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

[mtcn77]

What, girls can't be traumatized? Right back at you. We said nothing with a stereotype.



Apparently?

How dare you oppress a minority of the nondominant gender that did so much for literature without reaching the heights reserved for men?
PS: I'm not the one who promotes this view.

 

[R-T-B]

How dare you oppress a minority of the nondominant gender that did so much for literature without reaching the heights reserved for men?
PS: I'm not the one who promotes this view.

But you are. You are implying women are incapable of being traumatized, and falsely implying that saying a woman was traumatized is sexist.

This just shows how far out of touch with the real world you are frankly.

 

[mtcn77]

But you are. You are implying women are incapable of being traumatized, and falsely implying that saying a woman was traumatized is sexist.

This just shows how far out of touch with the real world you are frankly.

The whole argument I made up to this point is in reference to her work. This wasn't about sexism, it was about you being against the work of the individual you are saying you defend. This is reverse-racism; however you are first to break your own rule.
Also, if women aren't traumatized, what is all the fuss about cussing?

 

[Aquinus]

Can someone pass the popcorn?

 

[StrayKAT]

Quit using gender stereotypes, or people might swat you on your day jobs, amirite guys? Of course, there is zero-risk in showing your bias when displayed towards a deceased non-participant because we are only inclusive within the participating group, anyway? It is hard to bring discussions to some people without hitting some cognitive gap.


You don't run a business being an employee. Quit expecting a fair world fantasy.

I know you're joking, but it is funny how it could be construed that way. I didn't think of it in a stereotypical manner though - but was more focused on her age in the Soviet Union. Anyone can easily be traumatized, but especially a kid.

edit: I suppose this is still "Ageism"

 

[R-T-B]

The whole argument I made up to this point is in reference to her work. This wasn't about sexism, it was about you being against the work of the individual you are saying you defend. This is reverse-racism; however you are first to break your own rule.
Also, if women aren't traumatized, what is all the fuss about cussing?

You aren't even making sense anymore and seem to fail to realize no one was being sexist save maybe you.

I give up.

EDIT: Wow, downvotes, really? For what? Trying in vain to understand him? If you have insight into what that meant @medi01, I'd ask you to clarify.

 

[mtcn77]

I know you're joking, but it is funny how it could be construed that way. I didn't think of it in a stereotypical manner though - but was more focused on her age in the Soviet Union. Anyone can easily be traumatized, but especially a kid.

edit: I suppose this is still "Ageism"

What if the implied is *not* a misery romanticiser and an inspired toughnut? A true female chauvinist! I suppose by now they should have started playing the same tune like a broken tape recorder.

You aren't even making sense anymore and seem to fail to realize no one was being sexist save maybe you.

I give up.

Funny, how it all performed according to the book. You lost your ego.

 

[R-T-B]

Funny, how it all performed according to the book. You lost your ego.

I really don't care because it's been an attempt at understanding gibberish from my perspective...

oh sorry, did someone say "the book?"

I meant PRAISE JESUS!

 

[Valantar]

Quit using gender stereotypes, or people might swat you on your day jobs, amirite guys? Of course, there is zero-risk in showing your bias when displayed towards a deceased non-participant because we are only inclusive within the participating group, anyway? It is hard to bring discussions to some people without hitting some cognitive gap.


You don't run a business being an employee. Quit expecting a fair world fantasy.

So we should all give up and accept unfairness and discrimination? Nah, sorry, not quite buying that kind of fatalistic nonsense. History clearly shows that increased and sustained fairness is entirely possible. No reason to stop trying. Also, good job again not actually responding to any critique of your arguments whatsoever (you even quote the post where I'm not addressing you). Well done. If life was a RPG, you'd have the "argument dodger" skill maxed out. One might almost suspect that you're having trouble putting forward rational arguments towards your stance?

Oh, btw, being traumatized isn't a gender stereotype...

 

[medi01]

...but if we're going there, you'd best read the actual CoC text. It's the only enforceable thing, not the authors goals.

The very authors of CoC broke their very rules, cough, (wearing T-Shirt with uncensored content on them), so, uh, doh, what are we gonna do now?

You are supporting organization that is made to "increase" number of LGBTQ+ people in a goddamn OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY, where you can be fully anonymous, nobody ever asks you about your gender or what kind of sex you enjoy and nobody gives a flying f*ck about your political views. Who the hell even knows if LGBTQ+ people are even underrepresented in OS???

It is a blatant push to pollute open source community with PC volks, who would do nothing, but keep up to date with what is and is not problematic at the moment and monitor people for wrongthink. It worked "so well" in US universities, skyroketing education prices (University of Michigan has nearly 100 full time "diversity" parasites, the supreme ekwilizer earns north of 300k)

You know, those nice people who are ok with the idea of putting chains on students of certain skin color for 6 month, so that they can learn "centuries of oppression" and publishing papers with rephrased "Mein Kampf":

Oh wait, of course, I forgot, "poor women". You know, gender, which had no problem going from 0% to 90% in Veterinary, to more than 50% of lawyers and pretty much any other field, in which you'd expect group that "tends to prefer people over things" would end up. But no no, it' some evil oppression, by motherf*ckers who hate women so much that the only human to ever get 2 Nobels in 2 different fields is a woman, and wait, that happened more than a century ago!

So we now absolutely need a group of Offendotrons to fix our wrongthink, because else, who are we, if we don't bend over backwards? Some sort of nazis, certainly.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's quite fascinating to read arguments from someone with such a fundamentally naive and unquestioning trust in authority. It's no wonder we don't see eye to eye - it's obvious that your default assumption is that the people in power are always the right and best people to be in power, and the threshold for evidence to prove otherwise seems unreasonably high. Your extremely narrowly selected examples make this authoritarian starting point abundantly clear.

Who invented Linux? 'Nuff said.

1. The new developer lets the established one know that the response was inappropriate, and the experienced developer accepts and apologizes. They address this as adults, reach a productive compromise (whether this is the new developer adapting to established approaches, or the experienced developer recognizing the value of a solution outside of their normal mode of operation), and the problem goes away. This is likely to increase both productivity and quality of output.
2. The new developer lets the established one know the response was inappropriate, but the experienced developer rejects this entirely, and refuses to adjust their behaviour on the grounds of seniority and experience (neither of which are relevant to interpersonal behaviour). The new developer is less motivated because of this, feels devalued and looked down on, and either produces lacklustre code, or just quits. This reduces the productivity and quality of output of the group, and the group loses out on potential improvements.
3. The new developer lets the established one know the response was inappropriate, but the experienced developer rejects this entirely, and refuses to adjust their behaviour on the grounds of seniority and experience (neither of which are relevant to interpersonal behaviour). The situation escalates, and the less experienced developer is fired/expelled from the group, as the senior developer has more authority. Again, this reduces the productivity and quality of output of the group, and the group loses out on potential improvements.

None of the above. The change is rejected and the project manager moves on. "New developer" gets a "deal with it" response. Linux Foundation isn't paying Torvalds to corral and train noobs. They're paying him to make the Linux Kernel better. "New developer" either keeps trying (and each submission evaluated based on merit) or stops contributing.

Besides this, what you're describing isn't a meritocracy. As such, the term post-meritocracy is kind of silly (given that there never has been one), but it needs to be used as people like you keep harping on it. The meritocracy isn't, and has never been real. Ever. Period. There is no such thing as pure merit outside of abstract thought experiments or oversimplifications irrelevant to real life, and no workplace has ever been free of social interaction and thus complex social dynamics. Judging from their manifesto, the post-meritocracy movement is doing nothing more than recognizing and underscoring this simple, plain fact. If you choose to deny this fact, that's on you. But please stop acting like you're promoting some sort of Platonic ideal of a meritocracy. Real life doesn't work that way, and if you can't see that, that's a failure of your perception of the world, not my arguments.

Question: do you have any programming background? Most big applications like Linux rely on compartmentalization where individuals focus on specific areas. Example: Sarah/Sage Sharp was working on the USB3 Host Controller driver. Most of the code is isolated in that regard. The only discussion arises when there is interaction between components. Who has to iron that out right now? Torvalds. If someone doesn't do something right, it's Torvalds that has to point out. This naturally makes him the villain for people being called out. If not him, someone else has to. When you're screening hundreds, if not thousands of edits per day, someone contributing garbage is likely to make any human frustrated. Abrasiveness comes with the territory.

Software has a purpose, and that purpose is not "to be programmed well" - quality programming will make the software better, but it won't make it useful or suited to its purpose. As such, planning, strategy and management requires insight into how the software is likely to be used to at least an equivalent degree as it requires insight into how the program is written.

Uh? Looks like you tried to define software and...failed? Programs (which are software) have one purpose: execute. You're talking about project management which, as I discussed above, is pretty much Torvalds.

This alone shows how your idea of a "meritocracy" is incompatible with reality outside of projects where the use case is simple and predefined/known and there is one developer (or very few who already know each other and thus have already established norms of conduct). Linux - or any piece of complex software created by a team - does not fit within this description. It might thus very well be a mediocre coder has the best vision of how to best decide the future direction of development, or that an excellent coder has chronic strategic tunnel vision and can't understand how and why people use the software. The requirements for creating good software is thus not simply "have good coders". You also need good leaders, good plans, good teamwork, and good relations. The latter two require mutually agreed-upon and enforceable rules and norms, otherwise you'll either have unproductive chaos, or waste time solving simple, silly situations, both of which are antithetical to making good software.

Linux is Torvalds' baby and he wants to see it grow.

 

[mtcn77]

So we should all give up and accept unfairness and discrimination? Nah, sorry, not quite buying that kind of fatalistic nonsense. History clearly shows that increased and sustained fairness is entirely possible. No reason to stop trying. Also, good job again not actually responding to any critique of your arguments whatsoever (you even quote the post where I'm not addressing you). Well done. If life was a RPG, you'd have the "argument dodger" skill maxed out. One might almost suspect that you're having trouble putting forward rational arguments towards your stance?

Oh, btw, being traumatized isn't a gender stereotype...

Yeah, history has shown 'suffrage' which is a funny word to depict someone's "rights" per say, has been distributed very evenly until they gained electoral candidacy. *nice try*

I cannot accept a race to the bottom in any circumstance calling it fairness.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As discussed previously, "fairness" is highly contextual. In many cases, fairness is an impossibility.

 

[mtcn77]

As discussed previously, "fairness" is highly contextual. In many cases, fairness is an impossibility.

Such is the fate of a Christian democracy. Can you imagine living among these lunatics rising up, daily, to their oppressors in hopes of reaching the 'demo' majority? No further clause of qualification is required of them to take control of whatever demolition party they gun for.

 

[StrayKAT]

What if the implied is *not* a misery romanticiser and an inspired toughnut? A true female chauvinist! I suppose by now they should have started playing the same tune like a broken tape recorder.


Funny, how it all performed according to the book. You lost your ego.

Well, I didn't say she was miserable per se. I said she was traumatized. But sure, she could be a tough cookie as a result of that. I just don't think it was the right kind of tough. Her brand of toughness promoted only elitism. I'd prefer the toughness of a martial arts instructor or drill sargeant, who can be a hardass, but still wants to build people up.

 

[R-T-B]

You are supporting organization that is made to "increase" number of LGBTQ+ people in a goddamn OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY, where you can be fully anonymous, nobody ever asks you about your gender or what kind of sex you enjoy and nobody gives a flying f*ck about your political views. Who the hell even knows if LGBTQ+ people are even underrepresented in OS???

It doesn't unfairly support any particular group, it strives for fair distribution if that. Honestly I wonder where you got the idea from my comment on what is actually enforcable that I even think THAT is a good idea (I don't, but don't let that stop you from downvoting me along party lines).

I think it's overdramatized by people with no cards in this fight, nothing more.

Linux is Torvalds' baby and he wants to see it grow.

He's also the one that adopted this, or did I misunderstand?

nobody ever asks you about your gender or what kind of sex you enjoy and nobody gives a flying f*ck about your political views.

You should know better than to believe this in any longterm interpersonal environment, even digital ones.

 

[mtcn77]

Well, I didn't say she was miserable per se. I said she was traumatized. But sure, she could be a tough cookie as a result of that. I just don't think it was the right kind of tough. Her brand of toughness promoted only elitism. I'd prefer the toughness of a martial arts instructor or drill sargeant, who can be a hardass, but still wants to build people up.

Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks, else you are an employee which, so these idiots think, is a substitute for greatness.

 

[StrayKAT]

Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks, else you are an employee which, so these idiots think, is a substitute for greatness.

Well, Alexander the "Great" had his dad and Aristotle who both paved the way for the so called Philosopher-King. And Phillip himself had mastered the phalanx from a long Hellene tradition (notably the Spartans).. Aristotle himself had Plato... and Plato himself had Pythagoras. Etc..

What are we talking about again?

 

[mtcn77]

Well, Alexander the "Great" had his dad and Aristotle who both paved the way for the so called Philosopher-King And Phillip himself had mastered the phalanx from a long Hellene tradition (notably the Spartans).. Aristotle himself had Plato... and Plato himself had Pythagoras. Etc..

What are we talking about again?

That Aristotle was elitist by your standards. I'm against relativism, this nonsense religion where there are no constants. It just is a giant contradiction of itself, there has to be a relation and a constant one at that if anything is a phenomena.
Plato is against that. He put together the democratic ideal without inherent proof. Much like what Kant did.

 

[R-T-B]

Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks...

Rise Rapture Rise!

 

[StrayKAT]

That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

Definitely. I don't endorse it at all. As was Plato and Pythagoras.. It was Pythagoras himself who was known for Mystery Cults (the most elitist crap possible.. still mimicked today with Masons and Scientology and such).

 

[R-T-B]

That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

Dude, whatever fits his agenda. Don't even bother. He's an embarassment that's making me reconsider my libertarian side (as small as it was).

That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

I mean, he was and he'd probably even be proud of that term, yes?

 

[StrayKAT]

Honestly, I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. Just going with the flow.

 

[mtcn77]

Honestly, I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. Just going with the flow.

Well, it was you who said Aristotle was Plato's pupil. The mere fact his anthology is totally against the former says volumes. You cannot disprove something without prior examination.

Dude, whatever fits his agenda. Don't even bother. He's an embarassment that's making me reconsider my libertarian side (as small as it was).



I mean, he was and he'd probably even be proud of that term, yes?

I didn't read Aristotle. Not being too proud like some who act dismissive though in relative positions...

 

[R-T-B]

Well, it was you who said Aristotle was Plato's pupil.

He literally attended Plato's academy, so yeah, he was.

You cannot disprove something without prior examination.

You can when it has literally no foundation, because there is literally nothing comprehensible to examine.

Pretty much what's going on here.