ValantarBoth of you seem to take as the basis of your argument that this was already a perfect meritocracy with no inherent bias whatsoever.

That is an assumption on your part. Of course nothing is perfect, but the way things are really have no need for this asinine crap. People need to grow up not create rules that protect special snow-flakes with the mental and emotional strength of a wet paper bag.

lexluthermiesterThat is an assumption on your part. Of course nothing is perfect, but the way things are really have no need for this asinine crap. People need to grow up not create rules that protect special snow-flakes with the mental and emotional strength of a wet paper bag.

...

I feel emotional comments that bring out terms like "snow-flakes" and worrying about people with the "emotional strength of a wet paper bag" is a major cop out to the issue here. That's not at all what led up to this and "growing up" isn't going to fix what was happening, because in case you didn't notice, the Linux Foundation is comprised of adults. People misbehaving and being outright abusive at times led up to this. There's a line. It was crossed. Maybe this is too far a response and maybe it isn't. Time will show the truth. But I do feel the fact that people get so up in arms about something that probably doesn't even effect them is... let's just say interesting.

lexluthermiesterThat is an assumption on your part. Of course nothing is perfect, but the way things are really have no need for this asinine crap. People need to grow up not create rules that protect special snow-flakes with the mental and emotional strength of a wet paper bag.

Well, the use of the word "seem" would make this an assumption, yes. That's pretty clear. Tanks for confirming it, I guess?

As four your wholesale lack of understanding of people with different experiences than you, that, frankly, is on you. If you lack the empathy to understand what it's like to live under systemic discrimination, that is your problem, and not valid whatsoever as an argument against changing demonstrably discriminatory systems.

And, as @R-T-B stated above, what you're doing there is essentially using derogatory language to dismiss legitimate concerns that you don't like. You're avoiding the issue at hand rather than discussing it, which is not only a cop-out, but it shows something of your character. To me, it doesn't look pretty. Not to mention that you're both individualizing blame for a systemic failure (by saying it's the responsibility of individuals to "grow up") and victim-blaming (saying it's the people who object who are at fault rather than the people behaving in offensive ways) at the same time. Sheesh. Your thinking reeks of unchecked and unrecognized privilege. Can't say I know much about you, but some introspection seems to be in or

TheinsanegamerNSame goes for the midwest. The media would convince you we are all russian loving nazi country bumpkins with the IQ of a potato.

Meanwhile, in the real world here in flyover country, people great each other with friendly gestures every morning, people seem generally happy going about their business, and the crazy political leanings and SJW rhetoric all seam like a late night comedy. Out here, you just get your job done, get paid, and go hang out with your friends after work. Our politicians are far more moderate because I'm in a swing state, where they cant rely on a voting block to keep them there forever. Young people can afford to buy houses and raise families. Communities have their fairs, people know each-other, and there is a sense of community.

There is absolutely something to this, but on the other hand these communities are the same ones that LGBTQI people flee from in droves (not to mention where they're beaten, bullied, mistreated and discriminated against), where low-level racism is often left to fester, and where the friendliness and welcoming attitude is strictly limited to people that they "like the look of". While this is of course not the majority of this reality, you can't deny it's there.

SteevoI grew up poor, extremely so, a lot of my family is still poor as are whole communities like them. I have been homeless, gone hungry, no money at all. Hell I got divorced, moved two states away from everyone I knew as a single full time father of two kids.

How and why am I more successful now? I must have screwed someone. Or maybe I stopped worrying about buying stupid shit like new electronic gadgets constantly, cut out unnecessary things like cable, made better choices. But I probably just fucked over poor people......cause reasons.

So you made some choices, and your life improved. That's great, and I'm truly happy for you. However, you are to a certain extent confusing correlation with causation. While I of course don't know your circumstances or story, it sounds like a) relatively few bad things happened to you after making this move (say, a landlord kicking you out making getting to work impossible, or one of the other million imminent dangers of poor life) and b) you've had the luck to reach a workable mix of fortitude, conviction, manageable stress levels and external motivation (to mention just a few of the relevant factors) to not fall into depression or other natural responses to living in desperation. Some of this is no doubt your own doing, just as some of it is luck, chance, and simply being in the right place at the right time with the right mindset.

Again: poverty precludes long-term planning and "rational" decision-making due to the extreme stress it places on people living in it. You seem to have managed to break this cycle, so you're one of the exceptions, but those are - and will always be - few. Setting up society to help and care for those in need rather than leaving them to fend for themselves and trust in chance is the only rational, empathetic, reasonable and logical response to this. Judging from the rest of your post it doesn't sound like you fundamentally disagree with this, but you could do with realizing that not everyone in similar positions to yours get to be as lucky as you.

R-T-Bbecause in case you didn't notice, the Linux Foundation is comprised of adults.

And that doesn't mean all of them have a great deal of maturity.

ValantarIf you lack the empathy to understand what it's like to live under systemic discrimination, that is your problem, and not valid whatsoever as an argument against changing demonstrably discriminatory systems.

You say that as if you think I haven't been dealing with such my entire life. The difference is I don't whine and complain about it.

Valantarwhat you're doing there is essentially using carefully chosen language to dismiss idiotic concerns that you don't think make any sense.

Corrected.

To put it politely, those who have placed their vote ahead of their reason forget thermodynamics the 1st. Stable systems 'that do work', kinetically, are similar to stable chemical bonds that are the most stable, potentially. Higher the activation energy, the higher threshold incident energy which, up to that point, the bond can convert into 'piezoelectrical work'.
You cannot have good catalysts that 'enable work' at a lower activation energy without them having a great magnitude of activation energy to form them in the first place: Good 'counterweights' are themselves hard to construct, chemically speaking. This 'lowest energy state' formation is hard to reach - entrophy that frees potential energy works against it. This lowest state of energy is still not met for example in electrons(haven't reached the Kelvin point). It is that difficult to attain and maintain balanced systems that do work. Now, the higher the activation energy, the more work you can put the system to use up to a higher threshold entrophy level. It is vital that this hierarchical balance is never challenged, or the system will disintegrate.
Now, why is it any important? Because any higher scale arrangement meets with bigger potential 'entrophy' at odds with it: from 0th(aminoacid), 1st(protein), 2nd(planar), 3rd(tertiary fold), 4th(compound protein structure) the biological energy expenditure is worse as there are more loose ends to tie.
Trying to moderate pieces in chemistry won't work as it will not in corporations. The hierarchy is there to keep the system homeostatic - in other words alive. This whole 'democratization' of the workplace is a relinquishment of 'lowest energy states' that keep corporations as do chemical bonds stable and useful. Look at how Intel is suffering after yielding to Anita Sarkeesian - who is Armenian and a true champion of democracy at work. Return to 'just' reason if you will, you have Trump's former secretary of economy(Paul Ryan) quoting the same book as a guiding principle.
The world has Socrates and Ayn Rand to the same high standard of doctorate of philosophy for a reason: you cannot have power in the hands of those who don't deserve it.

lexluthermiesterCorrected.

Confirmed, more like.

I've said it before but it needs to be said again... no one is taking anyone seriously, and this discussion is a joke as such. I'm out and not going political at TPU anymore. If this continues I may stop coming here altogether. This is NOT what a tech site should be doing. It's fucking toxic.

mtcn77To put it politely, those who have placed their vote ahead of their reason forget thermodynamics the 1st. Stable systems 'that do work', kinetically, are similar to stable chemical bonds that are the most stable, potentially. Higher the activation energy, the higher threshold incident energy which, up to that point, the bond can convert into 'piezoelectrical work'.
You cannot have good catalysts that 'enable work' at a lower activation energy without them having a great magnitude of activation energy to form them in the first place: Good 'counterweights' are themselves hard to construct, chemically speaking. This 'lowest energy state' formation is hard to reach - entrophy that frees potential energy works against it. This lowest state of energy is still not met for example in electrons(haven't reached the Kelvin point). It is that difficult to attain and maintain balanced systems that do work. Now, the higher the activation energy, the more work you can put the system to use up to a higher threshold entrophy level. It is vital that this hierarchical balance is never challenged, or the system will disintegrate.
Now, why is it any important? Because any higher scale arrangement meets with bigger potential 'entrophy' at odds with it: from 0th(aminoacid), 1st(protein), 2nd(planar), 3rd(tertiary fold), 4th(compound protein structure) the biological energy expenditure is worse as there are more loose ends to tie.
Trying to moderate pieces in chemistry won't work as it will not in corporations. The hierarchy is there to keep the system homeostatic - in otherwords alive. This whole 'democratization' of the workplace is a relinquishment of 'lowest energy states' that keep corporations as do chemical bonds stable and useful. Look at how Intel is suffering after yielding to Anita Sarkeesian - who is Armenian and a true champion of democracy at work. Return to 'just' reason if you will, you have Trump's former secretary of economy quoting the same book as a guiding principle.
The world has Socrates and Ayn Rand to the same high standard of doctorate of philosophy for a reason: you cannot have power in the hands of those who don't deserve it.

...

We also generally don't apply chemistry and laws of physics to peoples social bonds unless we want to torture them. Da fuq did I just read?

R-T-BDa fuq did I just read?

Basic middle school theory...

Ferrum MasterBasic middle school theory...

Anti-scientific campaigns have a wide audience catering to them in the US, unfortunately.

mtcn77Anti-scientific campaigns have a wide audience catering to them in the US, unfortunately.

It is not only the US... unfortunately. The culture is pretty wide spread like a disease. SJW is just like a flu, another symptom.

Ferrum MasterIt is not only the US... unfortunately. The culture is pretty wide spread like a disease. SJW is just like a flu, another symptom.

Downplaying contribution without merit of your own - doesn't it ring any familiarities?

lexluthermiesterYou say that as if you think I haven't been dealing with such my entire life. The difference is I don't whine and complain about it.


Corrected.

So it's your intent to portray others as less than you. Cool. Have fun with that. One might perhaps expect that "dealing with such [your] entire life" would instill in you a certain level of empathy with others experiencing similar things (and if not through your own experiences, then through witnessing the experiences of those around you and their reactions to them), but empathy doesn't seem to come easily to you. That, sadly, is for you to deal with. An inability (or unwillingness, though that's even harder to understand) to accept the plight of others as real and to understand how they might not want it to continue is, strangely enough, a rather poor basis on which to formulate social norms and conventions.

mtcn77To put it politely, those who have placed their vote ahead of their reason forget thermodynamics the 1st. Stable systems 'that do work', kinetically, are similar to stable chemical bonds that are the most stable, potentially. Higher the activation energy, the higher threshold incident energy which, up to that point, the bond can convert into 'piezoelectrical work'.
You cannot have good catalysts that 'enable work' at a lower activation energy without them having a great magnitude of activation energy to form them in the first place: Good 'counterweights' are themselves hard to construct, chemically speaking. This 'lowest energy state' formation is hard to reach - entrophy that frees potential energy works against it. This lowest state of energy is still not met for example in electrons(haven't reached the Kelvin point). It is that difficult to attain and maintain balanced systems that do work. Now, the higher the activation energy, the more work you can put the system to use up to a higher threshold entrophy level. It is vital that this hierarchical balance is never challenged, or the system will disintegrate.
Now, why is it any important? Because any higher scale arrangement meets with bigger potential 'entrophy' at odds with it: from 0th(aminoacid), 1st(protein), 2nd(planar), 3rd(tertiary fold), 4th(compound protein structure) the biological energy expenditure is worse as there are more loose ends to tie.
Trying to moderate pieces in chemistry won't work as it will not in corporations. The hierarchy is there to keep the system homeostatic - in other words alive. This whole 'democratization' of the workplace is a relinquishment of 'lowest energy states' that keep corporations as do chemical bonds stable and useful. Look at how Intel is suffering after yielding to Anita Sarkeesian - who is Armenian and a true champion of democracy at work. Return to 'just' reason if you will, you have Trump's former secretary of economy(Paul Ryan) quoting the same book as a guiding principle.
The world has Socrates and Ayn Rand to the same high standard of doctorate of philosophy for a reason: you cannot have power in the hands of those who don't deserve it.

Whoa. That's the biggest load of anti-scientific drivel I've seen in a long, long, long time. It is a basic tenet of all science that you cannot ever simply take theories from one field and apply them in another without modification, which is what you're doing here - and not even across closely related fields, but attempting to bridge a gigantic gap essentially by ignoring its existence. This is quite frankly shocking in how fundamentally opposed to scientific reasoning it is. Damn. Didn't see that one coming. I suppose I should start applying media reception theory to mathematics, then ("the sum of this equation is dependent on who presented it to you, in what context, and for what purpose, as well as your inclination to read it in a hegemonic, negotiated or oppositional way") or phenomenology to physics ("gravity works differently depending on the embodied experience of the person currently experiencing it"). Yeah, no. That's not how science works. Please stop.

mtcn77Anti-scientific campaigns have a wide audience catering to them in the US, unfortunately.

See above. That drivel you posted is fundamentally unscientific, and claiming it to be otherwise makes you anti-scientific whether you intended to or not.

Ferrum MasterIt is not only the US... unfortunately. The culture is pretty wide spread like a disease. SJW is just like a flu, another symptom.

Well, the thing is, discrimination is a quite global phenomenon, which means speaking up against it also is. In a world where international communication is trivial, the act of speaking is in and of itself often international.

ValantarSo it's your intent to portray others as less than you. Cool. Have fun with that. One might perhaps expect that "dealing with such [your] entire life" would instill in you a certain level of empathy with others experiencing similar things (and if not through your own experiences, then through witnessing the experiences of those around you and their reactions to them), but empathy doesn't seem to come easily to you. That, sadly, is for you to deal with. An inability (or unwillingness, though that's even harder to understand) to accept the plight of others as real and to understand how they might not want it to continue is, strangely enough, a rather poor basis on which to formulate social norms and conventions.


Whoa. That's the biggest load of anti-scientific drivel I've seen in a long, long, long time. It is a basic tenet of all science that you cannot ever simply take theories from one field and apply them in another without modification, which is what you're doing here - and not even across closely related fields, but attempting to bridge a gigantic gap essentially by ignoring its existence. This is quite frankly shocking in how fundamentally opposed to scientific reasoning it is. Damn. Didn't see that one coming. I suppose I should start applying media reception theory to mathematics, then ("the sum of this equation is dependent on who presented it to you, in what context, and for what purpose, as well as your inclination to read it in a hegemonic, negotiated or oppositional way") or phenomenology to physics ("gravity works differently depending on the embodied experience of the person currently experiencing it"). Yeah, no. That's not how science works. Please stop.


See above. That drivel you posted is fundamentally unscientific, and claiming it to be otherwise makes you anti-scientific whether you intended to or not.


Well, the thing is, discrimination is a quite global phenomenon, which means speaking up against it also is. In a world where international communication is trivial, the act of speaking is in and of itself often international.

I don't have Intel Corp. suffering the tenets of SJW-ship. It's you. You cannot merely instate consistancies by projecting them to be any way you would like them to be(circular logic). Actions must follow your words and being polar opposites, me talking at the behest of Intel's current predicament has more tenet than you and your democratic, albeit unconstitutional, SJW ethropy agenda. It is your corporation, per say. Stand up for it, maybe?
You mustn't have read the book, I'm afraid, since you are speaking like an excerpt.

Ferrum MasterBasic middle school theory...

...that does not apply to social environments at all?

By your logic, all fat people must be the most attractive because gravity. Anyone who says otherwise is in scientific denial.

mtcn77You mustn't have read the book, I'm afraid, since you are speaking like an excerpt.

And you are speaking like someone with a "holy text."

mtcn77You mustn't have read the book, I'm afraid, since you are speaking like an excerpt.

And you are speaking like someone with a "holy text."

No, I haven't read "the book" but that does not exclude me from rational thinking.

Just a quick question as none was provided in the 'article' but where is the evidence that people's code has been rejected from the Linux Foundation for any reason other than the code sucks?

FrickBut naturally you know everyone so for you it's ok to presume.

And that divorce thing is a bad thing, and it sounds like you had a massive falling out with everyone in your life. That is a failure on many levels.

And yes, people are obviously poor only because they have cable and phones. I know this is not what you meant, but you didn't develop it further than that so it's all I have to go on. Yes, people can to a degree change their "fates" or whatever, but ... there are innumerable variables to take into account, and you know it.

I don't know or presume to know others stories, I learn about them as even the worst can offer insight into what not to do.

I still know and speak to all my friends and family, I only lost a ex-wife. Her mother testified on my behalf in court, and she continued to live with the kids and myself for months after.

I know there are variables, and so much more to what has happened to me in life that I could claim victim points galore. But instead I went to therapy alone and with my kids, and learned if it's not positive and moving forward it's not worth it. People can change their circumstances if they are strong enough.

R-T-BSure, we can shift the blame to those who get offended, but at what point are we just going to acknowledge that not being offensive is probably a good business policy?

It's not good business policy when the quality of the code degrades, at least not for the Linux Foundation.

moproblems99Just a quick question as none was provided in the 'article' but where is the evidence that people's code has been rejected from the Linux Foundation for any reason other than the code sucks?

Torvalds left. He who invented Linux in the first place and has been contributing to it on a regular basis for the last 25+ years.

FordGT90ConceptTorvalds left. He who invented Linux in the first place.

Well, did he leave because he called some people some nasty names or because he rejected code from gays?

R-T-BIf this continues I may stop coming here altogether.

That says something. That something has little to do with TPU.

R-T-BThis is NOT what a tech site should be doing.

It's not supposed to examine the effects "politically correct" SJW's are continuing to have on the tech industry?

R-T-BIt's fucking toxic.

Why because some of us are not being exactly polite? Maybe it's because we're tired of this kind of constant BS and we feel no need to be?

ValantarSo it's your intent to portray others as less than you. Cool. Have fun with that.

Incorrect. I intend and do require people to behave with a level of sensible and professional methodologies based on logic, merit and reason, not feelings and political correctness.

ValantarOne might perhaps expect that "dealing with such [your] entire life" would instill in you a certain level of empathy with others experiencing similar things (and if not through your own experiences, then through witnessing the experiences of those around you and their reactions to them), but empathy doesn't seem to come easily to you.

My life's experiences have taught that the world is a tough place. Empathy does not change reality.

ValantarAn inability (or unwillingness, though that's even harder to understand) to accept the plight of others as real and to understand how they might not want it to continue is, strangely enough, a rather poor basis on which to formulate social norms and conventions.

Really? That's what you took from my comments? You don't have a reasonable response to those comments so you feel the need to take shots at me personally? @R-T-B What was that about being toxic? Because this is what I was referring to about maturity.

ValantarSee above. That drivel you posted is fundamentally unscientific, and claiming it to be otherwise makes you anti-scientific whether you intended to or not.

Or maybe it was a little too subtle?

This whole nonsense boils down to this; Entitled whiny SJW's want to replace their interpretation of existing discrimination with a newer more "progressive" form of same so that they can silence those people who they feel offend them, regardless of merit and qualifications.

moproblems99Well, did he leave because he called some people some nasty names or because he rejected code from gays?

He's been doing the former for decades so it was mostly the latter. Personally, I think he is experiencing a mid-life crisis. Here's what Torvalds said:
lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFy+Hv9O5citAawS+mVZO+ywCKd9NQ2wxUmGsz9ZJzqgJQ@mail.gmail.com/
In part:

One was simply my own reaction to having screwed up my scheduling of
the maintainership summit: yes, I was somewhat embarrassed about
having screwed up my calendar, but honestly, I was mostly hopeful that
I wouldn't have to go to the kernel summit that I have gone to every
year for just about the last two decades.

Yes, we got it rescheduled, and no, my "maybe you can just do it
without me there" got overruled. But that whole situation then
started a whole different kind of discussion. And kind of
incidentally to that one, the second part was that I realized that I
had completely mis-read some of the people involved.

This is where the "look yourself in the mirror" moment comes in.

So here we are, me finally on the one hand realizing that it wasn't
actually funny or a good sign that I was hoping to just skip the
yearly kernel summit entirely, and on the other hand realizing that I
really had been ignoring some fairly deep-seated feelings in the
community.

Summary: He had a scheduling conflict with the maintainership summit. He told them it was fun but they disagreed so they rescheduled. He got combative (see below) and acknowledges he "misread" the situation. He approved the new "Code of Conduct" and went on a hiatus.

4.19 was the most difficult update in "a decade," he says, and the stress got to him:

When asked at conferences, I occasionally talk about
how the pain-points in kernel development have generally not been
about the _technical_ issues, but about the inflection points where
development flow and behavior changed.

These pain points have been about managing the flow of patches, and
often been associated with big tooling changes - moving from making
releases with "patches and tar-balls" (and the _very_ painful
discussions about how "Linus doesn't scale" back 15+ years ago) to
using BitKeeper, and then to having to write git in order to get past
the point of that no longer working for us.

We haven't had that kind of pain-point in about a decade. But this
week felt like that kind of pain point to me.

lexluthermiesterThat says something. That something has little to do with TPU.

It's not just me saying it. And yes, it involves TPU when this place gets that kind of reputation.

FordGT90ConceptTorvalds left. He who invented Linux in the first place and has been contributing to it on a regular basis for the last 25+ years.

Where is the evidence that is even related? I agree it's likely but don't believe torvalds is irreplacable either. Heck, at times I even view him as a roadblock.

lexluthermiesterWhy because some of us are not being exactly polite? Maybe it's because we're tired of this kind of constant BS and we feel no need to be?

Yes, that's exactly what it is! My god, do you finally get it?

I'm fed up too but don't expect to run around being rude and not have it returned. It's a pipe dream and negativity breeds more negativity. That is the DEFINITION of a toxic environment.

lexluthermiesterOr maybe it was a little too subtle?

Subtle? No I'm calling it: It was horseshit and it made my head hurt.

PS: Yes, I'm aware there is some irony in this post. But I hardly started it. This place is done, so far as I am seeing it.

So...digging through some (a lot) older stuff, the rabbit hole goes deep. Specifically, Sarah Sharp resigning back in 2015, there's a relevant quote buried in there:
sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/

However, I finally realized that I could no longer contribute to a community where I was technically respected, but I could not ask for personal respect.

More recent history:
itsfoss.com/linux-code-of-conduct/

But activists like Coraline believe that meritocracy is a negative system where the worth of an individual is measured not by their humanity, but solely by their intellectual output.

It's more important that you be a good person (by SJW definition) than make good contributions (the former hasn't contributed in three years; the latter hasn't ever contributed), according to them both. Linux didn't get where it is today by being made by a polite society.

TL;DR:
1) Torvalds was feeling retrospective and guilty (haven't been able to figure out why but something leading up to the September 16 announcement).
2) Linux Foundation reached for the absolute worst document they could find to replace the Code of Conflict. 3) Torvalds went public with the change, an apology, and a vacation.
4) Here lies the aftermath of a shortsighted decision.

FordGT90ConceptLinux didn't get where it is today by being made by a polite society.

Exactly

lexluthermiesterThat says something. That something has little to do with TPU.

Not really. I'm right there with @R-T-B. TPU never used to be PPU before (Politics PowerUP!). There's a reason why some people say never to discuss politics or religion. You will have two (or more) sides to an argument, nobody's opinion is going to change, nobody is going to learn anything, but everybody is gonna get mad. It's a complete shitfest.

lexluthermiesterIt's not supposed to examine the effects "politically correct" SJW's are continuing to have on the tech industry?

Well, basically... see above. Of course, some topics that are actually relevant to TPU are political in nature, such as tariffs raising prices, or yes, even this thread. It relates to TPU because Linux, but it's also political in nature because political shit happened in Linuxland. The line is very blurry.

lexluthermiesterWhy because some of us are not being exactly polite? Maybe it's because we're tired of this kind of constant BS and we feel no need to be?

While I agree that in such topics, you can't have the tech discussion without the political discussion (as they are intertwined), it could be conducted better than it has been.

lexluthermiesterIncorrect. I intend and do require people to behave with a level of sensible and professional methodologies based on logic, merit and reason, not feelings and political correctness.

Well, we're not machines... humans do not always operate on strict logic. Feelings play a significant role in a person's mind, and political correctness ties into that. Of course, I can agree with you that PC nonsense can go too far, but there is a fair range on the "PC spectrum", if you will, that does have its rightful place in society.

lexluthermiesterMy life's experiences have taught that the world is a tough place. Empathy does not change reality.

No, you can't change the physical with emotions or feelings, but you can change the emotional... which can affect the physical. Not saying that you do this, but just as an example, rather than bashing the transgender guy for who he is, you could treat him the same as anyone else as if his sexual/gender identity didn't matter... which it really shouldn't, anyways?

lexluthermiesterWhat was that about being toxic? Because this is what I was referring to about maturity.

This whole thread is a massive ball of toxicity. You've got people on opposite ends of a spectrum locking horns over what they feel is right. (Of course, I'm right and you're wrong, and if you don't accept my point of view, as if I suddenly shined a bright light into your unfortunate crevice of darkness, then you're an idiot.) That's basically what's going on here.

lexluthermiesterOr maybe it was a little too subtle?

Or wacky. Individuals, their feelings, and the way each one interacts and plays a part in society as a whole can hardly be boiled down to chemical processes. Or maybe that's taking it too literally. Maybe it was a huge, unnecessarily complex series of metaphors.

lexluthermiesterThis whole nonsense boils down to this; Entitled whiny SJW's want to replace their interpretation of existing discrimination with a newer more "progressive" form of same so that they can silence those people who they feel offend them, regardless of merit and qualifications.

Or, you (again, not literally you, just an example) could ignore that and continue on under your own merits. Radical -anything-, not just SJW people, can stir up the pot, but I would like to think most people won't listen to (if this is indeed the case) the ramblings of loud haphazard nutjob(s), much less actually give them the power to destroy a computer operating system used worldwide from the inside out. Non-SJW people (not to use SJW in a derogatory way here) have already said Linus is/can be a dick, and something happened to him, yet the one who called that other guy a rape apologist (evidently an attack on him because he didn't agree with their CoC or whatever) seemingly backfired.

My hope is that when Torvalds returns, or even as part of the Mantainership Summit, they adopt a new conduct code that's apolitical (perhaps KDE's Community Code of Conduct).

FordGT90ConceptMy hope is that when Torvalds returns, or even as part of the Mantainership Summit, they adopt a new conduct code that's apolitical (perhaps KDE's Community Code of Conduct).

I can actually agree with that. Ironically though they'd have to make it their own in some way, or they'd be accused of "siding with KDE" which outside of our little ethics bubble discussion here, is actually a worse sin in the linux community than being politically biased. Favoring a project is a cardinal free software sin.

Sorry if I've been somewhat emotional here. I think we all have been though. This is a tough subject and I think the bottom line I really want to drive home is politics should be avoided at TPU where possible. I guess it wasn't possible in this instance as this IS actual news, but the way this was worded was completely unnecessarily biased and inflammatory, complete with a poll in which btarunr attempted to sway the outcome via obvious editorial bias (why even bother with a poll then?), and then basically whined when it didn't work because another site brigaded him.

There were also a lot of terrible misapplications of arguments and logical processes in the ensuing debate. Some of them were so bad I know certain subreddits that probably would've gilded me for posting them (if I was an ass, I'd like to think I'm not)... I mean I was flabberghasted. I'm sorry, but I would be lying if I said I held this place in the same esteem after today. There is absolutely no way I can do that. But one hopes this is something we can fix going forward. I really do.