What if we can use a CoC against the SJWs? Like what we can do is have one that basically says
>"any incidents on social media have no relevance to this project, and anyone attempting to get a team member in trouble will immediately be kicked from the team."
Just a thought.
not a very intelligent thought. the whole point of CoCs is that they encourage inclusivity and shit. fighting a popularity war against that makes you look like a faggot trump supporter claiming to be in the "silent majority" about white supremacy and shit.
if you have a real issue with this stuff, engage with it in a non-faggot way. use your real name and debate in good faith about overreach and stuff.
but ultimately, if people agree that they don't feel comfortable adding or removing something you request, you just have to learn to accept that. if you're autistic you don't just get to retreat to the internet to avoid people all disagreeing with your fucked up sense of norms.
The whole point of that is to reduce internal fighting like what happened to that one project, I think it was nodejs, where someone got kicked from a github project for posting some normal thing on twitter and the SJWs hot hamblasted.
Arguing against these CoC's is pretty much career suicide as they'll immediately assume that it means that you want to allow for various forms of abuse directed towards them.
There's really no use trying to argue against the modern day political "correctness" movement with their "Ether you're 100% with us or you're a white supremacist Trump supporter"-attitude. They're simply too entrenched to allow themselves to actually argue over what they believe. Just look at how they react to minorities and women, who they see themselves as guardians of, not agreeing with them. If you haven't seen it, it's not pretty, often involving doxxing and other abuse.
In short: These CoC's are bullshit intended for the political correctness movement to mark open source projects as "theirs" and there's really no way to argue against them without having people label you a racist, misogynist, homophobe Trump supporter.
my concern is that if i ask you for the details of that particular case it'll turn out that he was @reply-bombing someone with that eggplant emoji and you and everyone else defending him is going to insist that there was no meaning behind it and it was just a harmless emoji.
you can couch your response by saying at the outset that you support the spirit of the CoC but wonder about the execution.
the whole problem is that the people that are uncomfortable with the CoC are not used to being careful or measured with their words. mostly it's people with aspergers or autism who found that they can finally be themselves on the internet, but in the last few years suddenly cultural norms they thought they had escaped are catching up with them.
you can still engage with CoC advocates, you just have to engage with them in a way that they recognize and respect. if you have a tangible (even hypothetical) example of something you feel would be skewered that ought not be, then illustrate your critique with that example. talk it out.
this isn't that fucking complicated. taking shots across the bow from the now notorious haven of anonymity (notorious because of 4chan and everything faggots here have done) doesn't foster a worthwhile discussion. it just entrenches camps.
>use your real name
No one with a brain would try to do this, and people that do end up without jobs because of fucking fyggyts with no lives harassing them 24/7.
I have no sympathy for eggplant bombers. If they spam that emoji they deserve it. Not the dick part, but the spamming part. Spammers are cancer. I'm talking about people who tweet something kind of related to trump or something not PC, and get socially murdered.
like i said in >>52616767, just measure your language and couch your reply in the reaffirmation that you agree with the principle/spirit, but want to ensure that you go about it the right way and don't leave people out.
i've never seen anyone criticize the CoC without devolving into a quivering mass of autism though, so maybe the characteristics that drive people to make those anonymous bitchy rants also make it impossible to engage constructively.
>not a very intelligent thought.
>use your real name and debate in good faith about overreach and stuff.
Talk about not very intelligent thought.. If you want to have next SJW rally in front of your house and/or have it burned down and/or have SJWs phoning and mailing your employer about your "malicious" behaviour, go ahead.
again, see >>52616852
or i'd like to see an actual case of someone being completely reasoned and measured in his language from the outset and making it clear that he's not trying to poison pill the whole project actually leading to the rallies and house being burned down that you're talking about.
or is this more exaggerated horse shit from the camp of autistic folks who never learned to measure their language?
how ironic that pro-inclusivity SJWs hate autists for not being "neurologically typical" enough to follow the peer group's social and moral beliefs
>we're inclusive, even to fat gay black transexual satanists BUT ONLY IF YOU'RE NOT A FUQIN NERD THEN UR A TYPICAL FATASS NECKBEARD UGGO FUCK YOUUUU-tumblr
you're just cementing the point. if the best parting shot you can make is a greentext hyperbolic shitpost then you should definitely expect a rally at your house as it burns down.
if you're not a good advocate for your point of view, do the whole camp a favor and lie low. all severely autistic people seem to accomplish is to give credibility to the claim that the entrenched/veteran participants of communities are toxic by most reasonable standards.
To me, your use of the phrase "measured language" sounds like "saying shit i dont want to hear".
But really, you are right that there is not much that can be done other than leave the project outright and fork as much of your own work as possible.
Reality check: Even hardcore leftists are divided on child SRS/HRT.
Another reality check: Very few sane people are likely to reject code because it came from a person they disagree with on one specific subject. OpenBSD doesn't make a point of excluding all GNU software from their ports tree. Sane men and women don't block all contributions from republicans or democrats. Hillary Clinton would probably accept a patch from donald trump (i don't know about trump accepting patches from hillary...)
Non-contributing comment fagbags, regardless of whatever insane label they have created for themselves, be it "transnormative demifurry strongwomyn"or "brown pilled skinhead ubermensch revivalist", however, tend to make a big deal over this. Perhaps because it's the only way those intellectually crippled pseudo-philosophers can enforce their viewpoints. Actually justifying them in writing is beyond the scope of their stunted critical reasoning skills. Think of them as bullies who just punch you if you don't like their favorite cartoon instead of A: coping with it like an adult or B: inappropriately starting a debate so ill-placed and trivial that even someone with low functioning autism is guaranteed to cringe a little.
i'm exasperated that you guys continue to paint this picture without any actual instances of this shit happening. every time i see CoC people get stirred up it's because someone went in and antagonized them, condescended, and made some niggardly parting shot.
show me some case where none of that shit happened and the person still got lynched. stop characterizing it and make it real. failing that, stop complaining.
it sounds like you're saying that you can contribute code as long as you contribute good code and don't politicize it. so what's the issue? that there's an open issue in github where a bunch of people are bikeshedding about stuff you don't like?
is this the first time you've dealt with bikeshedding? how old are you fucking people?
Some shit SJWs made up to mark their territory on github projects. It's basically a set of rules for a project. Personally I'm not against rule sets, but I am against using those against normal contributors.
If the best parting shot YOU can make is responding to a flippant shitpost with deeply targeted personal attacks that basically say "you are an inferior creature and nothing you say has value, you are terrible, be neither seen nor heard" you just might be the toxic person here. It's just a silly post on 4chan and what are you doing, telling an entire class of people that they're just wrong and shouldn't speak, ever, because they don't have enough charisma?
There is no world where hateful people like you are better than tactless nerds that hold arbitrary political beliefs that run against your arbitrary political beliefs
None. It doesn't exist. You're just shit. People like you are destructive in every community they enter, no matter which group you target as the inferior others that needs to be socially subjugated while the master race does all the talking.
>Do the party a favor and shut up,
In my personal experience, every time this goes up, the admins then spend more time enforcing CoC or PC violations rather than making decisions on the project leaving the choices to individual contributors (which then causes more problems).
My own anecdote: one of the guys I worked with spent months trying to root out a supposed "sociopath" who kept putting in penis and rape jokes in some of the scripts. The project was put on hold and everyone was locked out of editing or submitting anything for weeks.
You can not politicize code, but if some child at starbucks finds out you disagree with them it's a prime opportunity for them to feel like their (usually newfound, within the last few years) views are truthful by shaming, blaming, and bullying until the ``enemy'' is vanquished. If the ``enemy'' is vanquished that means they were wrong and you were right!!
>OSS is mostly straight men
>nobody cares who you vote for, just write code
>suddenly gays and women are accepted
>NO REPUBLICANS ALLOWED FUCKING PATRIARCHAL SHITLORDS I WON'T WORK ANYWHERE NEAR YOU OR ENABLE YOUR SUCCESS IN LIFE
sexual attraction to men reduces ability to function in a productive society?
That's maybe because people see the people that are behind CoC and especially things they achieved?
Trying to get Phil Mason fired, harrasing Matt Taylor even after apologizing (for wearing a fucking shirt), getting that professor out of the university because he didn't agree with SJWs runing fun for everybody else.
It's fucking not like developers are putting in their code functions with names like "killNigger" or present their political ideas. It's the SJW that do it. And you are fucking letting them stomp over your shit, ruin it and claim that without them, you would be nothing.
yes try applying the CoCk to the biggest open source project in the world.
see what the project leader says
You assume that it's possible to oppose a CoC without being labeled as a whole bunch of less-than-savory things, but the unfortunate reality is that it just can't be done. If you support CoC's in spirit they'll ether tell you that a CoC shouldn't be a problem or that maybe you should write your own CoC for their approval.
Sure, you can engage CoC advocates, but you can't engage them in any constructive matter where you oppose their CoC's. They immediately jump to a number of conclusions just to demonize you so that they don't have to argue. Ether you're putting the CoC they want in, or then you're against the spirit of their CoC's. There's nothing in between as then they'd actually have the have a real discussion and they will absolutely not reconsider their stance. They're simply too convinced about being right on everything to allow themselves to have discussion beyond accusing anyone in opposition to their CoC's nazi's, white supremacists, misogynists and Trump supporters.
And if you don't see the problem with having to argue against something by saying you agree with it, or else be spammed on the internet and black listed, then I don't really know what else to say.
If that was the extent of these cocs, that'd be fine.
The problem is, it isn't.
They extend to outside the scope of the project, to personal things.
See the opal guy.
To go straight to godwins, I don't care if hitler submitted a patch, if he keeps politics out of his patches, and it's good code, that's fine.
The current CoCs are against this.
It's also vague.
Who defines what uncomfortable, and what's correct?
Do I have to worry about
//Beware, this is the code of satan
Because it might offend Christians to work on that?
See cow2beef.png for an example of how multiprocessing actually gives a speed up, because that could offend hindus?
So essentially, unless you completely sterilize your project, and avoid any human element in it, you'll probably be good, but otherwise, all it takes is someone to get offended at something completely innocuous like above, and the CoC makes you take action.
It's going back to the Victorian era of can't say anything dirty,or improper.