FordGT90Concept"Improve" is highly subjective. Case in point: giving control to SJWs means taking it away from everyone else. Be inclusive, or else. We call that an authoritarian dictatorship. Code of Conflict literally stated the opposite.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Nobody is taking away the rights of others here, as nobody should have the right to discriminate against others (unless, of course, you use "discrimination" in lex's very broad sense) to begin with. Most of this is about speech, in which the general principle is this: free speech means you have the right to say what you want, but doesn't give you freedom from consequences of that speech (outside of the government not being able to arrest you for talking). If what you're saying is sexist or otherwise derogatory, expect to be challenge, and expect that conflict to be maintained until you stop mistreating others. The person saying derogatory things to others is in the wrong, and is thus the one on which the onus to change lies. If the ideal is for society to be fair (which I have the distinct impression that you agree with), then this requires correcting its various forms of unfairness when they are identified.

If the "control" you're afraid people will lose is the right to be an asshole without consequence, to be racist, bigoted, discriminatory, or just plain abusive to people around them, then ... well, that's not a form of control that anyone should have in a fair society. Another simple principle: your personal freedom ends once it intersects with the personal freedom of another person. The intersection requires dialogue, possibly compromise, and at the very least change in one part or both.

lexluthermiesterScience and by virtue technology does not work in shades of gray. It work on 0's and 1's, on and off, black and white.

First off: that is possibly the most in agreement we've ever been :) Good to see that even with an at times heated debate, people are capable of listening to each other (and I sincerely hope this carries across the other way too - I know I tend to come off as harsher/more argumentative than I intend, and I'm working on it! :P ) and actually finding points of commonality. I really don't think the disagreements here are as large as they tend to come off (though there are of course some points on which we are diametrically opposed, those seem to be relatively few), and personally I find it very rewarding to read the arguments of people who see things differently than me - even if this tends to lead discussions off-topic from time to time :P

As for the quoted line, though, that's the only thing I disagree with in your post: while computers work in 1's and 0's, everything we do with them (short of using them as calculators, I suppose) works in various shades of gray. Human activity translates poorly to binary format :P

ValantarThe person saying derogatory things to others is in the wrong...

Context matters. If the "person" is being held by someone else with a knife to their throat, suddenly, the "person" is not "in the wrong."

Sick of these platitudes and generalities. What transpired at Linux Foundation is very specific in every regard. They literally took a political document created by the radical left (according to its author) and declared it the law. It's as bad as declaring Sharia Law (radical right) instead.

TL;DR: you (Valantar) have a convoluted view of what a free society looks like. People carry emotions around for a variety of reasons and some times they take it out at the wrong time on the wrong people. Torvalds did that and he apologized for it. Doesn't mean he should be removed from the community. In a free society, only understanding matters and if that understanding is an agreement to disagree, so be it. Policing is not the solution because to police speech is to suppress free speech.

Not to get political but remember the Citizens United ruling everyone loves to hate? Why did SCOTUS rule the way it did? Because of the fear that saying a specific group of people can't say specific things at a specific time would start a tidal wave of cases asking courts to define "when is speech free?" The only solution was to respond with "always." Corporations (like unions) now have a voice too because suppression of free speech is intolerable. Even if it is burning flags. Even if it is racist. Even if it is sexist. Suppressing speech is never the answer.

Back to your reply:

ValantarNobody is taking away the rights of others here, as nobody should have the right to discriminate against others (unless, of course, you use "discrimination" in lex's very broad sense) to begin with.

You literally said "no taking away rights" followed by "take away rights if." Oxymoronic. You might as well say "it's only okay to say a thing if I agree with it" (which is what is wrong with every SJW ever).

How do public safety officers stop crimes in progress? By discriminating (who here looks the most threatening/guilty?). Everyone has the right to discriminate but in specific cases and circumstances, you can't act on it in an official capacity (e.g. equal opportunity protections).

FordGT90ConceptWhy do you think they use it in the first place? It's free and good. Compare Linux's kernel to Windows NT kernel. It took how long for Windows to implement basic USB Audio Class 2.0 drivers? A decade? More? Linux is attractive because it isn't corporate. If someone sees a problem or lacking feature, they fix it. They don't wait for a project manager to do a risk assessment for a month, then allot three months to work on five months later, then another month or three of testing to make sure it doesn't break anything, then release it and find out it breaks a lot of stuff they didn't test for. They just do it. Not only does it cost a lot less, the results are usually better. Corporate approaches are usually their own worst enemies.

Oh bullshit, if someone brought along something that in the end caused major regressions to the code regardless of whether or not it was a good concept to implement, I'm going to say that that addition needs to be yanked out until that code is stable enough to be included.

In some ways the reason why the "Year of the Linux Desktop" hasn't come about is because of this issue with the Linux kernel in general. Every time you turn around the Linux kernel changes in so many ways that it ends up breaking so much shit in the process. There's a reason why a lot of old routers that run Linux (specifically those routers running TomatoUSB open source firmware) are still running an old ass version 2.4 of the kernel, it's because somewhere along the line between version 2.4 of the kernel and now something completely broke the way Broadcom drivers plug into the kernel. Meanwhile in the Windows NT world if you write a driver for Windows 7 there's at least some likelihood that it's going to work in Windows 10. OK, it may need some tweaking but it's certainly not going to require a complete rewrite because some jackass in the kernel development team decided that he/she was going to completely upend whatever API that that driver was using to plug into the kernel. If you're going to change something, at least provide a backwards compatibility layer so as to allow old stuff to continue working.

FordGT90ConceptCrunching is the result of poor management.

Yep.

FordGT90ConceptWell managed projects end with a party, not a crunch.

Again... Yep.

Kind of my point, yeah? If you want safe and stable, you use Windows. If you want bleeding edge, you use Linux and keep it current. Both have their pros and cons. Corporations, outside of mainframes, tend to use Windows because it helps them isolate the PEBKACs. Mainframes are strictly controlled so Linux is more popular. Android (which the OS installs are mostly derived from) only gets the updated Kernel code once in a while to isolate the Android infrastructure from the chaos of Linux Kernel updates.

FordGT90ConceptMainframes are strictly controlled so Linux is more popular.

Yeah but you don't want to update your kernel only to find out that your system doesn't boot because oh shit... your storage controller driver just puked all over itself because some person changed an API in the kernel thus breaking your boot process.

FordGT90ConceptAndroid (which the OS installs are mostly derived from) only gets the updated Kernel code once in a while to isolate the Android infrastructure from the chaos of Linux Kernel updates.

Yep.

FordGT90Concept"Improve" is highly subjective. Case in point: giving control to SJWs means taking it away from everyone else. Be inclusive, or else. We call that an authoritarian dictatorship. Code of Conflict literally stated the opposite.

That where we all have to agree to disagree. What is clearly demonstrated by most of the parties involved is that we all care on some level and want to see improvement. What is subjective is the method of improvement. You and I agree that this CoC is not a step in the right direction at all as it will allow abuse of an insidious type.

ValantarIf the "control" you're afraid people will lose is the right to be an asshole without consequence

It's everyone's birthright to be unpleasant or not. In a professional environment, results matter most. In the case of the Linux community, code excellence must be based on achievement and progress not whether or not one of it contributors are a-holes. This new CoC opens up potential floodgates to anyone and everyone who feels slighted or "discriminated" against to ruin someone else.

ValantarThe intersection requires dialogue, possibly compromise, and at the very least change in one part or both.

And most people are capable of that. However, many of the worlds greatest minds, past and present, have been notoriously difficult to work with. Are we to stop benefiting from those great minds because they're a-holes most of the time?

Damn.. I spent yesterday going down the rabbit hole.. and found myself at 8chan /pol, of all places.

Almost became an SJW myself because of it. Maybe this is what happened to many people. They're all traumatized.

One should count their blessings with the average person though.

ValantarYou keep dodging the fact that your definition of merit bluntly accepts the status quo as somehow neutral and "natural", which it isn'y in any way. Even if you accept that there is real discrimination, you refuse the very idea that discrimination is dependent on how it's received. Your belief in somehow documenting the "facts" of social interactions just goes to show how you're attempting to apply a form of positivist logic to a field where it's entirely unsuited.

Also: please stop using silly straw man arguments. The whole point here is the nuances, and nobody is arguing for the abolition of "discrimination" in the overly broad form you're using it in. What is being promoted is the idea that concepts such as "merit" aren't as simple as they might seem (or you make them out to be), and that many different kinds of context are entirely invaluable in understanding and judging merit.

Another thing you'd do well to avoid in the future: false equivalencies. Living with racism is not the same as being bullied in school, which is not the same as living as a woman, which is not the same as being laughed at as a kid for having ears that stick out. Of course, everyone reacts differently to this (due to an unaccountable myriad of factors), but on average, one can quite clearly tell apart the severity of various kinds and degrees of discrimination and mistreatment.

Then, of course, there's your denial of systemic discrimination. You keep talking about this as if it a series of isolated incidents. Culture isn't a series of isolated incidents, but all interconnected, and our bodies and minds form a large part of these connections. If a person has, say, been bullied while growing up, and is thus more sensitive than someone who wasn't to overtly aggressive behaviour in the workplace, should they then simply accept being passed over and given fewer opportunities than their aggressive, assertive colleagues? Is that fair? No. If people acting in a certain way have beaten you up regularly when growing up, your body and mind will both remember this, and react accordingly when encountering similar behaviour. Another, very different example: if someone (a woman, a person of color, whatever) is being pelted with various comments referencing their gender/ethnicity/other attributes not at all relevant to their job every day by various coworkers, is it not reasonable for this to affect them? Is it not reasonable for them to be sad or angry about this? It's not like they can reasonably control or change the attributes in question, after all. Doesn't the fault then lie with the people making these comments, no matter how innocent their intent? So, should they then just accept that it's their lot in life to be put upon by their peers, accept that they're worth less, and shut up? Or would it be reasonable for them to say "Hey, maybe stop making boob jokes every single time I'm in the room?". I'd say the latter. And, if people are unable to comply with a simple request like this, yes, repercussions should be expected.

As for you stating that ""Feelings" (...) are not appropriate in the professional environment.", well ... wow. Really? Are you actually arguing that it's at all possible for people to interact without feelings being a part of the picture? I suppose this might apply to sociopaths, but for anyone else, that is entirely impossible. And thus, as professional environments are also social environments (as are all environments, really), of course feelings and the discussion of them is entirely appropriate here, just as they are anywhere.

Regarding your statements that you can't change people's character: don't be daft. People change constantly. Our values, ideas, norms, and personality traits evolve every single day. Of course, changing fundamental personality traits is difficult, and with some of them so difficult as to be impossible in all practical terms, but our brains are immensely plastic and adaptive. It is entirely possible for someone to stop being rude, sexist, racist, or anything else.

When it comes to @mtcn77 's post, you're right that I don't understand the specifics of it (I haven't touched the natural sciences since high school, thankfully), but that's not at all required to understand the complete failure of logic that post presents. You can't just transfer the laws of thermodynamics or principles of what "enables work" in a chemical system into an organization and expect that to function as a workable metaphor for an organization existing under an entirely different set of rules (culture, not physics). (As an aside: he even attributes Intel's current woes to Anita Sarkeesian!?! What? Did she make their 10nm process fail? Am I missing something here? This is, quite simply, an entirely misplaced and unworkable metaphor or analogy. It doesn't fit. Period.) In chemistry, you work with known substances of which you have a rather comprehensive understanding of their traits. They're also rather homogeneous (all atoms of the same element are structured similarly, and so on). People, on the other hand, are fundamentally heterogeneous (even within demographic groups, unless you specify them down to such a small level that they become meaningless), we don't have even close to a complete understanding of each others' traits, and last but not least: outside of a scant few possible changes, molecules and chemicals are far less complex than humans in that they don't have lives. They don't change or evolve over time, they aren't shaped by what happens to them (outside of a limited set of reactions, mostly making/fusing them into something else or gaining/losing electrons), and they don't work differently based on those experiences. An iron atom is an iron atom no matter the cycles of change it's "experienced". It's not going to act as an argon atom because of its experiences. People don't work that way, and hence, organizations made out of people don't work that way. The laws of thermodynamics apply to systems where thermodynamics are relevant to their functioning. The only way that applies to people is that we couldn't exist as we currently do without these laws; other than that, they don't matter.

Also, it's kind of funny how you claim to champion this supposedly "objective" definition of merit (seriously, there is no such thing outside of pure abstraction, which isn't really useful unless you're a philosopher), and call yourself out as being a hypocrite for not wanting to work with people you don't like. A far superior solution there would be to admit that merit isn't such a static entity as you claim it to be, and that interpersonal relations (such as the ability to work together productively, or stand to be in the same room as each other) also factor into what constitutes merit. In any type of cooperative setting, the ability to cooperate is in and of itself a part of what constitutes merit. If you're coding alone, from scratch, that's (largely) a situation where "merit" would be only the quality of the code you produce. However, if you're working on a code project with someone else - even someone anonymous, who you never see, hear, or even communicate directly with - the definition of merit changes due to the simple fact that the work being done has become more complex. Now it's not coding alone, it's coding together. Those are fundamentally different things, and need to be treated as such. If you refuse to accept this, you're not doing anything but willfully blinding yourself to the inescapable realities of living and acting in a complex, interconnected world.


I research games for a living. Please don't talk to me as if I don't know or care about crunch time. Caring about one thing does not negate the possibility of caring about other things. Solving crunch time requires unionization of the programming workforce, which is thankfully starting to happen, but it's slow as all hell. Thankfully things are improving, at the very least, even if the current situation is entirely unacceptable.


Being intrinsically linked to corporate life and corporate culture doesn't have to mean adopting corporate culture in its entirety (such as, as you point out, the risk-aversion and bureaucracy of large corporations), but that doesn't negate the need to adapt to your own development. Linux isn't a tiny, "rebel" OS any longer, and it needs to stop acting like it is. That ship has sailed.


So no programmer ever studied existing code to learn how to write their own? Programming projects don't have style guides? Yeah, sorry, I don't buy that. Even if seasoned programmers rarely read other people's code (unless they're working on the same part of the same project, I suppose), they've formed their "language" by studying the work of others and adapting it to their own desires. Also, isn't having "identified a problem and (...) looking for a solution" cooperation when another person made the thing with the problem? Particularly when the changes have to be accepted by the original developer? Yes it is. This is, however spaced out and nodal, a community. People are interacting, making things together, communicating. This is a community.


Conservativism doesn't generally lead to good things either. Over the last centuries, conservatives have fought to preserve slavery, fought against democracy, fought against the right of everyone to own property, against the implementation of laws to prevent the wealthy abusing the poor, against women's rights, civil rights, and LBGTQI rights. Thankfully, they've (mostly) lost these fights. In the meantime, the world has progressed immensely in every single metric (outside of environmental damage; we've yet to fix that, sadly). Your statement is ahistorical in the long term, and pessimistic in the short term. Who is to say that this won't lead to an influx of capable developers who have previously avoided involvement in this community because of its toxicity? That is just as likely as what you're proposing.

I'm sorry that I have to explain when you are dodging quotes from a 'book' that you have not spent the effort of reading as you admitted, your credence is null, your qualifications to basing an argument - lest a null argument - on it is zero, but that would be an overgeneralization to the entire SJW exhibition that hit the wall when Milo Yiannopoulis was giving his insights on coming of age.
What else could be said to illiterate look alikes that weaponise public consent to blame their betters for their unadmitted & repressed guilt? "You have reached the popularity goal expected of you." - I'm sure you still won't understand the contextual reference it is presented in the book. That is a given for concern trolls that don't know a null argument from actual contribution. The irony is, people are indeed humbled by these idiots as they are in the book. What a great convergence!

mtcn77I'm sorry that I have to explain when you are dodging quotes from a 'book' that you have not spent the effort of reading as you admitted, your credence is null, your qualifications to basing an argument - lest a null argument - on it is zero, but that would be an overgeneralization to the entire SJW exhibition that hit the wall when Milo Yiannopoulis was giving his insights on coming of age.
What else could be said to illiterate look alikes that weaponise public consent to blame their betters for their unadmitted & repressed guilt? "You have reached the popularity goal expected of you." - I'm sure you still won't understand the contextual reference it is presented in the book. That is a given for concern trolls that don't know a null argument from actual contribution. The irony is, people are indeed humbled by these idiots as they are in the book. What a great convergence!

Well, that was something. @Valantar I'm going to have to apologize for my previous criticism of you not understanding his previous comment. After the above comment it seems clear neither one of us understood..

I'm sure Trump will start the great purge of these lunatics who are a hazard to the industrious since they know nothing of productive value - paradoxically that they are proud of - which is their fundamental contribution to these sciences. Props to me for typing this till the end without laughing.
Trump is a republican, Ayn Rand is a republican, though unadmittedly, and I happen to be a fellow Republican of Turkiye, so I know what these words stand for.
One example, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian didn't execute his 'Armenian' Treasurer when the famous Hippodrome Revolt was started by his bribery. Tally: 25000 lives lost. Our Selim the 1st, swiftly served the deserved justice to his Vizier when he was inciting Janissaries to a coup ahead of the Egyptian campaign.
The point is, you may act the slow witted, but you cannot play the contributor while acting the impostor.
If you are a neo-liberalist fool, you make things inoperable, create strife and pick favourites... Why? Because it is a very 'Christian' thing to do!
Hopefully, hopefully the Intel board hired Jim Keller and not one of these flagrantly incapacitated decoys. It is the one thing common in our two Abrahamic views to appoint the best to the office.

lexluthermiesterWell, that was something. @Valantar I'm going to have to apologize for my previous criticism of you not understanding his previous comment. After the above comment it seems clear neither one of us understood..

See? One who so nonchalantly state his lack of understanding. If I were to be inclusive, he would have understood... Let's ban me! "Leave no one behind!" ...Obama still in office?

mtcn77I'm sure Trump will start the great purge of these lunatics who are a hazard to the industrious since they know nothing of productive value - paradoxically that they are proud of - which is their fundamental contribution to these sciences. Props to me for typing this till the end without laughing.
Trump is a republican, Ayn Rand is a republican, though unadmittedly, and I happen to be a fellow Republican of Turkiye, so I know what these words stand for.
One example, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian didn't execute his 'Armenian' Treasurer when the famous Hippodrome Revolt was started by his bribery. Tally: 25000 lives lost. Our Selim the 1st, swiftly served the deserved justice to his Vizier when he was inciting Janissaries to a coup ahead of the Egyptian campaign.
The point is, you may act the slow witted, but you cannot play the contributor while acting the impostor.
If you are a neo-liberalist fool, you make things inoperable, create strife and pick favourites... Why? Because it is a very 'Christian' thing to do!
Hopefully, hopefully the Intel board hired Jim Keller and not one of these flagrantly incapacitated decoys. It is the one thing common in our two Abrahamic views to appoint the best to the office.


See? One who so nonchalantly state his lack of understanding. If I were to be inclusive, he would have understood... Let's ban me! "Leave no one behind!" ...Obama still in office?

You are not offering anything of value to the conversation, why are you bothering to troll us? If you're going to troll, be smart about it and actually contribute..

lexluthermiesterYou are not offering anything of value to the conversation, why are you bothering to troll us? If you're going to troll, be smart about it and actually contribute..

I'm bringing content, dear, that you aren't challenging outright. Such a passive agressive concern troll.

Why are these neoliberals suddenly 'conservative' in a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to Ayn Rand?

Frankly, I think this whole thing was blown out of proportion. I highly doubt anyone that submitted good code was ever rejected based on anything. Also, since this is a voluntary submission process, I don't believe any inclusion rules need to apply. I sort of equate this to Touring. Should nVidia have to drop prices because their pricing model is not inclusive to people with less money? Isn't this going to mean that only white males are going to be able to purchase them?

Don't get me wrong, people don't need to be a dick. However, in this case, everyone knew what they were getting into.

PS: I recalled the terminology to frame what these SJW's are proporting: following debates with nonsequiturs until they derail.

FordGT90ConceptContext matters. If the "person" is being held by someone else with a knife to their throat, suddenly, the "person" is not "in the wrong."

Where on earth did you find that contrived example? Is it somehow relevant?

FordGT90ConceptSick of these platitudes and generalities. What transpired at Linux Foundation is very specific in every regard. They literally took a political document created by the radical left (according to its author) and declared it the law. It's as bad as declaring Sharia Law (radical right) instead.

Only if this "law" actually does harm. And even if it does, the harm needs to be compared to the good it does. If it does more harm than good, it needs to change. If not, it's a change for the better.

FordGT90ConceptTL;DR: you (Valantar) have a convoluted view of what a free society looks like. People carry emotions around for a variety of reasons and some times they take it out at the wrong time on the wrong people. Torvalds did that and he apologized for it. Doesn't mean he should be removed from the community. In a free society, only understanding matters and if that understanding is an agreement to disagree, so be it. Policing is not the solution because to police speech is to suppress free speech.

Have I said that apologies and forgiveness are banned? Sorry, but that's not what I'm saying. What is problematic, though, is when people act badly, apologize (or not), and then go right back to acting the same way. When that happens, we need some kind of way of policing the situation. This is rather fundamental social interaction, no? Quite often the policing consists of no more than calling people out repeatedly, but for those who refuse to adapt and moderate their behaviour, consequences are necessary. What those consequences are depends on the context, of course.

FordGT90ConceptNot to get political but remember the Citizens United ruling everyone loves to hate? Why did SCOTUS rule the way it did? Because of the fear that saying a specific group of people can't say specific things at a specific time would start a tidal wave of cases asking courts to define "when is speech free?" The only solution was to respond with "always." Corporations (like unions) now have a voice too because suppression of free speech is intolerable. Even if it is burning flags. Even if it is racist. Even if it is sexist. Suppressing speech is never the answer.

The problem with Citizens United is that it fails to distinguish between organizations that exist to represent people (unions, for example) and organizations that exist to make money (corporations). The argument goes something like "corporations represent their board/shareholders/employees" - but it would still be entirely possible to draw a workable line between "corporations are allowed to "speak" with money" and "unions are no longer allowed to publicize anything". Beyond that, the entire concept of corporate personhood is blatantly absurd.

FordGT90ConceptYou literally said "no taking away rights" followed by "take away rights if." Oxymoronic. You might as well say "it's only okay to say a thing if I agree with it" (which is what is wrong with every SJW ever).

You're misreading me. I said "no taking away rights" before bringing up an example of a "right" that isn't actually a right. As I've said: free speech requires responsibility for speech; if you're an asshole, you deal with the consequences - and having consequences levied against you for being an asshole isn't censorship, it's life. This is not taking away a right, as you're still allowed to speak - you're just not allowed to repeatedly verbally abuse others without this having consequences. See the distinction? You're free to keep harassing people after you get moved/fired/whatever, though that might get you in trouble with laws covering stalking and other types of harassment, so that's hardly adviseable.

FordGT90ConceptHow do public safety officers stop crimes in progress? By discriminating (who here looks the most threatening/guilty?). Everyone has the right to discriminate but in specific cases and circumstances, you can't act on it in an official capacity (e.g. equal opportunity protections).

Wow, nice job using the notoriously racially biased behaviour of police (seriously, this isn't even up for debate - racial discrimination and overpolicing of minorities is a fact) as an example of "necessary" discrimination. Also, you're doing what Lex was doing, though seemingly with a less philosophical intent: bringing the term "discriminate" back to an obsolete and overly general definition that makes it essentially a synonym to "distinguish". Outside of the fact that neither of us live in Victorian era England, and 'discriminate' thus doensn't mean that any more: Of course we all distinguish between a whole host of things based on gut feelings and presuppositions every single day. The issue isn't in doing that, the issue lise with refusing to correct and adjust this behaviour (and/or the presuppositions) when presented with evidence that it's wrong. This is when social norms, workplace rules, or the law is necessary to ensure a functioning society. Which brings us into how laws should be created, which I'm reasonably sure we agree on.

mtcn77I'm sorry that I have to explain when you are dodging quotes from a 'book' that you have not spent the effort of reading as you admitted, your credence is null, your qualifications to basing an argument - lest a null argument - on it is zero, but that would be an overgeneralization to the entire SJW exhibition that hit the wall when Milo Yiannopoulis was giving his insights on coming of age.
What else could be said to illiterate look alikes that weaponise public consent to blame their betters for their unadmitted & repressed guilt? "You have reached the popularity goal expected of you." - I'm sure you still won't understand the contextual reference it is presented in the book. That is a given for concern trolls that don't know a null argument from actual contribution. The irony is, people are indeed humbled by these idiots as they are in the book. What a great convergence!

Not to sound flippant, but you really need to work on your writing. Whatever that was, I have no idea what you're trying to convey. Are you talking about a metaphorical or actual book? You use quotes in one part and not in another, so it really isn't clear. Your sentences and general use of language is severely unstructured and rambling, making it incredibly hard to follow whatever it is you're trying to say.

As for the rest of your post: all I said was that you're attempting to apply (whether metaphorically or not; again, your initial post really isn't clear, but your arguments in any case make the distinction irrelevant) a scientific theory to a subject for which it is entirely unsuited. Scientific theories are tools for understanding the world. Tools have limited (and usually relatively clearly defined) uses. If you want to hammer in a nail, do you use a vegetable peeler or a hammer? If you're peeling a carrot, do you use a hammer or a vegetable peeler? The laws of thermodynamics are only applicable to systems where they actually matter to the relevant functions of the system. For explaining what you were trying to do, did you consider using ... sociology? Psychology? Economics? A combination of these? 'Cause any of the above would have been immensely more applicable to the subject, given that they ... well, are relevant to the field you're discussing. The laws of thermodynamics, even metaphorically, are not, as the dynamics you drew up in your initial post have nothing to do with the structures you were discussing, and thus the "laws" do not apply. You claiming that I reject this because I'm not familiar with the subject matter is laughable, considering that your attempted use of entirely unsuitable scientific theory demonstrates that you have no understanding of the fundamentals of scientific thought. I'm not saying you don't understand certain scientific subjects (it seems like you've got a decent grasp of physics), but your lack of perspective and understanding of how this knowledge is used, and what it's used for, is blatantly obvious.

One thing I do understand: you're saying I'm "dodging quotes" from somewhere. Which quotes? Where? In what regard? Is there anything I haven't addressed?

Other than that, I suppose I should thank you for bringing us back to the level of ad hominem arguments, wildly irrelevant digressions (what does that clown Milo have to do with this? Or popularity?), conspiracy theories, and other general attempts at derailing the debate. Here we go again, I suppose.

ValantarWhere on earth did you find that contrived example? Is it somehow relevant?


Only if this "law" actually does harm. And even if it does, the harm needs to be compared to the good it does. If it does more harm than good, it needs to change. If not, it's a change for the better.


Have I said that apologies and forgiveness are banned? Sorry, but that's not what I'm saying. What is problematic, though, is when people act badly, apologize (or not), and then go right back to acting the same way. When that happens, we need some kind of way of policing the situation. This is rather fundamental social interaction, no? Quite often the policing consists of no more than calling people out repeatedly, but for those who refuse to adapt and moderate their behaviour, consequences are necessary. What those consequences are depends on the context, of course.

The problem with Citizens United is that it fails to distinguish between organizations that exist to represent people (unions, for example) and organizations that exist to make money (corporations). The argument goes something like "corporations represent their board/shareholders/employees" - but it would still be entirely possible to draw a workable line between "corporations are allowed to "speak" with money" and "unions are no longer allowed to publicize anything". Beyond that, the entire concept of corporate personhood is blatantly absurd.



You're misreading me. I said "no taking away rights" before bringing up an example of a "right" that isn't actually a right. As I've said: free speech requires responsibility for speech; if you're an asshole, you deal with the consequences - and having consequences levied against you for being an asshole isn't censorship, it's life. This is not taking away a right, as you're still allowed to speak - you're just not allowed to repeatedly verbally abuse others without this having consequences. See the distinction? You're free to keep harassing people after you get moved/fired/whatever, though that might get you in trouble with laws covering stalking and other types of harassment, so that's hardly adviseable.


Wow, nice job using the notoriously racially biased behaviour of police (seriously, this isn't even up for debate - racial discrimination and overpolicing of minorities is a fact) as an example of "necessary" discrimination. Also, you're doing what Lex was doing, though seemingly with a less philosophical intent: bringing the term "discriminate" back to an obsolete and overly general definition that makes it essentially a synonym to "distinguish". Outside of the fact that neither of us live in Victorian era England, and 'discriminate' thus doensn't mean that any more: Of course we all distinguish between a whole host of things based on gut feelings and presuppositions every single day. The issue isn't in doing that, the issue lise with refusing to correct and adjust this behaviour (and/or the presuppositions) when presented with evidence that it's wrong. This is when social norms, workplace rules, or the law is necessary to ensure a functioning society. Which brings us into how laws should be created, which I'm reasonably sure we agree on.


Not to sound flippant, but you really need to work on your writing. Whatever that was, I have no idea what you're trying to convey. Are you talking about a metaphorical or actual book? You use quotes in one part and not in another, so it really isn't clear. Your sentences and general use of language is severely unstructured and rambling, making it incredibly hard to follow whatever it is you're trying to say.

As for the rest of your post: all I said was that you're attempting to apply (whether metaphorically or not; again, your initial post really isn't clear, but your arguments in any case make the distinction irrelevant) a scientific theory to a subject for which it is entirely unsuited. Scientific theories are tools for understanding the world. Tools have limited (and usually relatively clearly defined) uses. If you want to hammer in a nail, do you use a vegetable peeler or a hammer? If you're peeling a carrot, do you use a hammer or a vegetable peeler? The laws of thermodynamics are only applicable to systems where they actually matter to the relevant functions of the system. For explaining what you were trying to do, did you consider using ... sociology? Psychology? Economics? A combination of these? 'Cause any of the above would have been immensely more applicable to the subject, given that they ... well, are relevant to the field you're discussing. The laws of thermodynamics, even metaphorically, are not, as the dynamics you drew up in your initial post have nothing to do with the structures you were discussing, and thus the "laws" do not apply. You claiming that I reject this because I'm not familiar with the subject matter is laughable, considering that your attempted use of entirely unsuitable scientific theory demonstrates that you have no understanding of the fundamentals of scientific thought. I'm not saying you don't understand certain scientific subjects (it seems like you've got a decent grasp of physics), but your lack of perspective and understanding of how this knowledge is used, and what it's used for, is blatantly obvious.

One thing I do understand: you're saying I'm "dodging quotes" from somewhere. Which quotes? Where? In what regard? Is there anything I haven't addressed?

Other than that, I suppose I should thank you for bringing us back to the level of ad hominem arguments, wildly irrelevant digressions (what does that clown Milo have to do with this? Or popularity?), conspiracy theories, and other general attempts at derailing the debate. Here we go again, I suppose.

Case in point.

DRDNAyou mean like mentioning by some how they will remember like some kind of vendetta score card they are keeping how another member feels in regards to politics?

That's not what my post was. I was saying your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude precluded you from sensible debate.

Never thought I'd here about viziers, jannasaries, and Emperor Justinian here.

I'm not sure what any of it meant though.

mtcn77I'm bringing content, dear, that you aren't challenging outright.

Maybe because none of us have read it and the arguenent should stand on it's own two feet without a bible like text?

moproblems99Frankly, I think this whole thing was blown out of proportion. I highly doubt anyone that submitted good code was ever rejected based on anything.

I've been saying that since before this was a thread.

FordGT90ConceptStability.

At all costs, amirite?

StrayKATNever thought I'd here about viziers, jannasaries, and Emperor Justinian here.

I'm not sure what any of it meant though.

You can learn, though, fortunately.
As for the little counterpart tale, you'll have to take my word for it.
Belaying justice to a felony of this epic proportion will have the 'former' story repeat itself as the rebellious will be up and armed. Why wait? All SJW's have committed treason to their principle. It is what rebelling means, it is transitive and against acception of truth.

mtcn77You can learn, though, fortunately.

As for the little counterpart tale, you'll have to take my word for it.
Belaying justice to a felony of this epic proportion will have the 'former' story repeat itself as the rebellious will be up and armed. Why wait? All SJW's have committed treason to their principle. It is what rebelling means, it is transitive and against acception of truth.

I'm a Christian myself, and know a bit about Byzantine history. I just don't know what it has to do with Linux.... or SJWs.

In fact, I've touched on some conspiracies, and I think the SJWs are just shock troops. The people who benefit the most are the corporations on the Linux Foundation. With Linus out of the way, they've got free rein. And no way in hell are they going to let some random purple haired, self loathing agitator take over everything. Not when they finally got rid of Linus.. who was their biggest obstacle.

StrayKATI'm a Christian myself, and know a bit about Byzantine history. I just don't know what it has to do with Linux.... or SJWs.

In fact, I've touched on some conspiracies, and I think the SJWs are just shock troops. The people who benefit the most are the corporations on the Linux Foundation. With Linus out of the way, they've got free rein. And no way in hell are they going to let some random purple haired, self loathing agitator take over everything. Not when they finally got rid of Linus.. who was their biggest obstacle.

Again, this is about tools being used to make inoperable the most stable systems tested and approved. I have trust in Trump, as I said, since I don't have to 'share his view', only to share his outlook. The SJW's are on the opposite spectrum, they field similarities all the while cutthroat roid rage behind the curtains. It would help a lot if you just spent the effort. The book is a tome.

mtcn77Again, this is about tools being used to make inoperable the most stable systems tested and approved. I have trust in Trump, as I said, since I don't have to 'share his view', only to share his outlook. The SJW's are on the opposite spectrum, they field similarities all the while cutthroat roid rage behind the curtains. It would help a lot if you just spent the effort. The book is a tome.

Out of curiosity, you said you were in Turkey? Are you a Linux user... are there are a lot of Linux users there?

StrayKATOut of curiosity, you said you were in Turkey? Are you a Linux user... are there are a lot of Linux users there?

I'm a very practical Android user(Nexus 2013), would I qualify?

R-T-BAt all costs, amirite?

Any system can only handle so much instability before everything goes to shit. Push a body too far, organs start failing. Push a mind too far, a mental breakdown. Push the environment too far, that's basically "global warming." Push a machine too far, it will break (e.g. unprimed transfer water pumps will blow themselves out because there's not enough resistance). Push a governing body too far in terms of social policy then the people are expected to uphold "truths" that aren't their own--the governing body loses legitimacy.