The second offense is that there is a picture of him with a MAGA hat somewhere on the Internet.
That was enough for someone to say they're uncomfortable attending the same conference as him.
Because he is a Mormon, he tried to solve the issue the Mormon way, offering them to discuss the issue. This was considered "tone policing" by the anonymous "Linux Foundation" account.
The raging assholes enforcing this fake social justice nonsense must be unambiguously called out by anyone with half a brain.
Sarah Mei has been involved in this type of attack before, so this raises alarm bells to me that she's at the center of another. I fear she's becoming a massive influence towards this kind of Stalinistic attack.
This has some very interesting parallels to the current drama at Stack Overflow w/Monica Cellio. Someone is accused of breaking the CoC. The governing body expels this person in a public an explicit way. Looking into the details shows that really that person was just not following $GROUP_THINK.
In Stack Overflow's case this seems to be headed towards a Slander/Libel. I hope we don't end up in a world where this is the only way to follow $GROUP_THINK.
> Someone is accused of breaking the CoC. The governing body expels this person in a public an explicit way. Looking into the details shows that really that person was just not following $GROUP_THINK.
Note that this is pretty much what you would predict if CoC's were inherently politicized statements, as much as a MAGA hat. Which is exactly what opponents of CoC's have been contending for a long time.
CoC always are about promoting a specific moral framework, one where traditionally marginalized people are protected. So yes, going against that framework is going against the CoC.
>Hi all, We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated and his registration to the event has been revoked. Our events should and will be a safe space
Could we try to be less orwellian? Are we really banning people who say things we don't like on YouTube?
I feel like we’re on track to having to sign a sworn affidavit that you’re not a Republican, and don’t support any Republicans, to get a job, renew your driver’s license, rent an apartment, get a checking account… it sounds ridiculous, but did where we are now just a few years ago.
How the on earth did the kernel community allow these parasites to become arbiters of morality? And where is Linus Torvalds? He surely despises this nonsense as much as anyone.
If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees.
If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees.
If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees.
To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.
This SJW policing really sickens me. Brendan Eich, Curtis Yavin, Donglegate, "sexist" t-shirt astrophysicist, RMS, now this guy and who knows how many less prominent ones. And the problem is that it's so widespread. I don't know of any community which isn't infected by it.
And really, what can you do about it? If you are not already set for life you can't afford to step out against it unless you are willing to risk your livelihood.
My personal opinion - keep politics and religion the fuck out of the IT community.
I personally love building, coding, etc. I rather watch two people argue about emacs vs. vim; I vote vim. Or spaces vs. tabs; I vote spaces.
Remember the days when you could sit at work building something for your customers without having to hear about someone's political or religious views?
Pro Tip: Treat politics and religious like bedroom talk. Keep it out of the work environment. Leave it for the bar/pub, with your friends or on social media.
That's the scary thing. He left it on social media and they went out and found it and used it against him. I 1000% agree with how you feel about it but this is a big issue when people go looking for someone's faults in their personal lives or past to try and publicly ruin someone's reputation.
But for real talk - I prefer tabs. They feel cleaner and you don't have to count. It's just one button and you're done. Who want's to push spacebar that many times?
As IT becomes bigger, it inevitably attracts politics. Linux plays a big enough role in our society to attract all sorts of evil people. If you own a gold mine, you also need an army to protect it.
Well, then maybe people ought to disregard it when someone is wearing a MAGA hat, or bringing politics up in any other way. Because not doing so will only lead some people to do it more often just to spite them.
If it has no effect, people stop doing it (same applies for overt racism, actually). If you want politics out of IT, then just ignore it. That's what they should've done, instead of calling it into everyone's attention like they did.
Hmmm, so exactly the thing that so many people said would happen has happened? Surely not!
CoCs are not laws. The purpose of laws is to define what is allowed by what is explicitly prohibited and by these being all that is prohibited. CoCs on the other hand are an ill-defined subset of what is prohibited that is selectively enforced for political goals. They do not bring any of the benefits of codified laws. They do not clarify what is and isn't allowed since they are so general that none of those who wouldn't grasp these rules intuitively would grasp them after reading a CoC. I see no value added by CoCs, only potential for abuse.
Is anyone surprised by this? I certainly am not. It really is inevitable.
When the whole CoC was shoehorned in the Linux Kernel, many people warned that this was going to happen. We were just hand waved with "No such thing would happen" because the people behind the CoC were not racist, etc, despite when the previous events like the whole opal mess indicated otherwise.
The really ironic thing here is that America(and Silicon Valley) was built on historical events like this. A whole lot of geniuses and skilled people were driven to America by similar groupthink lynchings happening in Europe and Asia up until and including WW2. They built America into a powerhouse. If this continues to happen then Silicon Valley is going to get a painful history lesson they could have easily avoided.
I used to think The Great Filter as one of the explanations to the Fermi Paradox was just nuts - but sadly the last several years in particular have shown how it's absolutely possible. Apparently civilizations can be too successful.
Then again I suppose one shouldn't be too surprised; it would be easy to argue that Rome fell mainly because it became too successful and turned inward onto itself - much like many parts of our society are - the need for a letter like this to be written is proof there.
Uh, this imho sheds light onto another completely different but bigger issue:
Certain people or organizations, due to their size (organizations) or influence (people/organizations) become some sort of judges in moral topics and the problem here is that they usually have backgrounds in other stuff, have not been elected by anyone (often times they just start screaming louder, and people follow) and do not apply any form of fairness to the accused.
There is no form of due process, no hearings, just attacks.
This is not justice.
And let me be clear: this problem is beyond the specific political tone of this specific case, and happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
People just start throwing accusations at each other, and who screams the louder and/or manages to get more attention wins.
There appears to be a sizable segment of society that is unwittingly expanding their definition of politics to encompass civility and human decency. To treat them as if these are somehow merely political opinions, rather than the foundations of professional ethics. We're living in an era of political extremism and populism, and it's going to clash with everyday and professional life. This is not the fault of those holding the line of ethics. It should be seen as a wake up call that the things being touted as opinion and politics are actually far outside the realm of normal. And while this is somehow being tolerated in the political sphere, there's no reason to expect that to be the case in smaller more intellectual areas, such as the Linux Foundation.
Have you considered that maybe it might be the other way around? Issues which where formerly just a matter of political opinion are now being presented as moral issues, and that as a result anyone perceived to be on "the other side" (regardless of any nuances present in their actual opinion) must be a dispicable human being who deserves whatever consequences they receive for their iniquity.
(And before you counter with an extreme example of a truly dispicable opinion, consider the context here: is what Mr. Wood said here in any way comparable to the example you're about to give?)
What privilege to insert oneself into an organization that exists because of the hard work and dedication of others, fix a problem that didn't exist by harassing the powers that be into accepting a set of rules you've imposed, and then begin using those rules to retroactively punish anyone you don't like.
The people who should be blamed for this aren't social justice types. They're just doing what they do. It's the spineless leadership of these organizations that allow interlopers to destroy that which was built by others as an exercise of their new power.
>
Individuals who participate (or plan to participate) in Linux Foundation events should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that comports with both the letter and spirit of this policy prohibiting harassment and abusive behavior, whether before, during or after the event. This includes statements made in social media postings, online publications, text messages, and all other forms of electronic communication.
I regularly see posts that are...intense...on this forum, and many others. They make anything that Wood did seem pretty tame.
I guess any organization has a right to do whatever they want with their hosted services, but you might ask a certain Ms. Streisand about how certain small issues can blow up.
There's a good chance that Mr. Wood will suddenly see a great deal of rather...strident...support, as a result of this. Robert Martin is pretty cool, but not everyone is Uncle Bob.
One of the features I really want in both Facebook and Twitter is the ability to mark people as enemies. Starting with a small number (eg 100x) of friend/enemy labels, they can use graph analysis algorithms to infer my level of friendship or antagonism towards everyone in the network, following the ancient principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be very helpful for me to be able to click on a new person's profile and see how aligned we are. After all, I don't want to go to parties with my enemies, I don't want to work for companies run by my enemies, I don't want to contribute to projects initiated by my enemies, etc, and I assume my enemies feel the same way about me.
This, btw, is why I have separate twitter accounts for my silos of interest: my fellow programmers don't care about the non-tech podcasts, I follow, my politics, my religion, my hobbies, and especially my views on Star Wars -- I have separate accounts and separate social circles for each of these topics. I'm surprised so many people use just one account for everything because any two people, selected at random, can find a reason not to like each other. I prefer to keep a tight focus.
The reality of our lives well before internet is that we don't speak the same topics, or not the same way, whether we're at work, or between close friends, or at home, or in public, etc.
We have 'circles' or 'domains' in our social lives.
That's the one thing Google+ did right, by the way. The one thing 'groups' features are just abysmally bad at modelling in online environments – despite e.g. RPG having solved those mechanics 20 years ago. I think it's on purpose, because blurring those psychological lines somehow must yield higher ROI, in some way or another.
For anyone who sees this: the link is being flag- and vote-brigaded, rather than being discussed, about an hour after it was listed. The same conduct that spawned the letter is being applied here to attempt to mute dissent.
[+] [-] swalsh|6 years ago|reply
I spent maybe 40 minutes last night trying to find out what Charles did that violated the CoC. The best I could do was find this: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1187181890920312833
It seems like he was kicked from the conference for having the nerve to make a youtube video with his opinion.
If someone can show me something more significant... PLEASE... because i've been searching, I just haven't found it.
[+] [-] pnako|6 years ago|reply
The first offense is from his twitter account:
>Latter Day Saint (Christian), Conservative
The second offense is that there is a picture of him with a MAGA hat somewhere on the Internet.
That was enough for someone to say they're uncomfortable attending the same conference as him. Because he is a Mormon, he tried to solve the issue the Mormon way, offering them to discuss the issue. This was considered "tone policing" by the anonymous "Linux Foundation" account.
The raging assholes enforcing this fake social justice nonsense must be unambiguously called out by anyone with half a brain.
[+] [-] praveenperera|6 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1192261086810116096?s=20 reply
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fellshard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _pgmf|6 years ago|reply
What a time to be alive!
[+] [-] dgrin91|6 years ago|reply
In Stack Overflow's case this seems to be headed towards a Slander/Libel. I hope we don't end up in a world where this is the only way to follow $GROUP_THINK.
[+] [-] zozbot234|6 years ago|reply
Note that this is pretty much what you would predict if CoC's were inherently politicized statements, as much as a MAGA hat. Which is exactly what opponents of CoC's have been contending for a long time.
[+] [-] rmc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelmrose|6 years ago|reply
Could we try to be less orwellian? Are we really banning people who say things we don't like on YouTube?
[+] [-] commandlinefan|6 years ago|reply
I feel like we’re on track to having to sign a sworn affidavit that you’re not a Republican, and don’t support any Republicans, to get a job, renew your driver’s license, rent an apartment, get a checking account… it sounds ridiculous, but did where we are now just a few years ago.
[+] [-] zarkov99|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgzl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voxl|6 years ago|reply
If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees.
If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees.
To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.
[+] [-] Hitton|6 years ago|reply
And really, what can you do about it? If you are not already set for life you can't afford to step out against it unless you are willing to risk your livelihood.
[+] [-] sterkekoffie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _pgmf|6 years ago|reply
Never apologize.
[+] [-] mrburton|6 years ago|reply
I personally love building, coding, etc. I rather watch two people argue about emacs vs. vim; I vote vim. Or spaces vs. tabs; I vote spaces.
Remember the days when you could sit at work building something for your customers without having to hear about someone's political or religious views?
Pro Tip: Treat politics and religious like bedroom talk. Keep it out of the work environment. Leave it for the bar/pub, with your friends or on social media.
Now real talk - tabs vs. spaces? ;)
[+] [-] umvi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnxli|6 years ago|reply
But for real talk - I prefer tabs. They feel cleaner and you don't have to count. It's just one button and you're done. Who want's to push spacebar that many times?
[+] [-] rfhjt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skaruts|6 years ago|reply
If it has no effect, people stop doing it (same applies for overt racism, actually). If you want politics out of IT, then just ignore it. That's what they should've done, instead of calling it into everyone's attention like they did.
[+] [-] Smithalicious|6 years ago|reply
CoCs are not laws. The purpose of laws is to define what is allowed by what is explicitly prohibited and by these being all that is prohibited. CoCs on the other hand are an ill-defined subset of what is prohibited that is selectively enforced for political goals. They do not bring any of the benefits of codified laws. They do not clarify what is and isn't allowed since they are so general that none of those who wouldn't grasp these rules intuitively would grasp them after reading a CoC. I see no value added by CoCs, only potential for abuse.
[+] [-] im3w1l|6 years ago|reply
> I can't wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it's been infiltrated by SJW's Hahahah
> Some people are saying that the Contributor Covenant is a political document, and they're right.
[+] [-] quantummkv|6 years ago|reply
When the whole CoC was shoehorned in the Linux Kernel, many people warned that this was going to happen. We were just hand waved with "No such thing would happen" because the people behind the CoC were not racist, etc, despite when the previous events like the whole opal mess indicated otherwise.
The really ironic thing here is that America(and Silicon Valley) was built on historical events like this. A whole lot of geniuses and skilled people were driven to America by similar groupthink lynchings happening in Europe and Asia up until and including WW2. They built America into a powerhouse. If this continues to happen then Silicon Valley is going to get a painful history lesson they could have easily avoided.
[+] [-] EricE|6 years ago|reply
Then again I suppose one shouldn't be too surprised; it would be easy to argue that Rome fell mainly because it became too successful and turned inward onto itself - much like many parts of our society are - the need for a letter like this to be written is proof there.
[+] [-] ElijahLynn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sebguer|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] znpy|6 years ago|reply
Certain people or organizations, due to their size (organizations) or influence (people/organizations) become some sort of judges in moral topics and the problem here is that they usually have backgrounds in other stuff, have not been elected by anyone (often times they just start screaming louder, and people follow) and do not apply any form of fairness to the accused.
There is no form of due process, no hearings, just attacks.
This is not justice.
And let me be clear: this problem is beyond the specific political tone of this specific case, and happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
People just start throwing accusations at each other, and who screams the louder and/or manages to get more attention wins.
It's scary.
[+] [-] jonbronson|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ajedi32|6 years ago|reply
(And before you counter with an extreme example of a truly dispicable opinion, consider the context here: is what Mr. Wood said here in any way comparable to the example you're about to give?)
[+] [-] notadev|6 years ago|reply
The people who should be blamed for this aren't social justice types. They're just doing what they do. It's the spineless leadership of these organizations that allow interlopers to destroy that which was built by others as an exercise of their new power.
[+] [-] ckastner|6 years ago|reply
What does that have to do with the event and its code of conduct?
[+] [-] sincerely|6 years ago|reply
> Individuals who participate (or plan to participate) in Linux Foundation events should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that comports with both the letter and spirit of this policy prohibiting harassment and abusive behavior, whether before, during or after the event. This includes statements made in social media postings, online publications, text messages, and all other forms of electronic communication.
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|6 years ago|reply
I guess any organization has a right to do whatever they want with their hosted services, but you might ask a certain Ms. Streisand about how certain small issues can blow up.
There's a good chance that Mr. Wood will suddenly see a great deal of rather...strident...support, as a result of this. Robert Martin is pretty cool, but not everyone is Uncle Bob.
[+] [-] d_burfoot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikece|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] K0SM0S|6 years ago|reply
The reality of our lives well before internet is that we don't speak the same topics, or not the same way, whether we're at work, or between close friends, or at home, or in public, etc.
We have 'circles' or 'domains' in our social lives.
That's the one thing Google+ did right, by the way. The one thing 'groups' features are just abysmally bad at modelling in online environments – despite e.g. RPG having solved those mechanics 20 years ago. I think it's on purpose, because blurring those psychological lines somehow must yield higher ROI, in some way or another.
[+] [-] ElijahLynn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lone_haxx0r|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ncmncm|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] htk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xrd|6 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/CHERdotdev/status/1190404796924268544
[+] [-] xrd|6 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/mimismash/status/1185942308769976320
[+] [-] Fellshard|6 years ago|reply