Editorial Linux Community Hit by the Blight of Social Justice Warfare, A Great Purge is Coming

[hat]

Occam's razor, huh... the idea that usually the simplest answer is the correct one. If I remember correctly, there was also another part to that, something along the lines of not creating unnecessary work for yourself by applying a solution to a problem that is more complex than necessary. I find the second part of that "razor" highly relatable, as, well... using a complex solution when a simple one is available and would work just as well would be ridiculous, but the idea that the simplest answer is usually the correct one is a little too optimistic for me.

As far as the original topic, I still have quite a few questions...

1. Why, exactly, are Linux developers so compelled to adopt the CoC in the first place?
2. Once the CoC is adopted, who gets to say that person X is banned from the community?
3. When person X is banned, what if he doesn't agree? What if others don't agree?
4. The CoC is enforced by... what/who?

Also, I find the idea that the CoC, or anybody short of a sufficiently powerful governing body (such as the EU) could get rid of Linux a bit ridiculous. I think we're overestimating the power of this supposed radical SJW group who have found Linux next in their queue of seek and destroy operations. If indeed you are out to just fuck with people, you might be able to cause trouble for a famous individual, or a politician, but taking out Linux seems like an order far too tall to fill.

If Microsoft really wanted to get rid of Linux, they would need politicians, or hardware to do it for them... find some reason to make Linux illegal somehow, in the case of politicians, or find some way to make Linux incompatible with hardware, in the case of hardware manufacturers. All it would take would be a few backroom deals with some "definitely not bribe money" attached to either outlaw Linux or simply not support it by not writing any drivers. Similar things have been done in the past that we know for a fact actually happened (RAM price fixing, Intel bribes, etc). I don't think fueling radical SJW groups to cause wanton destruction of Linux by ejecting developers (and somehow also getting everybody to listen to them) is an effective strategy. Assuming this is the case, well, they got Linus (at least, for now). But it's not like Linus is god... there are plenty of others who contribute to the development of Linux. Are they gonna find a reason to eject everyone, and everybody is still going to listen to them?

You can't just make shit happen by being loud. How many people wanted Obama impeached? How many people want Trump gone? But they're still there... heh, maybe there is something to that "razor" after all. Anything other than the idea that other Linux people just want a better environment to work in without guys like Linus trolling them is just too weird to take seriously.

 

[Valantar]

Occam's razor, huh... the idea that usually the simplest answer is the correct one. If I remember correctly, there was also another part to that, something along the lines of not creating unnecessary work for yourself by applying a solution to a problem that is more complex than necessary. I find the second part of that "razor" highly relatable, as, well... using a complex solution when a simple one is available and would work just as well would be ridiculous, but the idea that the simplest answer is usually the correct one is a little too optimistic for me.
[...]
heh, maybe there is something to that "razor" after all. Anything other than the idea that other Linux people just want a better environment to work in without guys like Linus trolling them is just too weird to take seriously.

Yep. Though I believe the more precise definition of Occam's razor is that the solution which requires the least new assumptions to be made is the most likely to be correct. In this case: "Some Linux developers want harassment-free working conditions" requires two assumptions; that there is such a group as "Linux developers" (which isn't a new one, as it's quite well established that such a group exists, given that Linux exists) and that some of them want harassment-free working conditions (arguably not a new assumption either, as most people are likely to want that, though what constitutes harassment-free might differ). On the other hand, "SJWs are out to ruin Linux by thought-policing developers and forcibly removing those who voice opinions they don't agree with" assumes that the group "SJW" exists (arguable, but at the very least it's a much larger and more complex/vaguely defined group than Linux developers), that they want to ruin Linux (entirely new assumption, needs substantiation), that they have access to decision-making power in the Linux developer community (not inherent in being an "SJW", so a new assumption), that they're interested in though-policing (they don't claim so themselves, at least), that they want to forcibly remove dissenters (again, new assumption, needs substantiation). You could also argue that the latter explanation assumes that it's impossible for a Linux developer to also be an SJW, as it would be logically impossible for a Linux developer to want to ruin Linux. It's quite easy to tell which is the most likely, as well as which lends itself the most to actually discovering the facts of the matter. This is by no means a perfect system for discerning the correct explanation to a problem, but its applicability is still broad.

 

[DRDNA]

Trump exemplifies mindlessness.

its more probable that when you look in the mirror you will find that you are the one who "exemplifies mindlessness"

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1. Why, exactly, are Linux developers so compelled to adopt the CoC in the first place?

Pressure from SJWs either directly (social media attacks) or indirectly (SJWs putting pressure on companies like Intel to apply pressure on Linux foundation).

2. Once the CoC is adopted, who gets to say that person X is banned from the community?
3. When person X is banned, what if he doesn't agree? What if others don't agree?
4. The CoC is enforced by... what/who?

Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board

Also, I find the idea that the CoC, or anybody short of a sufficiently powerful governing body (such as the EU) could get rid of Linux a bit ridiculous. I think we're overestimating the power of this supposed radical SJW group who have found Linux next in their queue of seek and destroy operations. If indeed you are out to just fuck with people, you might be able to cause trouble for a famous individual, or a politician, but taking out Linux seems like an order far too tall to fill.

It's angering the people that contributed code to Linux under older GPL 2.0 terms where they can revoke the license for Linux Foundation to use it. Linux Foundation would have to rewrite the pulled code from scratch without referencing the old code at all or it will be in copyright violation as well.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Linux is gone, what then?

Linux is the single most used OS on Earth by a solid margin. It's not gone and isn't going anywhere. You are still trolling and getting worse at it!

 

[Valantar]

its more probable that when you look in the mirror you will find that you are the one who "exemplifies mindlessness"

Aww, thank you for that. Personal attacks are my favourite form of debate. They add so much value, and such insight on the topic.

 

[StrayKAT]

Linux Foundation did it to itself. No one forced them to change the Code of Conflict.

I'm still going with conspiracy btw. All of them are Corporate outside Linus and.. Ted Hso, I think (who's already been smeared). The SJWs are just a means, not an end.

 

[DRDNA]

Aww, thank you for that. Personal attacks are my favourite form of debate. They add so much value, and such insight on the topic.

easy now dont go all snowfake on me...you gave a personal attack on the USA President who is the Commander and Chief of the USA and I a USA citizen and Patriot have stated that it is you who is the one that's "exemplifies mindlessness" and I'm pretty certain I'm not mistaken!

 

[Valantar]

easy now dont go all snowfake on me...you gave a personal attack on the USA President who is the Commander and Chief of the USA and I a USA citizen and Patriot have stated that it is you who is the one that's "exemplifies mindlessness" and I'm pretty certain I'm not mistaken!

As far as I know, Donald Trump is not a party to this discussion, so as such it's impossible for me to attack him personally here (as that would require his presence). That you choose to take offense on his behalf is entirely on you. I'd be happy to expand on why I think he exemplifies mindlessness (which in the sense I mean it is a characterisation of his public persona, actions, speech and policies, and not of him as a person (I don't know him, and as such have zero grounds to make such a statement)), but I didn't do so here as frankly that's too far off-topic even for me. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think he's dumb or that his actions and policies are as random as he makes them come off; I'm just saying he's focused on a very narrow set of goals (mainly promoting his "brand" and getting through policies that he and his businesses will gain from in the long run), and actively chooses to ignore any and all consequences beyond these (such as environmental damage, social ills, increased hate speech and violence, and so on). In other words, I'm using the word in the sense where it's a synonym to heedless (or: not mindful), not the sense where it means "marked by or displaying no use of the powers of the intellect". Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I was responding to @mtcn77 's use of the word, and didn't think of clarifying at the time. But as I said, this is going too far off-topic even for me. This thread is not about discussing neither Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, or any other single person not directly related to the Linux Foundation and the CoC. I'll gladly respond to a DM if you want further explanation of what I meant.

I suppose, in that sense, that you can say that I'm mindless of the feelings of Donald Trump. I'm pretty sure he's capable of handling me calling his persona mindless - he's a big boy, after all, being president and all that. I'm pretty sure he can take someone characterizing him as "mindless". Saying I exemplify mindlessness, though, is a bit of a stretch, unless you can come up with some more examples as to me not caring about or taking into account all relevant factors when discussing or dealing with a subject, as that statement implies that my entire appearance (at least on this forum) represents a mindless attitude.

As for being a sensitive snowflake; I called you out for attacking me personally, while you attacked me for making a characterization of a third party affiliated with neither of us. Who, if anyone, is being overly sensitive here?

And not to sound flippant, but as a patriotic US citizen you really ought to know that the term is Commander in Chief.

I'm still going with conspiracy btw. All of them are Corporate outside Linus and.. Ted Hso, I think (who's already been smeared). The SJWs are just a means, not an end.

Corporations want stability. Again, Occam's razor tells us that it's more likely that corporations support this to ensure a stable and predictable development of the system, and not with the hope of effecting the overthrow of the current regime or removal of significant contributors.

 

[lexluthermiester]

easy now dont go all snowfake on me...you gave a personal attack on the USA President who is the Commander and Chief of the USA and I a USA citizen and Patriot have stated that it is you who is the one that's "exemplifies mindlessness" and I'm pretty certain I'm not mistaken!

This is so not related to the topic at hand. Please shovel that political FUD elsewhere. Thank You.

@Valantar Wow, we have never agreed so completely on something. This has been one seriously weird week.. LOL!

 

[DRDNA]

This is so not related to the topic at hand. Please shovel that political FUD elsewhere. Thank You.

@Valantar Wow, we have never agreed so completely on something. This has been one seriously weird week.. LOL!

you meant the FUD your pushing...... don't go getting all butt hurt over the truth! I have every right to say what I have to the responses i have stated them to. Now you want to take my right away while you are using that same right to do the real FUD and Political shoveling....your a really funny person and this is typical snowflake behavior.......

 

[lexluthermiester]

you meant the FUD your pushing...... don't go getting all butt hurt over the truth!

Aww, that was adorable.

I have every right to say what I have to the responses i have stated them to.

While technically true, it might garner the attention of the staff and perhaps earn you some time-out. Just throwing it out there..

Now you want to take my right away while you are using that same right to do the real FUD and Political shoveling..

Except that I haven't talked about politics at all.. Do you understand what the term "context" means?

you're a really funny person and this is typical snowflake behavior..

Grammar corrected. And really? You are calling ME a snowflake?!? Well, it had to happen sooner or later..

 

[DRDNA]

"context"

Hiding negative and slanderous statements with in some relating topics does not mean it is correct whether or not of the so called context.... and just because you agree with the negative slander doesn't make it right ....sorry you got all butt hurt tho. Also another snowflake move is attacking grammar ........okay professor.....

 

[Valantar]

Hiding negative and slanderous statements with in some relating topics does not mean it is correct whether or not of the so called context.... and just because you agree with the negative slander doesn't make it right ....sorry you got all butt hurt tho. Also another snowflake move is attacking grammar ........okay professor.....

You have a very low bar for what constitutes slander; whether you mean it in the legal sense or more colloquially, slander is a very strong word. Also, nobody here is "hiding" anything; bringing up a point in a specific context and saying the point only applies in said context is neither dishonest nor otherwise problematic. It's how the world works.

 

[lexluthermiester]

sorry you got all butt hurt tho.

Aww, again with the adorable..

Also another snowflake move is attacking grammar

Not attacking, correcting. There's a difference.

.okay professor.

Hey, as long as you know the pecking order, we're good.

Now please explain for us all how your political ramblings are in any way related to the topic of this thread.

 

[DRDNA]

You have a very low bar for what constitutes slander; whether you mean it in the legal sense or more colloquially, slander is a very strong word. Also, nobody here is "hiding" anything; bringing up a point in a specific context and saying the point only applies in said context is neither dishonest nor otherwise problematic. It's how the world works.

Aww, again with the adorable..

Not attacking, correcting. There's a difference.

Hey, as long as you know the pecking order, we're good.

Now please explain for us all how your political ramblings are in any way related to the topic of this thread.

I'm not easily trolled so I will just sit back as always and counter the the negative President Trump statements if I see them as i normally do..... Get use to it, it's not going to change.

 

[Valantar]

I'm not easily trolled so I will just sit back as always and counter the the negative President Trump statements if I see them as i normally do..... Get use to it, it's not going to change.

So, in (barely) other words, you're not interested in having an on-topic discussion at all, then, just exercising your seemingly obsessive adoration for the current US president. Oh well. Will you please leave us to actually have an on-topic debate, then? You're admitting that your only goal here is off-topic trolling.

Also, you didn't clarify what exactly makes my statement constitutes "slander". I'd appreciate an explanation of just how it reaches that level, if you don't mind.

 

[mtcn77]

Aww, again with the adorable..

Not attacking, correcting. There's a difference.

Hey, as long as you know the pecking order, we're good.

Now please explain for us all how your political ramblings are in any way related to the topic of this thread.

Okay, spellingbee, but I'm sure you missed out this one. Better hide before grammar nazis arrive...

Why?



What is?

Not going to break this down further because as far as I can tell, your thought process at this point is one of the following:

a.) Insane / Illogical and beyond rational comprehension without the use of some very specific drugs

b.) Incomprehensible due to a language barrier (honestly I hope this is it).

or

c.) So convinced that he is right that he doesn't even need to explain it, effectively a dillusion of being a perfect, god-like being. In which case seriously, get mental help.



You do realize that wasn't uh, real? You may as well cite bioshock as a reason not to pick up random sea slugs.

a.) or c.) are sadly garnering evidence.

 

[Valantar]

Well, this thread definitely took a sharp turn for the worse.

I guess it could be entertaining watching @mtcn77 @DRDNA selectively ignoring every actual response to their arguments or question posed to them, and how you instead focus solely on further degrading the thread, but instead it just makes me sad. Not that I really like the tone that's been thrown around for the past few posts from anyone (myself included, at least partly), but before you arrived, at least this resembled a productive and enlightening discussion. Now it's all gone to shit. Thanks.

 

[mtcn77]

Well, this thread definitely took a sharp turn for the worse.

I guess it could be entertaining watching @mtcn77 @DRDNA selectively ignoring every actual response to their arguments or question posed to them, and how you instead focus solely on further degrading the thread, but instead it just makes me sad. Not that I really like the tone that's been thrown around for the past few posts from anyone (myself included, at least partly), but before you arrived, at least this resembled a productive and enlightening discussion. Now it's all gone to shit. Thanks.

You have made it clear, through your latest cynical quips, that taking you on your word is pointless. I suppose that is the case with the rest of the neuro-pseudonym sjw groups in their democratic rebellion against sound reason in order to collect more attention to serve their vacant selves and go with the tide.

 

[R-T-B]

Okay, spellingbee, but I'm sure you missed out this one. Better hide before grammar nazis arrive...

Wow, you found one spelling error out of all my posts, and bolded it. Do you seriously have anything to add or are you just going to troll this down to troll town?

Well, this thread definitely took a sharp turn for the worse.

I guess it could be entertaining watching @mtcn77 @DRDNA selectively ignoring every actual response to their arguments or question posed to them, and how you instead focus solely on further degrading the thread, but instead it just makes me sad. Not that I really like the tone that's been thrown around for the past few posts from anyone (myself included, at least partly), but before you arrived, at least this resembled a productive and enlightening discussion. Now it's all gone to shit. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm out. They can talk to themselves now. I hear echo chambers are great.

 

[Valantar]

You have made it clear, through your latest cynical quips, that taking you on your word is pointless. I suppose that is the case with the rest of the neuro-pseudonym sjw groups in their democratic rebellion against sound reason in order to collect more attention to serve their vacant selves and go with the tide.

So I make a series of posts with on-topic responses to you, which you entirely ignore and refuse to even acknowledge, let alone respond to, instead insisting on further degrading the thread by off-topic ramblings, an outright refusal to engage in debate, and ad hominem attacks on other forum members, and I'm the cynical one?

Also,can you please tell me (and the rest of the world) what "neuro-pseudonym" means?

And it's still baffling to me how you can actually believe that people campaigning for social justice - which literally means making the world more fair - are doing so for popularity, and not, you know, to make the world more fair. Doesn't it make sense for that to be a goal in and of itself? One of these explanations is reasonable and logical, the other demonstrates a fundamental disbelief in human dignity and an accompanying belief that all human activity is cynical and self-serving. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which, and which explanation fits the best to, as you term it, sound reason.

I've never had to actively argue for the applicability of Occam's razor this many times in a single debate. It's rather weird.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

@AlwaysHope posted this on the other Linux-related thread and it's extremely relevant so I'll repost it here:

Something has been going wrong on many college campuses in the last few years. Speakers are shouted down. Students and professors say they are walking on eggshells and are afraid to speak honestly. Rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are rising—on campus as well as nationally. How did this happen?

First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt show how the new problems on campus have their origins in three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into American childhood and education: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures. Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it harder for them to become autonomous adults who are able to navigate the bumpy road of life.

Lukianoff and Haidt investigate the many social trends that have intersected to promote the spread of these untruths. They explore changes in childhood such as the rise of fearful parenting, the decline of unsupervised, child-directed play, and the new world of social media that has engulfed teenagers in the last decade. They examine changes on campus, including the corporatization of universities and the emergence of new ideas about identity and justice. They situate the conflicts on campus within the context of America’s rapidly rising political polarization and dysfunction.

This is a book for anyone who is confused by what is happening on college campuses today, or has children, or is concerned about the growing inability of Americans to live, work, and cooperate across party lines.

TL;DR: how SJWs were created (lack of sociological and psychological resistance training), why they're fundamentally flawed in how they think (taking away free speech from others doesn't make them overcome their fundamental insecurity problem), and why corrective action must be taken against creating more (suicide rates among children are soaring, they function poorly outside of their protected environments, and there's a compounding of mistakes that lead to their condition going forward).

And it's still baffling to me how you can actually believe that people campaigning for social justice - which literally means making the world more fair - are doing so for popularity, and not, you know, to make the world more fair.

SJWs love vague platitudes like you just said there: define "fair" in the context of the Linux Foundation. Example: a very polite person may submit terrible code. "Fair" does not mean that this person's feelings can't be hurt because the code is rejected. On the other hand, an asshole submits fantastic code. "Fair" does not mean rejecting the code because the coder was an asshole.

As said many times before, "fairness" really has no relevance to the field of programming. The goal is to reach the best code humanly possible. That said, everyone should be respectful (not fair) of everyone else which is what the old Code of Conflict meant by "be excellent to each other."

 

[rtwjunkie]

And it's still baffling to me how you can actually believe that people campaigning for social justice - which literally means making the world more fair - are doing so for popularity, and not, you know, to make the world more fair

The below piece can quite explain SJW behavior in the U.S. I believe. Numerous liberal bastions of free speech, including the UC at Berkeley have had active successful attempts at silencing speakers and groups that don’t agree with their views. They have even cried about the bad people making them feel unsafe by subscribing to views not their own. Apparently free speech is only available to their SJW leaders who are not trying to make anything better for anyone but them and their offended sheep.

@AlwaysHope posted this on the other Linux-related thread and it's extremely relevant so I'll repost it here:

TL;DR: how SJWs were created (lack of sociological and psychological resistance training), why they're fundamentally flawed in how they think (taking away free speech from others doesn't make them overcome their fundamental insecurity problem), and why corrective action must be taken against creating more (suicide rates among children are soaring, they function poorly outside of their protected environments, and there's a compounding of mistakes that lead to their condition going forward).



SJWs love vague platitudes like you just said there: define "fair" in the context of the Linux Foundation. Example: a very polite person may submit terrible code. "Fair" does not mean that this person's feelings can't be hurt because the code is rejected. On the other hand, an asshole submits fantastic code. "Fair" does not mean rejecting the code because the coder was an asshole.

As said many times before, "fairness" really has no relevance to the field of programming. The goal is to reach the best code humanly possible. That said, everyone should be respectful of everyone else which is what the old Code of Conflict meant by "be excellent to each other."

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Looking back at everything, changing Code of Conflict to Code of Conduct didn't change anything in practical terms. LF-TAB is going to make the same decisions it did before based on the same overarching principle of maintaining the code is paramount. So why the outcry? The SJWs and their influence on adopting a politically motivated Code of Conflict (oops on LF's behalf but I suspect they'll move to fix that before the year is out). That's literally the spark that started the firestorm on the forest called "The Internet" and it seems to happen every few months. The whole situation (and it's cyclic nature) increasingly strikes me as juvenile.