should also want to avoid the same from the other side as well. I think that line of reasoning itself is terrible as you can find plenty of awful people who believe in anything. You can broadly use the same argument for free speech itself (and you often here it used) and why it should be limited. Hopefully most people can see the issue when framed this way. However, that's my own argument, not Linus's and I don't know if he'd agree with me it to begin with.
I think that Linus actually had a pretty good take on all of this years ago [marc.info]:
So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about "how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire" . . . Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes. Yes it's vague, but any precise set of rules to govern behavior is going to be incomplete and subject to all manners of pettiness.
Re: (Score:3)
I think "Don't be a massive dick to anyone else" is probably sufficient as far as code of conduct goes.
I recommend a small update: Don't be a massive dick to anybody who doesn't deserve it.
Lack of pragmatism (Score:2)
Why the hell is this relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?
And if so, WHY?
How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?
Most viable fork (Score:3)
Go Linus!!! (Score:2)
Can I be like Linus when I grow up?
Everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi (Score:3)
Linus fell prey to "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" ruse. It goes like this: SJWs exaggerate the numbers and influence of "nazis" in the anti-PC movement, and make everyone else in it "guilty" by association. That's a fallacy, and one someone smart like Linus should have seen right through.
I'm afraid Linux is fucked now. I'm in favor of weighing people's opinions by the amount of work they contribute to the effort. SJWs very rarely contribute anything: they spend most of their time "resisting" and "fighting the oppression", there's simply no time left for any productive endeavors. Seen it at least half a dozen times in my time in the industry. When real grievances (if any) are addressed, they will come up with even more esoteric ones, or demand preferential treatment for "minorities" or some other self-defeating bullshit. And by then it'll be too late to pull back, because you don't want to be a cis white male patriarchal Nazi transphobe bigot, do you, Linus?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he does have a soul. Maybe he does have actual empathy. Maybe the meritrocracy is just another word for brutality in Darwinism.
Lots of haters. Not enough lovers.
Linus may be having his Zen moment.
But the community will survive. Lots of great people in it. The forces of real evil that divide people will benefit from the charades, but it's my belief that the community will continue to mature. It's done more for computing than any other single energy in software.
Re: (Score:2)
All of your statements are provably wrong.
Indeed civilized society is built on the capacity for empathy. Differing movements you cite have elements of empathy, but to disambiguate them for you is probably a waste of time.
Bigotry is fear. As in: bigotry==fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Social justice is about recognizing how the mechanisms of privilege influence outcomes in our society, if you are a cishet white male, you have benefits that are denied to others simply for their sex, skin, color, etc. and these things need to be accounted for in order to achieve a fair society.
SJWs have no interest in lifting anyone up. They are only interested in shouting down. They serve no constructive purpose.
Re:It's obvious he's being railroaded, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obvious? No.
Does the meta narrative have a SJW theme all over it? Maybe.
I'd be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that Patricia had a huge rule in convincing her father to do a 180 but I think we need more facts to determine that though. Speaking of facts, there are few that rather stand out to me after reading Tiago's perspective [google.com]. Paraphrasing:
Interestingly enough Linus' daughter, Patricia Torvalds, activist of "Guerilla Feminism, supports the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto which was created by Stupid Juvenile Whiner Coraline Ada Ehmke, the latter who also created the Code of Conduct.
Ruby's CoC is simple and to the point. [ruby-lang.org] It is summarized as "Matz is nice and so we are nice," commonly abbreviated as MINASWAN.
But Ruby's simply CoC "wasn't good enough" for Coraline though. After Coraline's attempted hijacking of Ruby's CoC was 100% shot down [ruby-lang.org] by Matz ...
Matz isn't alone. Other have voiced their criticism [ruby-lang.org] of her CoC:
Back in 2013 Stupid Juvenile Whiner Sage Sharp targeted Linus. Failing that, she is now targeting [twitter.com] Ted Tso calling him a "rape apologist".
Funny how these people love to play Judge, Juror, and Executioner, all at once without any evidence, and want to their CoC to be inclusive even when they aren't, but I digress.
What do these examples have to do with Linux, Linus, and the CoC ?
Eric Raymond pointed the dangers of meritocracy back in 2015. [ibiblio.org] with his Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs article. The example he brought up was about djangoconcardiff lying about patch rejection [archive.is] in the django community.
rosarior shut that down.
Now I hate conspiracy theories with a passion but does the "recent" rash of CoC changes seem to be politically driven? Maybe. There SEEMS to be a larger narrative at play.
Regardless, I still think it is too early to tell but this inclusion of meritocracy is definitely something to keep an eye out for in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing successfully succeeds merit.
But many things can tear it down for a while.
Currently its the resurgence of the post modernistic, identity politics, which if boiled down to the most simplistic concept maybe could be described as artificially constructed power wars for furthering utopian totalitarian fascism.
It (merit based competence hierarchies) will come back in every area, the only question is how much damage has been done to that particular field in the meantime.