>Dear Linus Torvalds,
>Request GitHub to stop using 'Git' in their name
>GitHub has proven to be a racist company openly discriminating white people (both male and female) and abusing their rights.
>We ask you to seek the end of the abuse of the name 'Git' (which belongs to you) by those people. They give Git a bad name and this must stop.
also: move to GitLab
Simply saying white people are unsuitable isn't racism, the same way saying women are unsuitable to tasks involving high physical strength isn't sexist. Actively denying them a job due to being white is racist, however, but there is no evidence of that occurring here.
I don't care personally, I'm just pointing out what's in the OP isn't discrimination.
Making the statement isn't the problem. Making it a goal of github is, however. Making broad generalizations on an entire race and/or gender is quite the opposite of embracing diversity, and supporting that idea means that they themselves aren't fit for that task.
Most of this seem like standard SJW bullshit, however:
>Request GitHub to stop using 'Git' in their name
Can someone explain this?
How is 'git' as a word raciss?
Being an upside-down convict, 'Git' to me means an idiot as per the british usage, however it's never implied race or gender...
How is a point in a slide titled "6 THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO TALK ABOUT BUT WE MUST" making it a goal of github?
The point is completely valid regardless, white people have already been leading diversity for all of history and look how that has turned out.
you are a git
Git is a name owned by Linus Torvalds, its creator
GitHub uses this name which may not be legal
so the petition author asks Linus to act against GitHub because he hopes Linus won't tolerate this racism
the name git has nothing to do with racism
is it this hard to understand?
white people do not care for diversity
they care for results
if black women could code well, there would be no single white person in tech corporations
but they cannot
and denying a workplace from a higher skilled white to 'diverse' it and give the job to a totally incompetent black person IS RACISM against white people.
No, that's not difficult at all, but I wasn't going to give breitbart the hits and OP hadn't explained it all.
I honestly thought the SJWs had come up with some crazy rational on why the word 'git' was raciss.
Turns out OP was, as per standard, a faggot.
>black people are unsuitable to lead anything regarding not committing crimes.
this actually can be proven with statistics
(e.g. in usa blacks are 13% but commit 50% homicides, see http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1455109441)
white managers being unable to be fair and somehow act against 'diversity' is an open lie and anti-white racism
>(e.g. in usa blacks are 13% but commit 50% homicides, see http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1455109441)
Which can also be attributed to their socio-economic status, which again is a result of slavery.
We don't know for sure if it is a goal of github, but it's a valid concern because the person who said it is the VP of Social Impact at github. As a sort of extreme example, if some schmuck says he thinks all muslims should drop dead, that's not a big deal, but if it's said by a president or general, then that's a lot more concerning.
And it's not valid simply because it's still discrimination. Even worse, this is discrimination for the sake of discrimination only. There is nothing to gain from hiring people based on their race/gender instead of their set of skills.
You seem to be confused. Nobody is saying anything about denying white people work, just that they are unsuitable to LEAD diversity, i.e., a job held by one person. As you said yourself, white people do not care for diversity, which only furthers the point that white people are unsuitable for the job.
Yes, that's what free speech is. Although I'm not sure why anyone would do that unless black people were genuinely unsuitable for the job. A role playing a white person in a movie, for example, it's completely reasonable to say a black person is unsuitable to play Steve Jobs.
>>(e.g. in usa blacks are 13% but commit 50% homicides, see http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6a_1455109441)
>Which can also be attributed to their socio-economic status, which again is a result of slavery.
no, it can't. see picture.
please bring your shitty views to /pol/ so they can destroy you there. this is no place for such discussion.
The TASK of increasing diversity in the workplace is different than diversity itself. Besides, workplaces are already mostly white, adding more won't solve anything.
How is it discrimination? They aren't denying white people jobs.
>which again is a result of slavery.
no, it isn't
Then why were most criminals poor before resorting to crime? Do you even have any sources?
Are you saying niggers are rich? Most niggers aren't rich, they're poor. They grow up in shitty neighbourhoods, they become bangers, and do crime. The fact is studies show there is a correlation between poverty and crime.
>workplaces are already mostly white
workplaces must not be selected by skin color
THIS IS RACISM
you base the decision of who will get the job on their skin color
workplaces are to be selected by skills
and they are so, because business is business
it seems white people know how to work and are skilled because they go to school
instead of being all gangsta and wander cities all day looking to dindu nothing
is it so hard to understand?
Whoa, calm down. Hiring more white people WON'T increase diversity, that's a simple fact, I never said they should hire non-whites instead. That's why the issue of diversity in the workplace is as complex as it is.
>how came so stupid people are here?
the irony is so palpable that i'm choking on it
>citing an unattributed jpeg as proof that the nature/nurture/culture debate is completely solved
step it up, bruh
develop some scientific literacy
you total imbecile
your 'diversity' is not a goal
it can be a goal only to a racist person
who doesn't care for skills and just thinks a black must have the same job as white, even if the black is unskilled, has no school and did absolutely nothing good with his entire life, while all the whites that are rejected learned and worked hard to get that job
you are a pathetic worm
I can assure you in my business I never hire blacks or any ethnics. Why? Becasue they never have the skills. Simple. One young black guy did come close to getting hired but then he mentioned something about diversity in the interview so into the trash he went. I value logic and reason. Not emotion.
>who doesn't care for skills and just thinks a black must have the same job as white, even if the black is unskilled, has no school and did absolutely nothing good with his entire life, while all the whites that are rejected learned and worked hard to get that job
Please point out where I said this. The ad hominem isn't helping your argument either.
>not hiring someone because you have an emotional bias against diversity
>I value logic and reason
If someone says that white people can't lead diversity, and that "33% isn't enough", they're implying that they need to hire people other than white people, just because they're not white. That's discrimination, and it's no different from hiring Amanda instead of Shaniqua based on the name that shows up on their CV.
The thing with diversity is that it's perfectly fine to encourage it, it hurts nobody and it allows a natural progression of the work environment. However, some of these people are bent on enforcing diversity at an accelerated rate, which ends up hurting the cause. Affirmative action is having the same issue right now; many people (both black and white) feel that Aa cheapens the achievements of black people, as they are judged by color more than skills.
Diversity is a real problem, and weaponizing it for political profit doesn't help at all.
Figured it had to be something like that. Shit thread OP
>they're implying that they need to hire people other than white people
>just because they're not white
No, where did you draw this from?
>it's no different from hiring Amanda instead of Shaniqua based on the name that shows up on their CV
This is actually happening, though, while the opposite is not. Diversity is about giving minorities the same chance to be hired as white people, and when that happens it will level itself out naturally.
>Diversity is about giving minorities the same chance to be hired as white people
which is why 95% of programmers are white males.
because the measurement is the skill, and they are most skilled, intelligent, bright, creative and they actually work (and, guess what, they actually come to work everyday unlike black people)
>They are already being given the same chance.
of course they are
>Because they suck at it and fail to get in based on merit alone
that's what I say
>they now want to get in by force.
and the anti-white leftist racists help them
>Minorities that DO have the same skill level are or have been discriminated against.
it's EXACTLY the opposite
managers will love to hire a woman (or someone of different race)
but in most cases they simply cannot because they are so behind white male candidates that it hurts
this is bullshit
>30% of non-white respondents reported very or extremely high stress compared to 18% of white workers.
stress management, yet another skill possessed only by white people (both male and female)
yet another reason not to hire a pretentious nigger
Got an actual source for that table, or am I just supposed to assume that it wasn't done in a ridiculous way by a group with an agenda (like most "studies" by anti gun groups) or typed up by some /pol/ack with the source being their own ass?
>where did you draw this from?
You mean besides the "not work for white folks to lead" bit? Because that's exactly what it implies.
>This is actually happening, though, while the opposite is not.
I know it's happening, that's why I used it as an example. And the opposite IS happening as well, and it already happened for hiring more females (which make the "some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women" part of the slide really ironic). Affirmative action is also a good example that you conveniently ignored.
>Diversity is about giving minorities the same chance to be hired as white people
Yes it is, and it's important to note that it's exactly as you say it: same chance. Same chance doesn't necessarily imply that they will be hired, or that they will be representative of their population in the area, only that they won't face any kind of discrimination during the hiring process. This means that whether a company is 100% minorities or 100% white people must be fully dependent on the skills of the people that applied for the job, and not based on quotas. Do notice that this concept is what ignited the rug shitstorm at github.
How does this prove your claim? This is just an experiment of what impact perceived discrimination has on the stress levels of minority workers. This does not show actual confirmed cases of discrimination.
>Yes it is, and it's important to note that it's exactly as you say it: same chance. Same chance doesn't necessarily imply that they will be hired, or that they will be representative of their population in the area, only that they won't face any kind of discrimination during the hiring process. This means that whether a company is 100% minorities or 100% white people must be fully dependent on the skills of the people that applied for the job, and not based on quotas. Do notice that this concept is what ignited the rug shitstorm at github.
leftist idiots do not get it
>managers will love to hire a woman (or someone of different race)
Do you have any proof of this?
Like I said, the evidence is there if you spend a couple of minutes searching. But you won't.
Not being suitable to lead is completely different than not being hired. Your other points are completely correct.
just give all applicants the same test to solve, evaluate without looking at any personal data of the candidate, and give them the job basing only on the score
>mfw effect: 95% white male when hard skills needed, 90% white (m+f) when soft skills needed
>Not being suitable to lead is completely different than not being hired.
Yes, but the implication of the presentation is that creating diversity departments on other companies will require hiring people that aren't white. That's why it's an implication. Because it's not said outright. It's implied.
>will require hiring people that aren't white
Hiring people that aren't white is not discrimination. Hiring them BECAUSE they aren't white is, but that was not implied in any way. Saying they are unsuitable is not saying they won't be hired.
>Among the black African–Caribbean respondents, women who reported experiencing racial discrimination at work had higher levels of psychological distress.
>Study on women
Jeez, I wonder why. Could it be that in general women feel more stress. And if they don't feel competent enough for the job, they would feel stressed about it?
Why would you assume there must be only one reason which can cause stress at work?
They state themselves that self reported cases of discrimination are unreliable and provide much more concrete alternative.
What evidence do you want? It seems you won't be happy with anything because you are a bigot.
This thread must be full of bait. Whenever these pro-diversity agendas are set up, they inevitably (and ironically) become racist and sexist. Suddenly organizations are collecting data on people's skin color and their genitalia and using that data to filter people out of their group. It's the very definition of racism and sexism.
A truly egalitarian society does not need to collect this data or meet race/sex quotas. Applicants are hired (or given grants or scholarships) based on their merits and not factors they were born with that are completely outside their control.
Women are now earning degrees more than men at a 2-to-1 rate. Some fields are almost entirely dominated by women (mainly education and health professions.) There are hardly any male teachers left in American schools. You never hear about this because it does not fit the feminist agenda. For some reason technology, and specifically IT and CS, gets picked on for being "sexist" because men happen to outnumber women. Asians are also represented in STEM beyond their proportion of the general population but you don't hear about this because they remain a minority, and that does not fit the agenda.
The American left is being fractured by divisive SJWs who don't even understand the issues they are most rustled about, much less far more important issues like economics. Make no mistake the ownership class is most pleased by this.
And the people parroting this fluff are doing so purely for their own career advancement. Suddenly we have people who have never written a line of code being highly paid judicators in the hiring process and HR department. The woman in OP's pic is a racist and a sexist.
>Hiring them BECAUSE they aren't white is, but that was not implied in any way. Saying they are unsuitable is not saying they won't be hired.
It was implied. It's a broad generalization that leaves no room for dialogue. X people are just not fit for that task. Sure, nobody says they won't get hired, but the implication is that they won't, based on that idea alone.
That said, while I understand your point, it seems to me like we're seeing the phrase "not suitable to lead" from different angles, which is why it's the one thing we can't agree on. I think we can safely drop it at this point, or we'll get stuck discussing it forever.
>A truly egalitarian society does not need to collect this data or meet race/sex quotas.
We do not live in an egalitarian society.
Suppose I want a programmer. My choices are two candidates with almost equal skillsets: a white guy, and a black woman. In an egalitarian society, I would choose the most qualified person, right?
>Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback
I live in a country were people are generally poorer than poor people USA.
We were slaves too for about 500 years.
And somehow our homicide rate is amongst lower scale in europe and thats with us probably having most guns per capita in the world after USA
But hey, dont let facts shatter your fantasy.
>why do different countries with different histories, circumstances, etc. have different outcomes???!!
Get off the computer, the radiation has clearly addled whatever's left of your brain.
Protip: they're all shit. But git is the worst.
>want to add one goddamn file to a git repository
>nope, you've got to basically redo/reset everything to add one goddamn file
How is git even considered good by anyone?
Are we talking about the same program?
Yep, locally. But merging it with your git repository will give you problems because git gets confused for some retarded reason and requires you to basically reset the whole thing just to add one file.
>We do not live in an egalitarian society.
No arguments there.
I would have to look at the study more in-depth to decide whether it has any merit, and wasn't crafted in such a way to "make a point." The fact they varied the quality of the resumes in addition to the names makes the entire study dubious in my opinion; a well-designed study minimizes the independent variables (ideally to one.) Frankly, by allowing the content of the resumes to vary in more than one way (and seemingly every possible way,) it would be very easy to construct the study in such a way to make a point. I could easily construct a study proving the exact opposite.
Even taking the study at face value, the solutions proffered by (most of) these opportunist SJWs are openly, de-facto racist and sexist and therefore do nothing to address the root cause of their issues. They advocate fighting an innate aspect of culture with rigid institutions and litigation which will only create further diversion and ultimately undermine whatever goal they had in the first place. I'm not involved in hiring but I would not be surprised if hiring a woman or minority is viewed as a liability by many because you are far more likely to be facing a discrimination lawsuit of some kind down the road.
I can only think of two discrimination lawsuits filed by white men off the top of my head (one being the guy who wanted to be a Hooters waiter and the other being Yahoo's ongoing fiasco wherein white men were blatantly being passed over for promotions.)
I see the Trump phenomenon in general largely a response to the SJW platforms that will (perhaps) undermine their cause.
>Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women
This is pointless, to have a claim he has to continually enforce his ownership of the term which he hasn't and wont do. That's how open source and non-proprietary works, you don't get to choose who gets to use it.
you add, then you commit, then you push... any other modifications aren't added to the repository online.
if you wanna merge you have to commit all the other files, because you have modifications that aren't acounted in your current local directory and could delete them.
please correct me if i'm wrong, i wanna know
>single example of one successful black doctor as if there were no successful asian doctors
>implying there are more successful black businessmen that have the capital to fund startups than asians
Coincidentally I am working on a multibillion dollar project that was bought out by asians in LA. If you live in that area, you'd probably know what I'm talking about.
Didn't Linus name it git because it's an insult in the first place? I expected the SJWs to jump on this eventually, not the free speech side.
Don't start playing their games, stand by the principles.
ERROR CANNOT PUSH BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE A FILE I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO ADD A SINGLE FUCKING FILE TO THIS PRECIOUS REPOSITORY OMG ABORT ABORT PLEASE RESET EVERYTHING AND TRY AGAIN
Another person that has never used git.
This happens regardless of if anyone did a push before or not, and even with a single-user repository where it's impossible for anyone to commit.
Oh look, it's what I ran. It doesn't work.
Look, other version control systems aren't any better. They have some of the same problems as well. It's really a retarded system that we're all forced into when we have multiple people working on the same project, which is sad.
oh so you just thought you'd go in guns a blazing and use a VCS without any forethought, did you?
Happens to me all the goddamn time.
Try it yourself. Get a test repo on gitsjwhub or one of your meme github clones that will be gone next week, upload a list of files, then change a couple and add a single file to it.
Enjoy your error.
So, let me get this straight. In your mind, you think that people like /g/ users and Torvalds, who are notoriously picky complainers who need everything to be pragmatic, are all secretly fuckwits using a retarded system that makes no sense, and your the only genius who can see that it's fundamentally flawed?
FUCK I hate this stupid fucking board.
Read the free Pro Git book, it's really good. https://progit.org/
It will help you understand on a fundamental level what's going on with git and how it works.
Yeah, yeah, you feel like you shouldn't have to read a book to understand how a VCS works, I know. But trust me on this one, just read at least the first few chapters and it'll all make sense.
>not emailing it to him
you know he'll never read this shit, right?
1. I do not think "git" is trademarked
2. Even if it were then this action only would cause drama and/or unnecessary and confusing rebranding (think about Iceweasel)
3. It solves nothing
Also a trademark policy that says "Anyone can use the name >>git<< freely except in the name of >>github<<" doesn't look good.
>Git is a name owned by Linus Torvalds, its creator
>GitHub uses this name which may not be legal
The word "git" is hardly copyrightable and is only owned by Linus if he trademarked it (and I doubt it).
Can Linus even tell them to leave github out of their name ? It's open source, right ?
Stop linking to britbart when there are legitimate sources avaliable that people here actally trust.
ffs 4chan, news articles are not spam
businessinsider dot com slash github-the-full-inside-story-2016-2
>Women are now earning degrees more than men at a 2-to-1 rate
Yeah and those studies that report that never tell you what they're getting their degrees in. It's all the garbage and easy degrees like English and Sociology that get you 50k in debt.
Yeah, it is.
Most sjw fucks are actually white people who are trying to get brownie points by """" helping'""" black people and feeling good about themselves.
Its not actually helping and makes us look weak.
It's just very funny how all those "anti-racism" people are the most racist of them all.
I myself consider myself a true non-racist - because I simply do not give a SHIT.
I'll make jokes about jews, dindus, rajeets, Chingchongs, but also Hillbilly Bill with his mullet.
However, if it comes to actual people, I do not judge by skin color at all. I simply don't see it as either a good or a bad thing.
One thing about this is that those "Black Names" they cite, like Lakisha and Jamal, in America, are typically only given to lower-class black people.
An intelligent, sensible black parent will give their kid a neutral, american name.
Thus, even just by the name, a framework of the social circumstances and behaviour is constructed.
I have no idea what stereotypical low-intelligence white american names there are, but for example, for Germany, names like this are less likely to get hired:
Names like these are identified with leftists / a leftist family:
Names like these are identified with very conservative people:
Hansjörg, Jörg, Horst, Bernd
A name is not just portraying your race, it's also portraying how your parents probably raised you.
>WAAAH! MOMMY, Unlike PHP, git doesn't just silently do the wrong thing! Waah! Mommymommy I want to be gud at programming but evil software forces me to resolve conflicts! WAH! WAH!
>All these redditors moaning about /pol/ when people are saying "no" to this crap
For crying out loud... This board has always been very hostile towards morons pushing the "diversity is a perfectly valid excuse for racism, sexism and nepotism"-agenda. We don't give a shit about your race, gender, religion, nationality or your sexual preference as long as you don't try to tout it as a reason why people should have to roll out the red carpet for you. All we care about it your ability to do the job and do it well. If you're incompetent then you're incompetent no matter if you're white, brown, black or green.
Don't like it? Then take the advice from picture related.
>Linus creates a system for version control in software development and names it
>Company creates a service around said standard and names their company after the standard making it look like they came up with the whole standard rather than Linus
I'd say Linus would be well within his rights to tell GitHub to stop using the name of the system he created in their name.
>RACISM AND SEXISM IS TOTALLY FINE IF I DO IT!!!! IF ANYONE ELSE DARES TO DO IT THEN REEEE!!!!