Open Letter to the Linux Foundation(blog.cleancoder.com)
So what did this person do? Just wear a MAGA hat? What kind of world do we live in where we consider supporting a democratically elected political candidate a code of conduct violation?
I was at the KiwiCon where Ranty Ben got kicked out. I want to be fair: I thought his talk was stupid and not very useful. But I don't think he should have gotten kicked out. The organizers wouldn't even say why he got kicked out. They didn't say how he specifically violated the Code of Conduct. Was it the ASCII art Goatcx in PGP signing art? Was it the comment about how if you did x to secure yourself you'd be "about as inconspicuous as a tr* Polynesian girl in the desert" or "lesbian f* porn" ?
Hackercons have never really been professional. Later on in that same conference, a Mac kernel hacker did a talk on gdb where he said it was so terrible it'd be like grabbing pig balls. He had a Photoshoped image of the organizer holding some pig balls. The organizer came out, looked at it as the audience laughed and walked off. Obviously they were friends; it was a joke, but I ask you ... what if he had chosen one of female organizers instead?
In such an environment, where is the line? We do we even consider kicking someone out because one person was offended? I realize non-hackercons need to be more professional. Yet, we don't throw people out for preferring emacs vs vim, and we shouldn't throw anyone out for their political beliefs.
You ask what he's done? I and others have been repeatedly asking the same thing, and not one person has provided evidence beyond the initial, flimsy accusation.
In attempting to gather such dead ends under a hash tag, https://twitter.com/hashtag/LinuxFoundationKangarooCourt
The mob generation of these accusations are more thoroughly documented in https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
No, the CoC violation was for making a video, in his very popular podcast channel, supporting the "right" of Somnez to attack women in tech. Since Woods was coming to Kubecon specifically to podcast it, this made several women going to Kubecon feel very unsafe.
> supporting the "right" of Somnez to attack women in tech
Clearly false, borderline slander.
Actually what Somnez did was trying to take heat away from a specific tech-women being attacked in a twitter flamewar, by instead creating heat for himself.
He did this by being generally obnoxious and impolite, and thus an obvious target to follow/tack on to instead. This part was clearly successful and the harassed woman got less heat for it.
However he told lots of tech-people to "shut up". The problem? Some of those people were women.
If he found their opinion offensive or racists, should he not have told those people off because they were women? Should he have treated them differently? Really?
Personally I don't think so. Because IMO that would be the text-book definition of actual sexism.
That seems to be a key distinction.
If I fire an arrow in the dark, and it kills a person of color, does that make it a racist act of manslaughter?
Of course not. Racism denotes the motive of the attacker, not just the nature of the victim. Both have to be present for racism to be a factor.
That may or may not apply here, but I would need to see the video. Regardless, I've seen the 'ascribed motive' attack applied practically nonstop during this whole debacle, conjuring racist motives on the basis of a person of color making an accusation of racism, and not any acts of Charles Wood himself, including the aforementioned video. If that was key evidence, no one has brought it forward.
I used to take principled free speech position in these kind of arguments. I have for Maybe 10 years.
I stopped when I realized that not once, in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored. Actually in most cases, removing them provided a smoother environment/community/event.
I stopped caring about hate speech removal when it is actually about hate speech. Now I worry about state censorship more and stop defending trolls and Nazis.
Interesting how different your experience was.
I saw the opposite, where repeated removings/suppression of people with different views resulted in the creation of echochambers from which little of value emerges.
I am not talking about removing people with different views, I am talking about removing people who promote hate speech.
Someone has a talk saying "Linux is the worst thing that ever happened in IT", let her in. Someone has a talk saying "Arabs are inferior people and if you shut that opinion down you are a snowflake", shut him down.
Like you, I used to conflate the two, now I see how different it is.
You're not arguing in good faith here.
You'd have to be completely insane to conflate "Linux is bad" with "Arabs are inferior," and I don't believe that you ever did.
Supporting a democratically elected candidate, especially outside of the conference in question, can not be conflated with claiming "Arabs are inferior" at a fucking talk at the conference.
You people are so swept up in ideology that you are willing to immediately jump to completely unrealistic positions, that nobody on the opposite side holds, and sidetrack the original discussion into arguing about the position you imagine that your opponents hold.
You're fighting ghosts to feel self-righteous.
I am answering to someone who conflates hate speech equals to "stating opinions I disagree with". I am glad my example was clear enough to show you how absurd this equivalence was.
> Supporting a democratically elected candidate, especially outside of the conference in question, can not be conflated with claiming "Arabs are inferior" at a fucking talk at the conference.
How about "African countries are shitholes"? "Mexicans are rapists"? You wear a person's symbol, you claim ownership over their ideology. And I know historical comparisons are tired, but there are a few racist and genocidal leaders who were democratically elected.
As a European friend, I am sad you are at that point in the US, but yes, one side of your politics is really fucked up to the point of being toxic. It is racist and misogynistic. A community has to choose between being inclusive of women and minorities and being inclusive of people who reject them.
> You're fighting ghosts to feel self-righteous.
When you grew up in some parts of Europe, you learn to fight when some ghosts rise. More than half of the people I work with could not contribute in a world where sexism and racism would reign.
Why did you assume I'm from the US? I'm from a progressive Scandinavian country and would be considered slightly left of center here (which is far-left in the US.)
Trump never said "Mexicans are rapists," he said something along the lines of "They're not bringing their best people... their rapists" which could be misconstrued as "they're."
He did say that African countries are shitholes, while complimenting my country, which wasn't great for our public image worldwide, but I did chuckle at it. It's the sort of off-hand stupid wording you'd hear at a bar late at night, which I figure is part of his appeal to the people that actually like him. Not a good look for a president to be sure.
Trump is not the ghost of Hitler, it can be fun to argue in that kind of hyperbole but he really isn't. And ~50% of the American voting public chose him over Hillary, because it was a shit sandwich vs giant douche race, you can't reasonably suggest banning all those people from Linux conferences.
You should really watch the clip again before you get behind Trump on this one. He definitely refers to mexican immigrants as rapists, although of course "some, I assume, are good people". I'm surprised by the amount of people trying to play semantic games with what Trump is saying in general, the sentiment is clear to everyone. Trying to deconstruct it in hindsight to his favor is.. pointless.
Argue however you want about that you should be able to express your opinions, but please stop trying to sugar-coat Trump. His rethoric is toxic, it's marginalizing minorities and it's affecting how it is to live as a part of a minority and it shows, not only, from the hate crimes rates.
You yourself are interpreting it the worst possible way, out of context.
What's the context? He was talking about people coming here illegally.
Basic common sense would dictate that many gang members, drug runners, criminals in general that we know are coming here, are doing so illegally. As he said, I'm sure some Mexicans that come here illegally are good people, but pretty much all of the influx of criminals from outside our country come here illegally (including people regularly facilitating illegal travel).
You can choose to lie (to yourself and others) about the context of his statements, as if he was referring to ALL Mexicans, but anyone interested in knowing the truth should indeed find his statements for themselves, completely in context.
He's said enough things to criticize that one shouldn't need to stretch the truth to do so, but the desperation of ideologues knows no bounds.
> And ~50% of the American voting public chose him over Hillary, because it was a shit sandwich vs giant douche race, you can't reasonably suggest banning all those people from Linux conferences.
That is a very different situation to choosing to wear a MAGA hat. Choosing to wear a MAGA hat at a large event is a conscious decision to broadcast your endorsement of Trump's policies, ideology, and everything else. It means you want people to know you agree with Trump's stance on immigrants, women, and all the other shit.
Maybe such people still shouldn't be banned from a Linux conference, but they absolutely should be considered as racists and misogynists.
If he wore the MAGA hat at the conference, I would actually be somewhat with you on this, in such a case I think staff should initially politely tell the person to take the hat off and escalate from there. My reasoning for this would be that someone walking around with such a hat at a conference is probably just begging for reactions, and US politics doesn't really fit into a conference environment.
However, you're being disingenuous. He didn't wear it at a large event, he thought it would be a fun idea to put it on in front of Trump Tower and share a picture of it with his friends on social media. That's something I might even do as a fun tourist picture, and I really don't like Trump.
This conference is not banning him for conduct at the event, they are banning him for an innocuous social media post on his personal twitter account, a week before the event has even begun. They are just policing the political views of attendees. That's what people have a problem with.
That’s absurd. Should someone walking around wearing a “Black lived matter” hat be banned as well because it’s potentially controversial?
When did it no longer be okay to express unpopular political views?
I find such reasoning absolutely ridiculous. Personally it brings me great sadness that the ideals of free speech - the ideals, not the legal meaning - have been so happily stomped on.
Yeah, I agree that it's a sad state of affairs. But the US political landscape is currently so torn and people are ravenously defending their own team in a fight away from the center, so much that I can just imagine the shitstorm you'd unleash by wearing a maga hat at a primarily left leaning conference like the Linux foundation conference.
It's not good, it's not healthy for anyone, and I'm wondering how long its going to go on for.
You have to keep in mind, that for the most staunch Trump opponents, any mention of him is likened to a personal attack, they honestly believe that supporting him is on the level of full blown white supremacy and fascism.
And in that climate, even thought it goes against my principles, I would advocate for everyone to just keep their political leanings to themselves at all times in these "professional" gatherings where it shouldn't matter where you stand politically. At least until things calm down.
Man I have to sympathize with you here. It seems no matter the opinion you express people are jumping down your throat. I just want to say that, to me, it appears you’re doing a good job of expressing your opinion in a kind way.
I would love to see hostile tensions like these die out online very soon.
> I am not talking about removing people with different views, I am talking about removing people who promote hate speech.
Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech? You? Why do you get to make that call and not somebody else? The distinction you're attempting to draw does not exist: you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech.
Hate speech has some fairly clear legal definitions in many places. It is speech that singles out negatively a group based on [make a list of criterion]. Typical list: gender, nationality, ethnicity, sex orientation, skin color, preferred text editor.
Honestly, I have yet to find a minority that I find problematic to include to classify hate speech at a tech conference. I am super vocal about my hostility toward every religion, I just shut it up at tech conferences. And when I do talk about the religions I find stupid, I am not calling their supporters names. That's really that simple.
> you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective.
On inclusion of other people? Hell yeah. Except I am giving objective criterion to judge it.
> Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech.
I agree with that sentiment. However, I see nothing of value in purely offensive speech. Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.
Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior.
Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
> Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button
Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process.
> Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior.
Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules.
And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content.
I have yet to find a single example of that.
> Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori.
Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
> And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech
What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to?
On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech:
1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country.
2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling.
3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country.
4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay.
I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned?
Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
Yes, all these 4 statements would fall under hate speech laws in France.
And yes, people have tried to turn these prejudice into eloquent pages with precise terminology or into stand up comedy and have been shut down for it.
Shockingly, France is not a den of conformism yet. It is in the US that Charlie Hebdo covers are censored and where people "agree to disagree" instead of exploring their disagreements.
And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.
> Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.
So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right?
You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation.
Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.
So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you?
I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences.
Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
I'd worry that the doctor might recommend dangerous and ineffective treatments, that the police officers would arrest me on false pretenses, and that the cleaner would steal my belongings and poison my groceries. So, yeah, I'd fire the cleaner, switch doctors, etc.
But... would I let myself attend an industry conference that's also being attended by someone who voted for a politician whose opinions or policies are hostile to me?
Yes. Of course.
I'd also attend a conference that's being attended by someone who thinks I'm going to hell when I die. I'd even attend a conference where one of the speakers thinks that. Because I don't have to trust conference attendees or speakers with my life or health; I don't have to interact with them at all, and if I do, it'll be in a busy public place; and if they were the kind of person to go into a blind rage when they meet someone like me in public, they probably would've done it already and gotten caught.
There's a very wide range of sleazy but not illegal behavior as well as hard to prove illegal acts which also might affect the equation.
For a conference organizer, the primary question is how to make it a positive experience for as many visitors as possible, and that's the criteria they will use when determining who gets to visit.
If allowing a particular person to visit means several others will refrain from visiting, is it then a good idea to permit that? That's a value judgement for the organizers to make.
And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.
>If allowing a particular person to visit means several others will refrain from visiting, is it then a good idea to permit that? That's a value judgement for the organizers to make.
That's part of it, but it's also a value judgment for everyone else to make.
In many cases, the rest of us in society care enough about how those decisions are made that we've passed laws prohibiting businesses from rejecting customers for certain reasons.
For example, if your market research shows that allowing Jews into your event results in lower overall attendance, because too many of the other potential attendees are anti-Semites who refuse to go to an event that allows Jews, you still don't get to ban them. We've established that making those opportunities equally available to all religions, ethnicities, genders, races, etc. is more important than maximizing profit. Even when that discrimination isn't illegal, it's often frowned upon by the culture.
And one reason for that is that we distinguish between the business deciding you can't visit them, and you deciding you can't visit them. We expect businesses to be inclusive, even if that means more people choose to exclude themselves -- because this way, the people who are excluded at least get a choice.
>And if you think they made the wrong decision, feel free to tell them so or even to boycott it yourself, giving them a reason to consider other potential solutions.
I've got no reason to attend a Kubernetes conference anyway, but I have the same interest as any other member of society in ensuring that people get treated fairly.
We also purposefully do not extend that protection to literally everything distinct about a person. Even stuff like California's laws only protect employees from their employers when engaging in political action.
There's no universal legal protection against an entity responding to another person's general beliefs, if that entity consider those to be harmful.
We do not want to obstruct society from holding people accountable for harmful behavior.
> I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences.
Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous.
* Nobody asked you.
* Who do you think you are that I would need your permission?
* I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack.
* What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
* whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention.
* see above
* your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u"
* while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them.
I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you.
If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.
So, just to be clear: I don't want anyone dead, and especially not because of their status as a member of some demographic. Nobody posting here to debate these issues does. Why you even bring it up is a mystery to me.
The whole point of this conversation was the suggestion that there might be non-"hateful" ideas being repressed, and important conversations that are prevented, that are prohibited by hate speech legislation. To suggest that I might actually want other people dead is a far reach.
I'm not quite sure what there is to misinterpret. Whatever your intent may be (and if it is different that what I describe here, please clarify) your words are pretty confrontational. You suggest I might want people dead, and then seem to vaguely imply you might have some ability to stop me if you don't like what I have to say. You talk about "letting" me share, and about "proactive intervention". What exactly would "proactive intervention" look like? Are you a moderator, or someone else with authority here? Are you someone with the ability and willingness to dox random anonymous strangers on the internet? Or are you just another member here with the ability to downvote/flag?
I'm bringing it up because it's relevant because other people do that. What you personally believe isn't relevant to this argument, because this argument of mine is about the worst content which your proposed rules would protect. Because it WOULD protect bullying and racism and other abuse online under the label "protected opinion".
You would make it literally illegal to counteract such behavior online.
Your rule would necessarily punish Facebook for banning stalkers, punish reddit for banning racist subreddits if they're not strictly illegal, and so on.
The rule you suggest would protect their ability to harass others regardless of if that's what you intend or not. You can't just handwave away those consequences.
Can you prove that it's in fact not super trivial to circumvent bans on non hateful ideas (in non-totalitarian states)? Are here not millions of more websites besides Facebook et al? Is it not easy to go to another website?
The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives.
You're suggesting it's a better tradeoff to forcibly kill quality standards online so that everybody can express literally anything that's not illegal, when it's equally possible to just... Not make a law like that, and instead encourage people to go to other websites.
Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of (the edge cases where certain collective decisions are socially harmful are covered by antidiscrimination law).
This extends also to website owners. This means that I as a forum moderator (in a different place, on reddit) has the freedom to ban others from my forum for engaging in what I consider abusive behavior. I get to decide if and when I want to take action.
The admins on Hacker News can likewise ban me from here.
Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.
Each and every one of us decides over our own "domains".
In spaces where I'm not a mod/admin (most of them, that is), "letting you" only means not reporting the account, etc.
Today's trade-off is that every person either accepts the rules for approved content that somebody else has set on their own website... Or your start your own website. Or both at once for that matter, it's trivial to visit multiple websites at once since most browsers have tabs.
If your opinion is banned in one place online, it's easy to go to another to post it. That's how the web worked since the very beginning!
> The fact is that your proposed rule is far worse than the alternatives.
What proposed rule? Please quote me so I know what you're talking about.
> Each and every person should have their individual freedom to set their standards for what opinions and beliefs they approve of
Exactly! Which is why I oppose hate speech legislation. I believe that I, as an adult, have the freedom to hear whatever opinions or ideas I wish and the responsibility to come to my own conclusion on the truth of such ideas. To use the force of law to restrict the expression of ideas merely because they cause offense conflicts directly both with my rights and responsibilities.
> Proactive intervention usually involves government censorship or police action, but can also be considered to cover blocklists and spam filters online.
My question to you, is what are you specifically threatening the context of this specific conversation? It sounds like you're not threatening anything beyond the powers granted to every user on this site, which makes your initial comment look like nothing but useless posturing.
Please do provide.
Why is this question even being asked?
The answer is everybody, in their own respective spaces.
It's not me but not others. It's me AND all others.
If I run a bar, I get to kick out customers who voice despicable opinions. Exact same thing applies if I run a shop, a web forum, or a conference for that matter.
All of us gets to kick out people who behave badly from our own private spaces, nothing obligates me to tolerate abuse.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It does not mean the right to an audience. It means you get to say your opinion without the government interfering - and then other people get to decide how to react to it.
Freedom of speech without the right to react and respond to what others say would a horrible idea. Partially because it entirely invalidates the reason for why speech is supposed to be free. If you can't change things based on what you learned from what you heard, why even bother letting people speak?
If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it.
> If this means somebody else bans me from their space for being offensive, then so be it.
I suspect that if I banned the followers of a religion I found "offensive" from an establishment I owned, you'd be writing a very different post. The problem with the free association argument from censorship proponents is that they've never consistent about it. They're happy to talk up the rights of institutions to exclude right up until the moment that they themselves are excluded.
A functioning society is one in which you don't put your livelihood at risk by agreeing with 50% of the population on a matter of public importance. Violating this principle is tyranny, and I don't care what elaborate justifications anyone comes up with to explain it away. You don't get to try to win political fights by personally ruining regular people on the other side.
Not really. It would be quite illegal in most places, sure, but I simply wouldn't want to go there in the first place if you banned people like me.
Of course that becomes a problem is a large part of society does the same. Which is why such laws against the exists. But I wouldn't be the one pursuing this.
Especially for online spaces. There's just too many options for it to be reasonable to be pissed about getting banned from just one or a few places. It's always possible to create your own online space, if necessary. And right to speech isn't a right to an audience. You get to speak your mind, but people will only listen if they want to.
But keep in mind that there's a bet good reason for why most antidiscrimination laws deliberately limit the contexts in which they're applicable and what groups they protect. Very few jurisdictions protect opinions on their own.
I don't care if an antivaxxers works at a bakery. I'd be pissed if I hear one worked as a nurse at a hospital I go to, and that they refuse to carry out vaccinations. Some opinions are dangerous when held in certain contexts, and requires a reaction. This is simply about safety and protecting society. You can hold an opinion that terrible opinion elsewhere, where you don't hurt people.
At some point, you have to understand that the person putting their livelihood at risk is the person themselves, and that firing them is just as justified as firing a drunkard from a machine shop.
> I am talking about removing people who promote hate speech.
This is pretty off-topic given that there was nothing interpretable as hate speech done here. But I want to note that was how the two left wing echo chambers I saw started (the right wing ones took a different turn).
Initially they just banned people who made statements that were simple expressions of hatred. But people generally express views on a bit of a bell curve, so all the people whose curves had a portion inside the banned space left (often self-censoring for a while, then leaving). After that, the cultural interpretation of the rule changed a bit and it started including statements about groups (e.g. Mexican immigrants are [way more likely to be] rapists). Once all the people who expressed such a view were gone/silenced there was a popular update to the forum rules that clarified and banned a bunch more things. This process repeated a number of times.
First comes the change in rules, the vocal population changes. Then a cycle of changes in enforcement and interpretation of the rules interleaved with changes in the vocal population. Then another rules change. Repeat a bunch of times to end up with an echo chamber that I think the hn population would consider "full of ridiculous SJW nonesense" based on the commentary I've recently seen here.
Hate speech is the only speech that needs to be protected. If speech doesn't offend or upset anyone, then there's nothing that it needs to be protected from. Your reasoning is upside down.
If you find someone's opinion disagreeable, you don't shut it down, you refute it. Shutting it down just tells me you have no counter arguments, so maybe they have a point and I should listen to it.
Understand the Streisand Effect.
Technically it's possible for speech to be offensive/unpopular/blasphemous (and thus need and deserve protection) without being hate speech. Hate speech is a specific kind of offensive speech. Other than that you're spot on though.
Well, someone that finds speech offensive/upsetting/etc can pretty much call it hate speech. So in the end, hate speech can be anything that upsets someone.
I mean, you can reasonably define hate speech as something any reasonable person could agree is actually potentially harmful (like promoting some kind of prejudice in some dangerous ways), and I presume that's how it's defined under legal terms, but colloquially people most likely won't be doing that.
Did Mr. Wood engage in hate speech? If so, what did he say that constituted free speech.
One of the other individuals involved in this row has said previously "white men in tech ain't shit". Should this individual be allowed to participate in tech conferences?
I know neither their rules, nor what was said there. I can only tell you that systems exist that allow:
- hate speech to be objectively defined
- due process to exist in processing complaints
> "white men in tech ain't shit". Should this individual be allowed to participate in tech conferences?
All I can tell you is that it would probably be judged hate speech in France and fined if said publicly. I know nothing of the rules and penalties this specific place's CoC implements. And I'll be the first to say that it is problematic if the rules in the matter are not written.
But I am sure the tech world, through its typically clumsy approach of human affairs, will end up having enough jurisprudence to piece out a workable code.
> All I can tell you is that it would probably be judged hate speech in France and fined if said publicly.
Extremely unlikely. Members of the P.I.R. (black/arab racialist party) and other organisations who swim in the same waters have been spouting many many worse things. Or a few of the crazy chicks who took over the U.N.E.F. (student union) and have said stuff like "the whites should be gassed".
Did anyone care to bring their case to court? IF they did, I am pretty sure they would be found guilty.
> not once, in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored.
This says much more about you than about those people. Shame on you.
> in all the hotly debated discussions I had, I found anything of value in the person being censored
I think history is a better guide because we can more clearly see what was valuable. Things that were censored in the past:
* Evolution, esp of humans from other apes
* Capitalism/market economics (in socialist states)
* Currently mainstream views about biology (e.g. Lysenkoism)
Free speech is a "hits" business: most of the value comes from a few incredibly valuable ideas that someone powerful is trying to censor. The damage done to Russia and China under communism easily exceeds all the extra "smoothness" that they got out of censoring those who disagreed with them.
None of these examples are hate speech.
There is a formal legal definition of hate speech in the countries where these laws apply and it would be nice if people arguing against those laws would accept that, instead of continuously conflating things that are not hate speech.
Yes, which of these views would have been shut down by a policy forbidding hate speech?
I am now mostly worried about state censorship, which do remove things like the items you list.
Censoring hate speech and people who promote exclusion of minorities? I have not a single example of it being detrimental to a healthy debate.
I'm pretty sure that all of those views were censored because they were immoral according to the dominant ideology of the day, and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad.
How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.
Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."
White male is decidedly a protected class with that definition.
Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
No lynching here; another comment of mine points out irony as well. That said, white male isn't some sort of exception just because some do/did abhorrent things -- the white males who don't (and they certainly can't control whether they descend from those who did) do abhorrent things don't deserve it. Feel free to define a set of people who suck based on their actions, but white male can't be an analogue for that definition.
Yes and? Hate speech against white male would be brought down as well.
Let's dive into that: here are tweets made by the accusers leading to Linux Foundation's judgment. https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now.
That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back.
And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation.
So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it.
Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
What you think MAGA stands for is not what it actually stands for. You're stating all kinds of extremist positions that 99% of people in the US do not hold.
Anyone can stir up outrage against a made up situation.
What kind of person would willingly choose to associate themselves with that terminology, without having having such opinions?
It's not like it's a secret that it's tied to racists and ultranationalists and other shitty types, especially since the president of yours that introduced it openly supports those people and their use of the term.
MAGA stands for "make America great again". It's as positive as it gets for terminology.
Some extremists carry the American flag. Does that mean someone who flies the American flag as a patriotic symbol are the same? Clearly not, because that would be attributing an extremist position to the majority using the most tenuous of associations. I don't see how that's a productive start for any discussion.
Getting my comment flagged doesn't make you right, just so you know.
Just see my list of links below. It's undeniable that the very reason why people use the term MAGA is to voice support for hypernationalism, as a way to justify racism and hatred. This is what the term was created to be.
There's nothing tenuous in the association when the president himself is retweeting white nationalists using the term, when he's using it in blatantly racist ads, when it's used to justify walls, when it's used to justify abandoning international responsibilities, etc.
The flag wasn't created by a group campaigning on hate. MAGA however is.
I didn't flag your comment, just so you know.
MAGA is used by the majority as a show of support for the president, their party, and general conservative beliefs along with American pride. You refuse to believe those people, and yet believe any extremist who claims MAGA. Why?
If you have such dogmatic views and think half the country is "campaigning on hate" then unfortunately there's no rational debate to be had here. By the way, CNN had the leader of the white nationalists on prime time. By your own definition, CNN is now a white nationalist channel. Do you disagree?
Do you actually believe it doesn't carry other connotations which have become universally recognized?
Your argument is as naive as pretending to not recognize the swastika's association with nazis.
I don't see how it's productive to deliberately ignore how the same president that introduced the term openly supports the violent extremists that use these hats and similar symbols at demonstrations and more. You should know what it symbolizes by now.
Wow, that sounds horrible. You're speaking very strongly about this so you must have a long list of links to explain:
"...openly supports the violent extremists that use these hats and similar symbols..."
I'd like to see all the many examples where people wearing maga hats and saying maga were "violent extremists".
Really interested to learn about all of this extremist violence I've apparently been missing by these maga people, looking forward to your response.
The evidence is literally all over his Twitter account. Like considering people murdering others by hitting with cars to be fine people. Promoting "false flag" conspiracy theories when his supporters attack people, claiming democrats are responsible. Language indicating support for civil war.
If you had read the news you'd know about it.
You're either lying or ignorant. In either case you're blatantly wrong.
Also, funny how my comments got flagged and downvoted. Is the truth so painful?
No, it doesn't carry other connotations that are universally recognized. The fact that some extremists use it does not override the vast majority, as I described regarding the American flag.
The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else. The majority is the extremists in that case, and they specifically changed the direction and removed the dots from the Asian versions to do so.
The president does not support violent extremists, openly or otherwise. "Nazis" are not a real problem anywhere in the modern world.
And what makes you believe that? Literally the people who introduced and promotes it are the people who promote its use by extremists. I've told you so already. What makes you believe the term still don't carry such meanings?
India haven't stopped using the swastika, actually. But the context of its use typically makes it obvious they do not use it to support nazi ideology.
You haven't read the president's Twitter stream? Because it's pretty blatant.
There's literally academic studies on it. You believe otherwise requires ignorance.
Extremists by definition are a small fringe faction. This situation is similar to thousands of other gestures and symbols, even though the vast majority do not recognize or care about what some extremists use. Literally everything has a extremist use somewhere.
Also I'm from India and as I just explained, the Indian swastika is a different design and direction. The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else, they made it for themselves which is why it's only associated with them.
If you won't listen to the majority group that uses the term telling you it's positive for them, and instead apply the extremist interpretation, then what exactly do you need to hear as a counter position? Seems like it's not open to any other understanding.
No it's not. It's literally any faction with hardline dogmatic views. An extremist faction that manage to kill all their opponents doesn't suddenly become non-extremist when they're the new majority.
I have seen the arguments for "why it's positive for them" and they're bullshit. They're using it to justify racism and corruption and to defend politicians on their own side that even break the law (like a certain raid of a certain meeting concerning classified information).
I'm open to actual evidence, not just mere statements of disbelief. Can you provide counterevidence?
> in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia
> And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation.
That's what I'd call paranoia. Because the nazi insignia isn't in the least comparable to a MAGA hat. In fact, the nazi insignia is much more comparable to Antifa insignia.
Also keep in mind the KKK were democrats.
I agree with having clear standards. I think the proportions in the US are not quite as dire as you portray.
That's true, he is "just" at 40% of support among voters.
He still has won an election in a country that pretends to be democratic, so I'll politely assume he was the choice of the majority.
That's a far cry from 'defending KKK apologists'. Then again, having seen other responses you've made in this post, I'm skeptical I should be trying to persuade you.
I think you're misunderstanding the reasons for free speech.
As soon as some entity gets a license to start banning speech, you have given bad ideas an advantage over good ones.
This is because a bad memeplex can co-opt the censorship apparatus and kill off any competitors without having to face them in a fair fight.
The criterion you mentioned about hate speech etc is extremely flexible and dependent on a bunch of definitions and interpretations that the censors will be in control of - exactly the kind of thing that the free speech principle protects us from!
> and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad.
The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities.
Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy.
There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority.
Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
Using Galileo as an example isn't very useful since even though it turns out that he was right, at the time he didn't actually have real proof so the church was right to tell him not to publish his opinion since he didn't have adequate evidence for his position. The problem the church had with him wasn't that they thought that the sun had to orbit the Earth, but that he wouldn't stop trying to make people use his method without actual proof.
But who decides which opinions are possible to exclude without being detrimental?
Turtles, all the way down!
Interesting argument. By the same token, we should remove all cyclists from all roads, as it would provide a smoother transportation experience.
Well we do so when we want to go very fast e.g. highways.
Right, and going to a conference is like driving on a highway?
I don't know, I don't play football.
Car roads, bike roads, bus roads. With some intersection. I think that's the ideal
Don't be dense, the rules are simple. Jokes at the expense of minorities are not to be tolerated. Jokes about pigs are crass but fine. Jokes about the LGBT community or the indigenous people are not. If you are confused, consult any child who will happily explain to you these basic ideas from the modern world.
Here is the thread for more context: https://twitter.com/nebrius/status/1191821800302206976
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.
He did not do anything.
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.
> The raging assholes enforcing this fake social justice nonsense must be unambiguously called out by anyone with half a brain.
There is nothing more significant, their stated reason was "tone policing":
Punishing him for "tone policing" is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off. In Scientology terms, he had an SP in his vicinity making him a PTS, and refusing to disconnect from the SP despite a direct order from his E/O meant he had an SP declare issued against him.
(Understanding Scientology will give you major clues into how social justice operates.)
Note that associating with John Sonmez is an unforgivable crime, but saying "white men in tech ain't shit" or "all whiteness is racist by design", as Kim Crayton has done, is not. This is because an often unstated assumption of codes of conduct is "we prefer the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups". (The GNOME Code of Conduct explicitly states this, almost verbatim.) That is to say, racism, sexism, and harassment are CoC violations if they are seen to "punch down", but not if they are seen to "punch up" by the CoC commissars who deliberate in secret. This is why Uncle Bob's letter will go unheeded. If action is taken by the Linux Foundation because of his letter, it will be against Uncle Bob himself for posting it. He suggested that legitimate actions taken against one who punches down are harassment, which is itself punching down, therefore harassment and a CoC violation.
> Charles Max Wood's actual crime was being associated with John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off.
Not saying you are wrong, but if that is indeed the case, then someone should come out and say that out loud.
Right now, having a person banned for no clear reason what so ever, only creates uncertainty and division in the community.
Edit: Having looked into it, "John Sonmez, some brogrammer with a propensity to mouth off", actually seemed to be trying to take the heat away from a woman being verbally abused and attacked on twitter.
One can obviously argue about the way he did that, but how on earth does trying to defend a woman make him a "brogrammer"? Your position seems somewhat biased.
Note that "tone policing" is only an offense when non-SJWs do it. When SJWs do it, it's known as "calling out" and should be encouraged. Example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/329
I think Sarah Mei should follow her own advice & stop center herself at every conversation and opportunity.
Cancel culture. Note how they don't persecute prominent people/leaders. They go after those who are more vulnerable.
What a time to be alive!
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.
Let me give an example of the kind of 'motive imputation' attacks she leads on a regular basis: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1073251153360482304
This is exactly parallel to her current tweet which LF responded to.
Live by Twitter, die by Twitter.
oh my god, they are complaining about an acronym DDD, because it somehow sexual (not being a native english speaker, I fail to spot the innuendo). If there's anything to complain about ddd is the name clash with Data Display Debugger, a really cool debugger for linux.
I wonder about the callous ignorance of Sarah Mei, who purports to be a feminist but ignores such an important program written by another woman.
> because it somehow sexual (not being a native english speaker, I fail to spot the innuendo).
In the US, DD is a cup size for a brassiere, and thus indirectly refers to breast size on women. DD for sometime has been considered to be an uncommonly large breast size for a woman, especially a woman of otherwise more common proportions. DDD, being the next cup size up for reasons I don't understand (instead of cup sizes going E, F, etc), would therefore imply a woman even bustier than the supposedly uncommonly-busty DD-breasted woman.
Yes, I think it's silly, too. Human mammary tissue has exactly fuck all to do with programming.
"DDD" seems unacceptable, however "CoC" is. Go figure.
if at least they were consistent bullshitters, but their stuff is mostly random
That's an unreasonably huge leap for the audience to make that connection.
As somebody else pointed or, that's the explanation Sarah Mei gave on Twitter in the past. The tweet about them discovering "3D" is on point.
She's not going to care about that.
I wonder if the d3js project is next in the firing line
Can the letters "JS" be conflated with some other concept that offends someone who is inclined to make a stink on twitter and has a lot of followers? It could happen...
Unfortunately we'd probably just rename it something less offensive like ECMAScript.
Surely, one obvious way to fix this, is that we need to start a petition for changing the name of dd utility
what a shitshow that would be
But in most of the world, DD Cup size is followed by E Cup, not DDD. Like most SJWs they taken an American-centric view of the world, which is apparently bad when others do it, but acceptable when they do it.
I'm so sick of this cancel culture bullshit. Didn't they learn about sticks and stones as a kid? Honestly, so many people these days need to eat some concrete to harden the fuck up.
"SJWs" "need to eat some concrete"? You sound like a wannabe skinhead teen. Your veiled calls to violence should have nothing to do with / have no place in coding culture.
This is a great example of SJWism.
Your amerocentric view of the world assumes that because we speak the same language we have the same culture. We do not. In my culture, telling someone to eat concrete is not taken literally. Its not a call to violence. Its a way of telling someone they need to increase their mental fortitude, that being upset because someone said something you didn't like is not a productive way to go through life.
I am not American. And the meaning of the English language does not change with your culture, which, I might add, does not get transmitted in writing. I am responding to your words only. Eat concrete is crass and violent. You can hand wave all you want. Try conversing without ad hominem labels and insinuations.
This reminds me of some post by an SJW-type who complained about a makeup company printing the word “black / negro” on their mascara because it was somehow racist.
I’m still struggling to find the context for this whole thing. Where did you find DDD mentioned?
This kind of holier than thou, "fuck you I'm right", "you have no say because I say so", "I'm marginalized because I say so therefore my opinion trumps yours" attitude should be shunned and laughed at, not embraced and empowered. She's acting like she speaks for all women and they're all made out of glass. Somehow these people get away with equating sexual or lewd jokes as anti women, as if women couldn't possible make the same kind of jokes. Not saying that's whats going on in the DDD case though, but that's her angle of it.
Unfortunately, this kind of extreme SJW mindset seems to be winning ground in the name of inclusion by scared useful idiots. Tech used to be a relatively sane area where logic and accomplishments was what mattered, now you need to kiss these lunatics asses unless you want to be painted as a horrible person that hates everyone but white straight males.
It reminds me about how several of the subreddits for lesbians have been taken over by transsexual women that ban lesbian women if they argue about not being attracted to penis. Saying you're against MtF transexuals competing against regular women in sports labels you as a TERF and persona non grata in some circles, and those circles are gaining power.
I'd like to point out that this isn't all trans women and some of us realize this takeover is absolutely insane. A lot of us want to blend into society and not cause any hardship to others, or any destruction of projects like this. Social Justice is going way too far.
Because of these grifters I don't even want to identify as transgender any longer.
It’s easy to laugh at the sheer stupidity of that tweet. But imagine you wanted to use Domain Driven Design (or the Data Display Debugger, or the dd utility, or the D language) at an organisation that employs this person... and you get fired for it.
But all of this is on all their permanent records and when the pendulum swings the other way, they will have ample time to reflect.
Someday this type of thing is going to have a very clear connection to loss of a job or contract and someone is going to learn the term tortious interference. Then find themselves writing a bigger check than they thought they would be when they woke up that day. Paired with a groveling public apology.
Here is a Reddit story about some non-native English speaker getting fired in California over a variable name:
A large proportion of the more interesting and shareable stories are creative writing exercises. This is almost certainly one.
But that clearly must be a joke. Isn't it?
No; unfortunately, this isn't cherry-picked. Unlike with the accused this topic is referring to, Sarah Mei has lots of history you can scroll through. Another incident involved her attacking an author regarding a book on 'software craftsmanship' because - she claimed - the word 'craftsman' was definitionally sexist.
In that thread, there's a comment, "it's why we call them firefighters, not firemen"...
As someone in fire and EMS, around here, among us, including the females (this area has quite probably the highest proportion of females in fire and EMS in the country), there is an inherent pride in the title 'fireman', regardless of gender.
To us it implies "I don't 'fight' fire. I am a [man] of fire, who intrinsically understands it, lives and breathes it, and knows how to master (uh-oh) it".
If we are going to change the name for "fireman" - the profession, we need to change "human" to something more appropriate like "homo idioticus" (i realize it sounds both homophobic and ableist), so does anyone have better ideas?
Here in Wales all the female firefighters refer to themselves as “firemen” too, and proudly.
> all the female firefighters
Good for them! I'm personally agnostic about this, but you sound as if you know them all and you know what they think. It can be tricky to separate ones perception from reality.
By "all" I mean it is the norm. You could perhaps find one who didn't in Cardiff.
Okay, now I saw two of the craziest things I ever saw today. Thanks, that clears it up for me.
The Linux Foundation seems to be a broken organization.
Good thing Sarah "shut the fuck up" Mei is here to police conduct.
> Stalinistic attack
Was Stalin known for unfair, politically biased code of conduct enforcement? Sorry, I don't see the need for hyperbole here. Even in context, yanking a ticket from KubeCon is hardly the same thing as being purged from the government, tried for imagined crimes and sent to a Gulag.
It is in line with the categories of the accusations made in that time. This is effectively a loyalty accusation: by seeking to mediate, he has shown himself to be insufficiently committed to the cause of racial and gender justice, which consequently means his motive must have been to defend the racist.
Yeah, but "making loyalty accusations" isn't exactly what Stalin is known for. He's known for a brutal purge that sent his political enemies to death camps.
To Godwinize for clarity: this is like using "Hitlerian" to celebrate a public policy achievement in passenger rail scheduling.
It is at the core of the worldview and ideology he espoused. The actions he is known for flow out from that ideology.
In this case I suppose "Stalinist" is a metonym for the apparatchiks who enforced ideological purity in institutions and made sure that deviants got punished.
Maybe it'd be more accurate to call it McCarthyist.
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.
> if CoC's were inherently politicized statements
Aren't they, though, if it happens that what CoC's say align much, much more with one political group than another? This obviously implies that the latter group believes in conducting themselves quite differently than the code mandates, and they need to suppress those beliefs (or at the very least, not act on those beliefs) while engaging with the group whose code it is.
The problem is, Does the majority of the developers contributing to Linux believe in this code? Or is it forced upon them by political activist that doesn’t do much coding because they spend much of their time on ‘social justice‘?
Even with a majority, you've got some percentage having to deal with what the majority wants, which is a heavy dose of irony if the point of the CoC is blanket inclusion in the first place. The conclusion is that inclusion itself excludes those who don't like inclusion, and excluding that group is warranted, isn't it?
An inherent aspect of a CoC is that minority interests are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
The goal should be to increase the overall effectiveness of the group, and avoid marginalisation or exclusion of any potential contributors.
They don't have to be, though. It's just this particular one, the Contributor Covenant - which was written and propagated by online social justice activists - happens to be the CoC organizations are increasingly being asked/encouraged/pressured (depending on the organization) to implement.
I personally don't think the idea behind a code of conduct is bad at all, or that formally banning gender/orientation/race/etc.-based harassment and discrimination in open source projects is bad. It's just that the Contributor Covenant creators and advocates seem to have a much wider and stricter stance on what falls under that category than what I personally agree with, and some of them have a history of launching what I consider unjustified McCarthy-style witch hunts towards people who otherwise share a lot of their views.
And I think a lot of other people who don't fully agree with all of their positions are kind of forced to keep quiet about it and just enforce what's increasingly becoming the status quo. The people not afraid of the backlash and who openly oppose it are often pretty right-wing and tend to spend all day lambasting SJWs on Twitter, or whatever, which is often much further than what an average CoC-detractor may be trying to do. The more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to be honest about your opposition to it, which over time makes left-leaning people less honest about their opposition to it. They don't have a good middle option. Like what all the other polarization in the culture is causing, a left-leaning person who isn't fully on-board usually has no good option but to capitulate.
> They don't have to be, though. It's just this particular one, the Contributor Covenant - which was written and propagated by online social justice activists - happens to be the CoC organizations are increasingly being asked/encouraged/pressured (depending on the organization) to implement.
I've heard/seen multiple accounts of anonymous drive-by commenters saying something to the effect of "I've noticed you have no code of conduct, and there are several pull requests by PoC that you have refused. You might want to consider adopting the Contributor Covenant." A sort of stealthy protection racket: "Nice project you have here. Wouldn't want a discrimination lawsuit to ruin it all."
I suspect the anonymous commenters are either Coraline Ada Ehmke herself, or one of her lieutenants.
> And I think a lot of other people who don't fully agree with all of their positions are kind of forced to keep quiet about it and just enforce what's increasingly becoming the status quo. The people not afraid of the backlash and who openly oppose it are often pretty right-wing and tend to spend all day lambasting SJWs on Twitter, or whatever, which is often much further than what an average CoC-detractor may be trying to do. The more right-leaning you are, the more likely you are to be honest about your opposition to it, which over time makes left-leaning people less honest about their opposition to it.
I'm left-leaning, and I'm sick of this shit. I've gotten downmodded here on Hackernews and elsewhere for it, and I'm kind of glad to see that others on various communities not related to Kiwi Farms or the alt-right are starting to come around. Back in the day, open source was the closest thing around to the promised cybertopia of AT&T commercials. It wasn't all holding hands and getting along, but you learned to grow a thick skin, focus on technical concerns, and -- with a bit of learning and practice -- be a bit nicer. I've seen Christians, Muslims, and atheists, people on the left and right politically, collaborate in this way. And it's being ruined by this sort of entryism. Open source (the Linux development process in particular) was built to be resilient to sabotage by government agencies and corporations. If I were just such an agency or corporation and I wanted to undermine or destroy open source, I would be paying very close attention to, if not actively exploiting, social-justice entryism because it seems to have found a weak point.
CoCs are always political.
>Which is exactly what opponents of CoC's have been contending for a long time.
Sure, they can contend that all they want - funny how their actual actions are far more revealing than their words.
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.
> CoC always are about promoting a specific moral framework, one where traditionally marginalized people are protected.
What people have been "traditionally marginalized" in the world of FOSS, which now needs protection which will not be afforded to others?
As I see it, most CoCs are heavily biased political tools, weaponized by default to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.
As such they promote group-think and discourage diversity. Any forward thinking individual should naturally be opposed to such regression.
>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?
> Could we try to be less orwellian?
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.
I am surprised you feel that way in a time where much of our government is controlled by Republicans, including the presidency. I think I understand why you feel that way given how localized politics can be, but I would counter that it does seem unlikely the 50+ million registered Republican voters will be made homeless and jobless by the government they presently control.
Not all Republicans, just the ones in tech.
Plenty of leftists in tech who dislike identity politics too who would be at risk for cancel culture. Sarah is a radical centrist.
It's important to recognize that the ethical concerns with the current administration go far beyond the scope of simple politics. That's the fundamental issue at stake here. Are we willing to hold the line on ethics, while our political system is in turmoil. The political sphere may be willing to look the other way, but that does not mean our private intellectual organizations have to follow suit.
I think that means insisting on civility in our gatherings. Speaking out both in public and to the people we interact with against what is wrong.
I don't think it is served by trolling peoples internet history to discover if they ever committed any thought crime. Our country will be better off the more MAGAers either age into the grave or get off the stupid train. Keep in mind that many of them are already decent citizens in the way they comport themselves in their lives, in the way they treat the people they interact with. They have just bought into a moronic ideology and will vote to enable further stupidity that will hurt their fellows in a way they would never due if given that straight choice between good and evil directly.
Isolating that person instead of communicating with them is a missed opportunity that serves only to signal our virtue to our fellows. It is a choice to enhance our social status instead of our society. It's positively trumpian and it plays right into his hands by making that person more isolated and thus more vulnerable.
Doing the right thing is hard. Do it anyway.
> I think that means insisting on civility in our gatherings.
That's tone policing and a CoC violation. Marginalized groups have the right to be incivil.
This is where the logical insanity really begins to play.
Your ideology is constructed in order to grant 'incivility' (the moral permission to commit violence) to people based on whatever parameters are useful at the moment.
It's a horrendously incoherent worldview, and will shake itself to pieces.
People used to force gay people to do that
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.
Since Linus owns the Linux trademark, it seems it would be simple for him to step in by saying "Stop doing stupid shit or you are no longer the Linux Foundation". But maybe he can't do this because of this stupidity:
"The “Linux®” Trademark
For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy."
It's clear the Linux Foundation has been given too much power. Whenever a group of people get too much power or money, someone in the group, almost by definition an asshole, will abuse it.
Every event organizer is the arbiter of morality within their own events. How else could it be?
Removing someone who behaves improperly or has a history of same is one thing. Removing people for thinking improperly is another.
I'm not sure why this is a hard distinction to grasp.
Does this count as a social credit system?
No. A private venue or organization having rules of conduct does not count as a social credit system.
Maybe I'm using the wrong verbiage, but I don't see the difference. If the "rules of conduct" extend into your personal life outside the venue, how is that not the same?
Demonstrating a lack of ethical values in personal life seems like a good measuring stick to whether one might demonstrate ethical values in a professional setting. But more importantly, how can participants interact with any event or process of an organization if they cannot trust those involved?
That sounds like a social credit system. Good behavior raises credit, bad behaviour lowers it.
> how can ... If they cannot trust
Aren't financial creditors also private institutions?
Yes, but I don't see the relevance. The use of the term "social credit system" is intended to imply an system of political oppression and censorship similar to that used by the Chinese Communist party, and further to create fear of the implied radical leftist/progressive agenda assumed to be behind codes of conduct by associating them with violent authoritarianism.
Being banned from a private venue is an expression of the right of free association. It is not a violation of anyone's rights, because one does not have a right to attend a private venue. It is not a form of political oppression or censorship, because one does not require attendance at a private venue to express one's political beliefs.
Therefore, because the rights of banned attendees have not been violated, nor their speech suppressed, nor has any violence been imposed against the banned attendees, or critics of the code of conduct, said code of conduct is not equivalent to the policies of the Chinese government or a social credit system.
Call it secret consumer score, it's the same thing.
"Right of free association", sure. So by that token, businesses should be free to refuse to "associate" with anyone for any reason. Guess what, that legitimizes racism and discrimination.
I used agree with (and sort of still do) the sentiment of private discrimination. The logic goes like this...
1. People should be able to control their own business 2. If they reject a group of people for a given reason, they can 3. Businesses that done reject this group will gain more business. (Both from the newly released group, and from patrons who are not rejected but are against the discrimination) 4. The rejected people could start their own business as a competitor 5. Discriminatory people/businesses are immediately identified.
It seems like it could just work itself out, but in Patrice I'm not sure.
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.
If in one context someone expresses beliefs I find odious but they do not say odious things or behave improperly in another say tech conferences I think they ought to be able to come to a conference and talk about tech.
I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me.
People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points.
What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.
That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions.
But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
Sarah Jeong was actually _hired_ by the New York Times after tweeting the kind of vile language you are mentioning. So clearly it's not a problem for everyone. But I understand it's a whataboutism argument.
So my position is that organizations and individuals should, generally, be free to speak, and free to organize as they see fit (including hiring, or not, someone). Because it's the best way to minimize conflict.
I would agree with you, /except/ that we should also then hold organizations to their own standards, because if they violate them, it indicates that their proclaimed standards are disingenuous, and are covering for some other reason.
I would be totally OK with listening to your technical presentation. I'm not concerned with your other opinions. Or rather, I refuse to be forced by others to be concerned with your other opinions.
I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot.
I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
Exactly this. And Robert Martin has made similar sentiments clear in prior discussions with her.
Seriously? You could just put aside that insane, clearly evil opinion and listen to them speak for an hour? Give them an applause and move on without the slightest burden on your conscious?
Seriously? You'd ignore someone's (we're assuming, for the sake of argument) otherwise insightful and well-reasoned technical presentation because you dislike them personally for unrelated (if justified) reasons? Because that is literally ad hominem.
Yes, without a doubt. Its not about “disliking them personally”. In that example it’s about not giving legitimacy to someone who doesn’t deserve it. In the grand scheme of things, some technical insight is insignificant compared to the perpetuation of evil and suffering.
I'm not sure how listening to someone's presentation or reading their article about Ruby on Rails conveys legitimacy on their political views.
In your view, how does this transfer of legitimacy take place?
If your conscience is burdened by hearing the words someone says, may I propose you need to work on filtering words? That implies you are digesting and importing everything you hear directly into your worldview, instead of examining what people say critically in case they are lying or being disingenuous.
“Hearing the words” is an oversimplification. By attending that talk you are giving this person legitimacy. You are implicitly saying that this person belongs in our society. You are contributing, in a small way, to our society being open to wildly dangerous people. I personally don’t want to live in a society where people who wish death on minorities are accepted. This is not hard!
I continue to not buy the 'lending legitimacy' argument at all. Listening to someone's words helps me understand more accurately what they are attempting to convey. It is up to me to use that conveyed perspective correctly. I'd rather hear the words of someone I fiercely disagree with than craft a strawman in my own head to counter, because then I can correctly craft the antidote when speaking to others who /are/ being persuaded by such a view.
Maybe this person fell for a conman and in fact still DOES belong in our society. More than 49% of the country is stupid but 49% isn't literally hitler.
Well, to turn things around... You think people haven't just kept their head down, ignored the speaker's politics, and paid attention to the technical aspects of a talk when it's coming from someone on the left?
Its not about right vs left. Im talking about the specific example given. A person like that does not belong in our society much less should be given my time.
In your opinion a single picture from 2016 showing that person wearing a Maga hat is sufficient to render them a non person forever?
Just to be very clear, what is you Solution to these irredeemable people who you believe don't "belong in our society"? What can it be other than death, or exile resulting in premature death?
Have you thought through the implications of trying to do this to at minimum 1/3 of the population of the US? And what that 1/3 or more are concluding from this opinion being widely expressed in the US right now?
No the solution is not death. Thats is such a lazy conclusion. If you know someone has a really terrible and dangerous opinion, you dont have to attend their tech talk. Just dont support them in any way personally. Its that simple.
But that's not what you said:
"A person like that does not belong in our society much less should be given my time."
What you're saying now only covers the last part of your statement, what about the "does not belong in our society" part?
And why are you evading the questions about what effects these type of statements have on the 1/3 or more of the US that's targeted by them? You really think that's a free action?
This is a message to ianwalter: your arguments are sound, both in form and substance, and are made in good faith. It pains me to see you waste your energy on educating a group a people who are so willfully ignorant that they would rather attack you with bad faith arguments and downvotes than listen.
It pains me even more to see bend over backwards to justify yourself to people such as Throwawayaerlei. To them, this is just perverse entertainment. They are not actually interested in what you have to say. You don't owe these people, or any of the other bad-faith participants in this thread, a response. If I were you, I would leave them in their morally backwards bubble, and move on.
and how old are you ?
Would you still be as comfortable listening to a technical presentation by an advocate of violent ethnic cleansing of minorities if you yourself belonged to a targeted ethnic group?
Would you still be ok listening to “a quality presentation by Hitler” if you were Jewish and your grandparents died in the Holocaust?
Not the parent poster, but probably in a similar boat because I would be ok listening to "a quality presentation by Sarah Mei" even though I am considered a member of a group I have a creeping suspicion they would be quite happy to send to the "showers" if only the political climate allowed them to - and I'm very glad it doesn't! - and already had a number of relations get hounded out of society by their associates.
(Yes to the Hitler question too.)
Yes to both questions.
Hitler would have to be presenting something really outstanding to make it worth my while. Hitler and Pol Pot are extreme examples of mass murderers, of course. I'm resorting to such hyperbole to make a point: I'm not going to deny myself access to helpful information just because I can't stand the person offering it, nor do I believe it is reasonable to ask others to do so.
Operation Paperclip is a good example of this principle in practice involving actual Nazis.
Do you think your jewish, black or lgbt peers, for example, would answer the same? Would they also be comfortable with your "resorting to hyperboles to make a point"?
Allow me to answer this question for you: As a Black man in tech (my skin crawls every time I have to make this clear i n these types of discussions because I absolutely DESPISE identity politics) I would answer the same. There, you have an answer from someone who's opinion carries more weight in this context because of the color of my skin. Also, Canada's great grandparent comment was less hyperbolic than yours.
Do you think Jews want the world to forget Hitler?
I'd wait for Hitler to finish presenting and then get a rope and hang him until dead. How we deal with extremes can be revelatory but often just muddies the water. For example here it introduces multiple novel elements that aren't present in the original example. The need for justice, personal threat, emotional involvement that nearly always destroys any hope of rational argument.
More importantly in America it can't be a moral crime to vote for the wrong side else we can't continue as a republic. Our country requires the ability to have regularly scheduled revolutions without being torn asunder.
More importantly in America it can't be a moral crime to vote for the wrong side else we can't continue as a republic. Our country requires the ability to have regularly scheduled revolutions without being torn asunder.
The Republic is dead, there is no credible path forward that's going to continue it, in part because one side has stopped accepting the results of our "regularly scheduled revolutions" if they don't win. Which perhaps not counting G. H. W. Bush has been steadily more clear with each Republican Presidential election victory starting with Nixon before Watergate.
> If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees.
What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.
> If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees.
Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.
> What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult.
Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.
Who needs laws when you can just ban people from using an ATM if they disagree with the values of a bank?
Banning 1/3 of the nation who voted for a horrible person from every participating every again in social society in any venue right thinking individuals run doesn't seem like a grey area. Twisting "safe space" to mean a space free of people who hold bad opinions instead of a space in which you can expect to share your thoughts without being treated poorly again doesn't seem very grey.
Huh, that's not where I'd have assumed those lines were.
* Yes, everyone agrees
* Almost everyone agrees on this one
* Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned.
I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.
OK, but to imply that the response to the "fuzziness in the middle" should be the same as the response to an extreme violation is also absurd.
Even beginning to discuss race realism almost anywhere will get you banned, including from this forum. Especially if you think there are substantial IQ differences.
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.
Putting Yarvin in the same clause as Donglegate is a little gauche...
Yeah, Yarvin is a genuinely highly controversial figure who's one of the leaders in neo-monarchist and neo-reactionary philosophy. One could imagine there being controversies like this about him 20 years ago, before the current political climate. He knew what he was getting into.
The others are basically just people who were unfortunate enough to be saying the "wrong" thing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
His philosophy is crazy and most people consider it either laughable or offensive, but he was supposed to be giving technical talk about Urbit, so I don't see a reason why his philosophy should matter in that.
>what can you do about it?
Just curious, are you set for life? If not, do you think you are risking your livelihood by leaving this comment?
My intuition is that Cancel Culture operates a lot like the Drug War. The vast majority of non-PC speech and illicit drug use skirts by the Eye of Sauron without getting caught. But every now and then some poor bastard has his life ruined because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Saying that Cancel Culture doesn't do harm because people aren't afraid to wear a MAGA hat, is like saying the Drug War doesn't do harm because people aren't afraid to drop acid. Regardless of what percentage of people are caught, it's unjust to destroy someone's life because they put the wrong substance in their body or the wrong idea in their mind.
I was in no way suggesting that cancel culture isn't harmful.
He's probably hoping to remain anonymous...
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.
Now real talk - tabs vs. spaces? ;)
You don't understand these zealots. They will crawl your entire online presence, from Twitter to Reddit to Facebook, and use everything against you.
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?
Now I'm going to find your github account and comment on every line of code that has a tab! lol
Take back the tab comment and we'll be okay! ;)
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.
It's always had politics. It just used to be run by communists, anarchists, and libertarians. Then money got involved, and now it's run by social justice warriors.
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.
When Linux adopted the Contributor Covenant, it's author had this to say
> 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.
Well the suspicion is that Linus's daughter Patricia got pulled into Coraline's stuff (she's listed as a signatory in https://postmeritocracy.org/).
This explains everything. Linus himself is wealthy, doesn't report to anyone, owns a good chunk of shares in a few infra companies and can safely say f--k you to the SJW crowd. But he has a weakness - his kids and family.
Isn't it more likely that that just is and was her genuine position? Linus's daughter doesn't necessarily have to have the same political views as her father.
She likely has very different views. https://opensource.com/life/15/8/patricia-torvalds-interview
"got pulled into"?
This explains a lot.
He wasn’t wrong on the second, it is very evident that it is.
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.
It is the lifecycle of great societies. It starts with a small group of independent thinkers who are less susceptible to mimicry, leaving the larger status quo. Then it becomes successful. Then it becomes the mainstream status quo. People who engage in mimicry (scapegoating) become the majority.
Bad times make hard men
Hard men make good times
Good times make soft men
Soft men make bad times
And so the cycle goes
> It really is inevitable.
Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person? From the history, it appears that CoC’s were designed to stop Linus Torvalds, specifically, but he’s still around (but he does seem to be afraid of CoC enforcers now).
> Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person?
Yes. Though, most CoC violations are handled privately for those involved so we don't hear much about them.
> Yes. Though, most CoC violations are handled privately
That really sounds like abuse of power with extra steps. Either ALL of these violations should be private or NONE of them should be. Selectively enforcing something like this is just bias and vendetta politics
I think that a reasonable code would allow the punished party to publicly disclose their punishment, otherwise the punishers (for lack of a better term) would do whatever they wanted. But it should be private by default.
So maybe the expected outcome is merging of HR-SJW positions and NDA-CoC so that "everyone" can feel safe
I believe that many CoC violations would include private events which the victim would like to keep private. After all, there's a good reason why we don't make all the police reports about harassment public.
Sure but in those situations most like the CoC's like we are talking about (things like the contributor covenant) would not be need to remove the person that was abusive
I have been a part of many projects with out these types of CoC's where people have been removed from the project because they were an asshole, or the project is forked and the assholes are left behind
Historically that was the way of open source.
Today however it is much different... Politics and Social Status seem to matter more than Code, merit, and reality
Part of a typical process is that these things are handled privately. Only the rare exceptions go public. That means those that know or can reference cases cannot share this detail. I would provide a citation if I could but I respect the privacy of the process so I can't.
The problem with this is it's the same argument that gets used to justify things like the Patriot Act. "The only times you see us use this power is in horrible ways, but we assure you, most of the time we use it for good reasons! We just can't tell you about it, because CLASSIFIED". In short, it's an argument that only works if you already trust the person making the argument.
IMO that shouldn't fly with the Patriot Act, and it shouldn't fly here either.
I remember watching randyben get banned from Kiwicon one year. It was very public. They said his talk violated the CoC without specifically mentioned which part and how. It was very public, announced in front of the whole conference.
Shouldn't the ones handled publicly be handled with greater care given the scrutiny?
I served on the exec board of a non profit org that used our CoC to adjudicate behavior (sexual predator, harassment, etc) that was not covered by our bylaws.
One big difference, why our CoC proved useful, was we had a trial. Plaintiff, defendant, evidence, testimony, jury, deliberation. All of it.
It was a lot of work. And EXTREMELY painful. But it worked. A popular leader had a day in court. And our org emerged stronger for it.
I'd turn it around. Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in an unreasonable way against an actually reasonable person? There's been a few cases that blew up because the behavior fell into an arguably ambiguous zone, but I can't think of anyone who suffered real consequences and didn't have it coming. Just a little more tact and thoughtfulness on the offender's part would have saved a world of trouble.
Now I'm of two minds on this. I do sometimes miss the more freewheeling culture of the '00s, and feel like the need for constant compliance has drained the tech scene of some life... but honestly it's a small price to pay if the only alternative is tolerating fascists in your midst.
>Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in an unreasonable way against an actually reasonable person?
Said instance is the only reason this thread exists, no?
Wearing a MAGA hat is arguably a CoC violation in and of itself. The entire purpose is to offend.
I would disagree. I'm not a Republican myself, but it doesn't seem any different than wearing a Bernie hat or T shirt. He is expressing his political beliefs. You may find them offensive, and he may likewise find your views offensive, but I doubt either of you are doing so with the intent to offend.
How is a wearing a MAGA hat a CoC violation? This is so blatantly political that it's ridiculous. So 50% of the US (republicans) are in violation of the CoC. Echo chamber much ?
In your universe, what politicians are people allowed to support?
Is wearing a Bernie Sanders hat also a CoC violation? Is voting for a Republican also a CoC violation?
On what planet? Would you say the same of a Yang (MATH) hat? I loath Trump as much as anyone but this is utterly insane. We are not talking about Nazi imagery here, we are talking about a hat that supports the president elect - who by the way might very well win a second term on the back of this sort of un-american censorship.
A hat that contains a slogan he reused from the Regan administration to boot.
Agree with this. The MAGA hat is a symbol of endorsing every vile thing Trump has ever said. It is a threatening symbol and I believe many wear it not to stand with America but to stand with Trump, who is only concerned with Trump. And some wear it to trigger others.
It is a threatening, offensive, inconsiderate gesture.
This is one of the more ridiculous comments I've seen on HN. What a world we live in that people are threatened by a hat.
Repeat after me: "There is no right to be shielded from offense"
No such thing would happen" because the people behind the CoC were not racist
Read their tweets, many of them are openly and proudly racist, sexist and ageist.
>Read their tweets, many of them are openly and proudly racist, sexist and ageist.
Are they really? Or do they just dare to hold views that have nothin to do with sexism, agism or racism but instead just violate the "proper" political orthodoxy?
FreeBSD - Randi Harper. Who ran an online anti-harassment support organization:
> you fucking suck
Changed her Twitter name to "Kill All Men".
Drank coffee from mugs with things like "Male Tears" on the side.
“Joking” about killing all men to make men feel uncomfortable is still clearly harassment.
Especially when they don’t permit the “joking” excuses to anyone else.
Oh, I absolutely agree - my original comment was perhaps ambiguous. This was the hypocrisy of someone who actively advocated for CoCs to be introduced even as she was actively harassing people who didn't fit her world-view.
Here's my personal litmus test:
If you replace one gender with the other or one race with any other race (etc, etc) and the new sentence is offensive, then so is the previous one.
Is kill all women offensive? Then you obviously shouldn't say kill all men.
do they just dare to hold views that have nothin to do with sexism, agism or racism but instead just violate the "proper" political orthodoxy?
Well let’s see, what do you think about using “old”, “white” and “male” as pejoratives? No one ever seems to have violated a CoC for it.
I do feel the need to point out that the kennel CoC isn't involved in this particular episode at all...
The problem is poor governance.
Everyone has the right to appeal, sue for injury, etc.
Any entity acting as judge, jury, and executioner is the problem. Secret laws, secret courts, secret rulings are the problem.
Suboptimal CoC's are not (even remotely) the problem. Broken laws, policies, rules, procedures can be fixed. If we have proper governance.
We know this.
The two are tightly coupled. An intentionally vague CoC permits gaps throughout the governance system.
If CoC's were specific, they'd be called laws, rules, procedures.
CoC's like the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence exist to capture values, principles, culture, intent.
You're not exactly helping the case that this whole 'governance' is flimsy, a facade over arbitrary application of power.
Which side are you on?
Pick a side.
My natural inclination is to agree and stand against this stuff which superficially really does look like hysterical moralism.
The thing that stops me and almost makes me side with the CoC crowd is that I've spent the last 8-10 years watching a wave of fascist and hyper-reactionary ideology sweep across hacker culture.
The existence of so much actual fascism, race nationalism, Naziism, ideological misogyny ("red pill" and "incel" stuff), etc. in so many corners of hacker/geek culture make the hard core SJW crowd look like they have a point. The stuff that revolves around places like Gab and /pol/ makes the craziest examples of "call out culture" and "cancel culture" look sane and maybe necessary.
It's like this.
Say you're in Salem. Say you're horrified at all the witch hysteria. Now imagine you go for a walk in the woods and come upon a circle of people chanting and sacrificing babies over a bonfire...
Hmm... now maybe those witch hunters have a point!
I feel a little like that.
What I really think is that everyone on the right, left, and just about everywhere else lost their damn minds for some reason starting about 2010-2012. The MAGA hat crowd and the "cancel culture" crowd are all insane and this is all crazies fighting with crazies.
This install is totally borked. Format and reinstall the OS.
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.
We don't live in a civil society, we are only at the beginning of a civil society. ~ Jacque Fresco
How exactly is modern civilization too successful? More than 500,000 people are homeless in the US alone.
You live in a bubble.
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.
> 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.
Indeed. And how far does this go? What if banks, or grocery stores, start denying someone services because they were the subject of social opprobrium? A conference is not quite the same thing, but it is still a means by which some people are able to derive their livelihoods.
They already do. Some, for example, refuse to allow gun shops to use their clearance networks.
I heard an interesting idea today. "Boomers" have been criticizing "young people today" for being "snowflakes". It might be the case that with their fresher perspective on technology and culture, the younger people realized the perilous path involved in taking action now. Older, less savvy people are being caught unaware of the ramifications of certain types of speech and action in the modern world.
I think many young people, including those referred to as "snowflakes" are hardly being cautious with their online behavior, or what they say to people.
They gave rise to Snapchat, knowing that they'd want to control what went on the record. Now they're the first to figure out the new rules of public communication.
As a young person, I have to say I agree with the "boomers". People are way too thin skinned and find excuses to become offended.
Freedom of speech and the ability to have different opinions is infinitely more important than people's feelings.
New ideas come and go.
Most of the "free love" generation came along thinking their parents were squares and that they were creating a new, better society. Drug overdoses and HIV turned that ship around quick.
Maybe it's more accurate to say that the better ideas resist change.
Entrenched ideas resist change. Some of the worst ideas in human history have been the ones that have stuck around the longest. It took over a century to adopt the heliocentric model which was centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed the idea.
Ptolemaic cosmology was hardly a bad idea. It was the simplest model that fit the available evidence for a long time. The Heliocentric model didn't really make sense until Newton's theory of gravitation was developed.
Makes me wonder if there are any nutty ideas today that are right but seem to not make sense because we are missing a vital piece of theory that would explain how they work.
Some of the ancient justifications for heliocentrism included "fire is awesomer than earth"
Dark matter and dark energy come to mind.
Those are more like the crazy complex epicycles in Ptolemaic cosmology. They point to something seriously wrong.
I'm on the fence about the revisionist view that the Ptolemaics were rational at the time, but in a way its optimistic. I have always been suspicious of the "only people in the last 500 years had brains" bias. I wonder if all ages have had that bias?
Once I gained a sense of how deeply, horrifically stupid most people are, a lot of my questions about historical populations clicked into place really seamlessly.
Looking at the way most people (including most I know) approach both factual and moral questions, there's no belief in history that seems implausible, from chattel slavery to the humors theory to epicycles to the Inquisition. Most people really don't have the capacity to believe anything but what their social environment tells them to, and it's much more productive to consider the incentives and available information of the narrow few who are capable of doing so.
>I have always been suspicious of the "only people in the last 500 years had brains" bias. I wonder if all ages have had that bias?
This is an incredibly interesting point to consider. I would like to say that yes, every age had this kind of a bias, but perhaps that's not true. Life was rather similar during the time of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Renaissance. The daily life of average people, their wealth and tools weren't that different. They certainly have much less difference then the difference between the start of the Industrial Revolution and today. Perhaps people in previous ages didn't have this kind of a bias because they didn't see such a huge change in people's lives?
One thing that we seem to be adopting as a society is the idea that we need some kind of reasonable evidence for our beliefs. Usually this means that evidence based on the science of nature prevails, but we haven't really been able to push this onto all areas of life. I certainly think that we've managed to cover more fields than in the previous ages though.
> It took over a century to adopt the heliocentric model which was centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed the idea.
Hindsight is always 20-20
To be fair here, back in the 1990s, when Usenet was king, one common FAQ said words to the effect that “you should never post anything online that you don’t want to be published on the front page of The New York Times”.
There’s a reason why I deleted my Twitter years ago; it just is not possible to have civil discourse and well-made arguments in 160 characters (or whatever Twitter’s limits are these days); instead it’s like a bunch of chimpanzees throwing poop at each other.
Scott Alexander recently posted a long entry where he, among other things, misses the kinds of long winded rational arguments places like talkorigins.org had over a decade ago:
Boomers were criticized by their parents for being soft and lazy.
>happens on both sides of the political spectrum
Can you provide any examples to support this?
It's a mistake to classify ethical norms as politics. We just happen to be living in an of era populism where rampant unethical normalization is masquerading as politics.
A honest look at society forces us to recognize the trade-offs that exist between values. Politics is how we negotiate conflicting values.
Fighting over ethical norms is actually a pretty good definition of politics. Or one key aspect of it, at least.
Sure with respect to norms of Governance and policy style, not over whether a woman or a minority deserves to be treated with the same decency as any other human being.
And this is where it ends, no communication happens because each side set its straw man and start attacking their strawman. From what I see, the technical community is mostly neutral, this time the offense is one sided
Also very much part of politics, although not actually at issue anywhere near this debate, as nobody is arguing against those things.
On the contrary, that's the exact issue at the heart of what happened here.
Way to fail the ideological turing test:
Exactly, people saying what is happening with Trump "politics" is really out of touch with what is going on. This is a fight for America, it is not politics.
At no other time in history have so many American considered just voicing support for a democratically elected leader is some kind of hate crime. It's honestly a little fucked up.
How about try talking to that person, having a conversation, finding out that maybe, hey maybe, you actually agree on a lot of things? We did that in the Bush era, and that man's administration (Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie mostly) wanted to start a war with every nation in the middle east (and did get a pretty good start .. a start that Obama kept growing on mind you).
When you classify everyone as "the other," you are no better and maybe a little worse, because you don't allow yourself to listen.
A fight for America, and a fight for what it's values are is exactly what politics is about. I mean, politics isn't really about voting about the color of a bikeshed; rights of people and ethics and how we negotiate large swathes of population having conflicts is the core of politics, and only when there's a consensus about the big things (which is not the case today) then "politics" becomes arguing about trivialities.
In other words, the other side should accept us, regardless of our politics, because that's human thing to do and politics should not interfere with normal human endeavors. But we are OK to exclude the other side because it's beyond politics, those guys are just pure evil.
I hope you are smart enough to recognize it can't work this way. There always have been politics and it was always "fight for America". Even before there was America, actually. If you want to have any civil society, you need to learn to engage with people who disagree with you. If you can't, both sides lose.
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?)
No, I'm quite certain that people deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, or disability. Perhaps in the past this masqueraded as a political question, but it's too late to put that cat back in the bag. If we're sophisticated enough to hold a conference on the future of open source service orchestration, surely we have it in us to call a spade a spade and keep our conferences safe from bad actors.
I agree with you. But if you're going to call a spade a spade, you should be able to describe its spadery. In what way is this banned individual a bad actor?
No one has been able to specify any evidence. I'm tracking any dead ends I run into when asking for evidence under the hash tag: https://twitter.com/hashtag/LinuxFoundationKangarooCourt
To be clear _wearing the MAGA hat_ is a form of communication. It has word equivalency. It has the communication that, "I like what Trump says, I like the pure HATE and LIES he puts out there, I like that, and I want to _communicate_ that I like it and want _more_ of it.". One doesn't need to use words to communicate.
This is putting words into others' mouth at a whole different level. Terrifying.
This is both untrue and in principle an extremely slippery slope.
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.
Spineless? KubeCon uses a system of racial preferences when giving out free tickets . The leadership isn't spineless, they're evil and they believe in this stuff.
(Hell, they also have preferences for gays, as if they're a marginalized or underrepresented group. That's batshit crazy.)
>Cloud Native Computing Foundation’s diversity scholarship program provides support to those from traditionally underrepresented and/or marginalized groups in the technology and/or open source communities (including, but not limited to: persons identifying as LGBTQ, women, persons of color, and/or persons with disabilities) who may not otherwise have the opportunity to attend CNCF events for financial reasons.
This is so confusing to me. What if you don't belong to an underrepresented or marginalized group but also don't have the opportunity to attend CNCF events for financial reasons? What if you do belong to such a group, do actually have the money to attend, but lie and say you don't so you can easily get a free ticket? If they're going to help people because of financial issues, why does it matter if they're, for example, homosexual or heterosexual? Just because you may face other difficulties in life due to being homosexual that you may not have otherwise faced if you were heterosexual doesn't mean your lack of money is somehow more real than a heterosexual person's lack of money.
If they want to provide support to such a person, why not donate a percentage of the proceeds to LGBTQ organizations, for example, instead of letting them attend when someone who didn't share their birth characteristics but is otherwise in the same position can't? To use an extreme example, a gay person born to poor parents in San Francisco probably has a big leg-up in life over a straight person born to poor, meth-addicted, petty criminal parents in Idaho (accounting for cost of living differences etc., so the poor SF family has more money in total). Why not make the scholarship uncontrollable-attribute-blind and just make it based on financial need, or a combination of financial need and open source contributions, or something?
To LGBTQ HN readers, how do you feel about policies like these?
(Also, I don't think is at all "evil", as the parent said. Just baffling and ideological.)
It's done while shouting about "post-meritocracy" too which makes me think it's a selfish way for unskilled people to insert themselves into projects and make claims about being contributors
at first it wasn’t clear if younwere talking about uncle bob inserting himself or the linux foundation insert thenselves.
> fix a problem that didn't exist
Didn't exist for you, maybe.
Are you by any chance a white male? I myself am I white male, and while I don't personally have problems at conferences, I wouldn't pretend that problems don't exist.
> What privilege
What problem was Charles Max Wood going to cause at KubeCon?
Charles Woods was denied a pass for Kubecon on the basis of his podcasted support, at length, for Somnez's attacks on women in tech. It had absolutely nothing to do with MAGA hats.
Nevermind the fact that the women Somnez attacked were themselves harassing another woman in tech - even after she apologized (what her alleged offense was I'm not clear on).
These women, as can be seen from their histories, are not new to this kind of behavior, and indeed they have explicitly said that they see civility and discourse as something invented "by white men, for white men" as a means of oppression.
Somnez may have been excessive in his behavior, but he was doing it to draw fire away from an innocent individual.
Wearing a MAGA hat anywhere in public is threatening to a significant portion of people. It is saying to everyone in the vicinity, I agree with all the hate that Trump has put out there. It is calling everyone a "loser" when you don't agree with them. It is giving schoolyard bully nicknames to anyone you don't like. It is just straight up toxic.
And it is likely more threatening than average at a highly open source event, where many people dedicate their lives for deep values and human rights.
If Charles Max Wood would have worn a MAGA hat at KubeCon, a lot of people would have felt very uncomfortable, including myself (not going to KubeCon this year though).
It is not threatening at all, unless you consider the existence of people who hold different political views threatening. In which you case you are the one who should not be out in public not everybody else.
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that devaluing women, minorities, and foreigners is merely a difference in political views. It's an outright abandonment of human decency that is central to the professional ethics of western society and more.
That's not a mainstream political view for anyone today.
I wonder which venues such implicit denigration of non-eurocentric culture could get you banned from.
It IS threatening to ME. That is my feeling. You can't take that feeling away from anyone. It isn't a different political view. It is human decency. Wearing that hat endorses every hateful thing Trump has ever said. It is a scorn on the human race.
Your worldview is threatening to me and every other freedom-loving individual. That is my feeling.
For the record, I think modern politics is total garbage. Republican, Democrat, it's all the same coin. I believe in equality, not equity, and I believe in equal rights. This mindset that some people are more deserving of rights than others based on how marginalized they are, should be antithetical to modern progressive thought, instead it's become infected by it.
that's a misleading defintion of "progressive thought". If you're gonna disagree with it, at least disagree with what people are actually saying.
It's more defined by rectifying historical injustices rather than giving more rights to some over others.
"rectifying historical injustices"
This is a problem. History happened. Those people are long gone. We should focus on being fair and creating equal opportunity for people today, not discriminating because of some random sample of events at a time and place way beyond anyone currently living.
Yeah, I’m not sure those two things are very different. History happened, it’s still happening. The Republican Party is still disenfranchising black voters as they did in history. Black people with equal education and training still find it harder to get jobs than white people, as they did in history. You can’t chuck history out of the window if you wanna create equal opportunities because history is what’s created the unfair system we live in today.
I doubt your claims are true with record low unemployment across every category and voting participation increasing.
But if they are, then change the policies that affect people today. Making up policies based on what happened centuries ago fixes nothing.
Awwww... I don’t think I’ve ever met someone that’s eaten one of Trump’s talking points in the wild before.
So, firstly Martin Luther King was assassinated for fighting for civil rights only 51 years ago. So you might wanna get your time line sorted. When you say “centuries” I reckon you’re talking about slavery, which ended in America about 150 years ago, which also technically isn’t even a multiple of centuries yet, so maybe you wanna look into that also.
Secondly it is actually exactly the policies that MLK was fighting against that still have their effects on black communities today. Segregation, underfunded school districts, black disenfranchisement, these things are still going on. They don’t just disappear when the laws change, you know. The result of centuries (yes multiple) of mismanagement and mistreatment don’t disappear in decades.
Lastly, it’s great that the black white unemployment gap has closed a little bit, but it’s not clear that this is a result of directed policy to achieve that. Currently we’re living in a time of extremely low interest rates and decent public spending. Anyone who wants money can get money cheap right now, which has helped aid extremely low unemployment generally. It’s a risk though, because the national debt has ballooned and this policy if not properly regulated can easily precipitate a recession. Low unemployment is a nice side effect though.
I'm not saying that's what "progressive thought" is. I'm saying that it's become infected by this mindset, making today's progressive movement share a lot in behavior with fascists and with people like Joseph McCarthy.
"Rectifying historical injustices" is by itself a meaningless phrase, as there are many ways to do this, some of which unduly affect others, and some of which don't.
It’s only a meaningless phrase if you’re motivated to interpret it in ways that are unhelpful. In that sense every phrase is a meaningless phrase until you get some details added to it.
Then perhaps you should not go. I am not threatened, nor do I think any one else is really threatened at all, in any reasonable sense anyway. Why should your discomfort trump mine and the MAGA hat wearers desire to interact in this venue?
That right there is precisely why the organizers had to take action. They want to cultivate a conference where diverse attendees don't feel like they have to make a choice between participating in an important professional and staying away from hostile actors. It ruins the atmosphere of the event.
Seriously? What exactly are these actors going to do?
A MAGA hat is not dissimilar to a nazi symbol, albeit to a much lesser degree. You wouldn’t want Nazis around even if you knew they weren’t gonna do anything. Just having people around that devalue other human beings as lesser than them is enough.
Your stunning lack of intellectual charity aside, other people's discomfort is not an unlimited license to disrupt a individual's ability to conduct their business and participate in society. I am no lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Wood (and Mr. Somnez, for that matter) has a case for something like tortuous interference.
As it happens, Charles Wood is by all accounts a very decent person, whereas the folks who complained to the Linux Foundation have a public history of abusive and bigoted behavior. That you would think so little of his character, while saying nothing of his interlocutors, is pretty ridiculous.
I didn’t say anything about his character. I don’t know anything about his interlocutors. Both of those things are kind of irrelevant to my post which is about the hat.
Oh, you've said plenty about his character. You've implied that he devalues other human beings, that he is lying about his (lack of) support for Trump, and suggested that he was "suspiciously" unaware of how taking a picture wearing a Trump hat would be perceived (whatever "suspiciously" is implying in this context).
Yet, if you actually look at his behavior, and the remarks of those who came to his defense, you might see that you were being presumptuous. You might then update your mental model of people who wear MAGA hats, and whether their presence would be a problem at a technology conference.
It also seems rather silly to analyze the symbolic significance and racist undertones of some guy wearing a MAGA hat once, when the people who complained about him to the Linux Foundation were openly attacking Mr. Wood on the basis of his race and sex.
For what it’s worth, there’s a picture of me wearing a MAGA hat out there on the internet too. Ironically, of course, but I do sympathise with the guy. I do think it’s out of order for the Linux Foundation to ban him for this (although they claim there are other reasons).
That aside, this doesn’t mean I think he’s a good guy. From what I gather he seems like a normalish dude, maybe a little troll-ish, but I mean we all enjoy a good troll every now and then. I can’t hold that against him. But there’s no chance he wasn’t aware of the symbolism of posting that picture when he did. He pretends he doesn’t, but you’d have to be a fool to accept that.
I doubt he’s a Trump supporter or a racist, but even if he was I don’t think that’s good enough grounds to ban him unless there was good reason to think he was going to be a disruptive presence.
I decided to put all my cards on the table here because I’m a bit disturbed by the idea that you think that he was banned because he’s a white man? Banned by an organisation that is run largely by white men? Just trying to figure out how this works in your head.
Is it the white men on the board that hate him for being white? Is it the Asian men on the board that hate him for being white? Or is it the white women on the board that hate him for being white?
If you could clear that up, it’d be cool.
"It ruins the atmosphere of the event."
That's exactly what was said of allowing African-Americans into white theaters and restaurants in the Jim Crow south.
Major difference here being that black people weren’t allowed in because the hosts had unfair predujices, while people with MAGA hats aren’t allowed in because the people wearing them have unfair prejudices.
Subtle but important difference.
Of course, some people might be wearing MAGA hats and be unaware of Trumps demonisation of immigrants, banning Muslims, alleged (and admitted) attacks on women and refusal (initially at least) to condemn the KKK, Nazis and white supremacists, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume most of them have an inkling of this.
The man had a picture taken once with a MAGA hat. That does not make him a danger to society. Most likely no one but the person who so venomously reported him would even know that he is a Trump supporter during the conference. This is all lunacy.
This is just so hilariously wrong. The man isn't even a Trump supporter, not that would in anyway justify this witch hunt, but read for your self:
Surely we reached peak SJW imperialism and its time to roll this crap back.
So the MAGA hat was just a prop for a Trump Tower picture?? The man didn't even vote for Trump! This whole debacle gets more enraging by the hour.
I mean, I wouldn’t take him at his word.
I mean, I suppose we’ll never know what’s in his mind, but he seems suspiciously unaware of how much people would find that picture disturbing. Almost like in 2016 no one thought there was anything weird about Trump at all.
He could be a Trump supporter, but is actually trolling. He could be trolling and not be a Trump supporter. Either way, it’s impossible to accept that he didn’t know that Trump was a controversial character in 2016.
> I mean, I suppose we’ll never know what’s in his mind, but he seems suspiciously unaware of how much people would find that picture disturbing.
Do you have any idea how many people would find your perspective disturbing?
I think you’ve lost the thread. I’m not pretending I don’t know how much people would find my perspective disturbing like he was.
That said, no. I don’t.
Wouldn't the MAGA hat wearer bring diversity to the meeting as well? I for one would be interested in learning why someone intelligent would support Trump.
Look, this sort of thing is unsustainable. If you interact with a large group, someone, somewhere, is going to wear, say or think something you do not approve of. It is a mathematical certainty and part and parcel of the human condition. Far from a problem, this is good, its through differences and debate that we grow, we learn and maybe come together.
This SJW culture on the other hand is all wrong. Its weak, fragile, authoritarian and self-righteous, even as it contradicts itself. It is profoundly un-American, and it does does nothing but weaken and divide us all.
SWJ is not even like a normal cancer that attacks the host, it is so incoherent that many times it even attacks itself.
Perhaps if you got to know the people you fear and disparage better, you might not feel so threatened?
As an opponent of Trump, I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that.
If party A doesn't like party B, then that gets settled for a ballot box, but for any public event if voting for party A, openly supporting party A, and being in party A disqualifies you from participation - well, either it's a political convention for party B or the policy is simply unacceptably wrong.
I mean, there are two parties in the USA with a roughly comparable amount of supporters, with some shifting back and forth over the years. If the presence of a roughly half of population makes someone uncomfortable that's... interesting but inherently they have as much right to be there as you do. The right to swing one's fist ends at the other's nose; and the right to dislike members of an opposing party ends at the point where you kick them out from non-partisan events.
IMHO a simple test would be whether you'd consider the equivalent action appropriate for someone wearing an Obama CHANGE hat back in 2008. What's good for goose is good for gander - we can hate certain policies, we can hate certain politicians, but applying that hate and exclusion to all the supporters of these politicians crosses a line that puts it right in the same ballpark as hating a major group of our (!) population because of their race or gender or religion.
Active supporters of Trump are just as valid part of USA population as any other major group, like it or not. It's appropriate to try and convince them to change their opinion, but it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society.
> I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that.
KubeCon is not a public venue, at least in the way I think you mean it. It's a private conference, with tickets and admission policies. It's not a government; presumably so long as it does not take discriminatory action towards a protected class of people, it is free to do as it pleases.
> it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society.
Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.
In this comment I meant a public venue in the sense of any venue not specific to a particular political party or some members-only closed organization.
Sure, it's legally free to do as it chooses, but I'm claiming that it shouldn't choose that way, that all such venues should explicitly allow also people who are advocates for the "enemy" party if this is not a political event. "The society", whether talking about the whole country or about the tech domain or about particular narrow industries, inevitably includes people of all parties, including active Trump supporters. They're part of the community. Where do we draw the line if supporting one of the major presidental candidates is not acceptable? Do we start labeling tech cons as "Democrats and other anti-Republicans only" events? That seems really wrong, that's putting way more politics in tech events than should be reasonable - IMHO they should actively choose to be politically neutral.
And I believe that it's important to underline that this is a symmetric thing. Yes, there's a polarization where many people believe that the active supporters of the other party are inherently unethical. That cuts both ways, and has done so many times in past. If you say that it's okay for niche industry conferences to kick out someone for openly supporting the presidental candidate they like, then it means that it's okay for niche industry conferences (now or after a couple elections) to kick out people like you for openly supporting the candidate that you prefer. And I don't think that this is where we want to go.
> Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.
This kind of thing is occuring with some degree of regularity across the tech industry. KubeCon is hardly the first (nor the last) such incident.
I agree that active supporters of Trump are just as valid as any other group like white nationalists, KKK etc, but I disagree with the idea that is implied by your text that a group’s size makes them more valid as a group.
Half the country are not Republican. About half the electorate is. Voter turn out Was about 55%. 46% of the people voted for Trump. So about 25% of the citizens in the country voted for him. Even less currently support him and this is not even counting undocumented immigrants.
None of this should even matter anyhow because the size of the group doesn’t make it okay. I shouldn’t have to invoke Godwin’s law to justify this, but I will at the slightest provocation.
In ordinary times, this would make sense. But we're living in extraordinary times, where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians around the world than he does with the traditionally conservative ideals of the Republican party. This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.
As for the problem this poses to conferences, it's not merely academic. We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment. When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.
> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.
False. Politics is how we work out how to live together given conflicting value systems.
> When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation.
This type of response is not going to change anyone's mind, and is only going to make the problem worse.
It's not about changing that persons mind. It's about maximizing the value of the event for the rest of attendees.
And no, on politics. Differences of opinion on how to run a country, where to put resources, what policy makes sense. All fair game. Whether or not a gender or minority has access to the same rights as everyone else? Not political. That's a matter of human decency. The very bare minimum to begin to enter professional ethics.
Rest of the attendees includes many other Trump supporters, who have all right to be there and shouldn't have to fear getting kicked out for admitting it. You seem to imply that Trump supporters either don't exist or don't matter - whether or not people of some political party affiliation have the same rights as everyone else is just as much part of professional ethics as the equivalent thing for gender or race. This political filtering seems a bit like a repeat of McCarthy's Red Scare.
Regarding the event: the mere discomfort of some people does not grant unlimited license to disrupt an individual's ability to conduct business and participate in society. As I've said elsewhere, I am not a lawyer but this looks an awful lot like tortuous interference.
Regarding politics: Whether abortion is the murder of a most innocent human life or the expression of women's sacred bodily autonomy runs right to the core of morality, ethics, and human rights (the mother's and the child's). And yet, it is also obviously a political issue. Trying to play word games isn't going to solve the problem that you share a society with people who may profoundly disagree with you.
Can you link where Trump has acted or said something against people of different genders or minorities not being allowed to have the same rights.
> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.
Yeah I mean, that's just, like, your opinion, human.
There have been civil wars and world wars. These are not extraordinary times. They are a time of record peace and prosperity.
I feel many people use these descriptions because they have had relatively comfortable lives and never experienced true violence, political upheaval, or authoritarian regimes.
>> where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians
Citation Please... I would love to know what actual policy, law, or procedure in place from 2016 to 2019 that is that starkly different from the policies and actual policy, law, or procedure that were in place by the US Federal government from 2008 to 2016.
Trump is a buffon, and is boorish with his speech and loves to piss people off on twitter, but the American president (thankfully) is limited in power, as such in reality not all that much has changed from one president to the next.
So you are either ignorant of the policies that have been in place for probably decades that many people think are "new" (especially around immigration which those policies have been in place for decades now)
>We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment
As long as they are not republican right?
>Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.
Does that extend to Left Political Extremist (for example people wearing support for communist messaging ) or only what you consider "Right Extremism" which is most likely normal republican policies. It funny to me when people call Trump (a former democrat) "Extreme Right" when in reality is left of what the Republican party was just 15 years ago, he has pulled the Republican party more "left" on social issues. The problem is not that the republicans have gotten "more right" it is the Democrat have pulled their steering wheel all the way to the left and stomped on the accelerator peddle.
I am outside observer to both parties, the Republicans have not gotten more right, it is the left that has shifted WILDLY in the last 4 years.
Exactly, this isn't some "political" difference, this is a fundamental fight about decency and human rights. It is THE core of open source in a way. Thanks for this, " This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency."
So, just ask him not to wear it at the conference ?
You seem to have your facts confused. Wood wasn't publicly planning to wear a provocative hat to a conference or anything like that.
No, because I didn't state that he was planning on wearing it to the conference, I stated an "if": "If Charles Max Wood would have worn a MAGA hat at KubeCon". That isn't a fact.
But if he would do it on Twitter, what is to say he wouldn't feel empowered to do it at KubeCon?
If he would have? We should kick this guy out of the Linux Foundation because he hypothetically might disagree with us at a conference?
> But if he would do it on Twitter, what is to say he wouldn't feel empowered to do it at KubeCon?
Because KubeCon isn't held at a Trump Hotel?
The only reason he is wearing a MAGA hat on Twitter is to pose in front of a Trump Hotel in NYC. He says right in the Twitter post he didn't vote for Trump and that the hat is a prop.
> It is saying to everyone in the vicinity, I agree with all the hate that Trump has put out there.
Um, it isn't. It really isn't. Unless you 100% subscribe to that maxim "you're either with me or against me", of course. But if you actually think Trump is being hateful, you should perhaps leave open the possibility that even those who agree with his broad political stance might object to his actions in pursuing it, and perhaps some of the specifics he sometimes advocates for. That's exactly what we've been seeing from many people in the current administration who are, broadly speaking, Trump supporters.
To me, when someone wears that hat, it definitely is. It is endorsing all the hate that comes out of him.
Here are 271 times Trump has used the word "loser" on Twitter alone.
That is HATE. MAGA Hat == HATE, to me and a large percentage of others on this planet.
loser is a hate word now?
Can you provide me with a list of all the words I am not allowed to say?
I prefer tha assholes walk around with giant "I'm an asshole" signs, personally.
I've seen plenty of people unironically wear Che Guevera T-shirts, Socialist t-shirts, etc. even at conferences. If that's not at least at little bit threatening to some people, let me introduce you to my friend who helped people escape over the Berlin wall.
Whether you like it or not, plenty of people who voted for Trump are probably in attendance. Telling them that they're unequivocally not welcome is hardly going to change their minds.
So anyone that supports Republican policies or the current elected president of the US should be banned from Linux Foundation events?
Do you have be a Democrat to be a part of Open Source now
//for the record I am neither Republican nor Democrat, i am Libertarian, and I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 so don't burn me at the stake please...
current gop behavior is pretty bad, i hesitate to associate with anyone still aligned that way if i don’t have to. it was not this way 10 years ago.
The current policies and positions of the GOP are the exact same as they were 10 years ago (slightly to the left actually)
it is progressives / liberals that have moved, not the GOP
Child separation policy was new. Building a concrete wall across the border is new. Banning Muslims is new. Refusing a president the right to nominate judges and having the senate vote on them is new. I could go on.
Well, I've already got the wood and gasoline...
I didn't say that, I just said that it is threatening to others to wear that hat. If anyone wears that hat knowingly in public, they do it to agitate others, IMO.
What else should we do to people who wear those hats? Refuse to hire them? Refuse to bake them a cake, or sell them groceries? Cancel their Paypal account, or deny them banking services?
You just said that...
MAGA is support for Republican Policies.
if you believe wearing a MAGA hat is "threatening" and you believe in banning people that "threaten you" then you are saying you want to bann everyone that supports Republican Policies.
You can not say "I just want to bann people that wear MAGA Hats not republicans"...
Republicans where MAGA Hats and Support the President, Donald Trump
So does wearing an Obama shirt mean you agree with everything Obama did including drone strikes? So in essence, an Obama bumper sticker is a statement that you agree with murder?
I'm not stating a personal opinion here but, for many people wearing a MAGA hat is equivalent to supporting this kind of speech:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best, they’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” - Donald Trump, 2015
If for instance you were from Mexico, it could be discouraging to attend the presentation of someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal.
I personally wouldn't ask a question to someone who believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity. Would you?
Didn't he say "their rapists" not "they’re rapists"?
Subtle difference but it does significantly shrink the group being called rapists from the entire country of Mexico to only immigrants.
Weirdest bit of apologetics ever. Making small tactical adjustments that reduces the spread of statements target, but has little effect on its meaning or effect.
"there are rapists"
Not even immigrants, just the illegal ones.
And yet, for a Republican, he has record high support among the Hispanic population.
What's your point?
That perhaps Hispanic people are not necessarily going to be off put by people in MAGA hats.
Sure, perhaps some wouldn't, but it seems that from the point of view of the Linux Foundation what the majority would provably feel was more important.
Regardless of what they might feel (which, contrary to your assertion, has yet to be proven) the actual threat posed by a middle-aged man who once wore a MAGA is essentially zero.
Protecting participants against actual harm and harassment is a legitimate reason for revoking a person's ticket to an event. Trying to pretend that you don't have to share a country with millions of people who voted for its sitting president is not.
I personally share this sentiment of yours; I particularly dislike how "cancel culture" is increasing divide and lack of dialog in our societies. In my opinion though this was still a dilemma, which was obviously poorly handled (Twitter is in no way the correct place for this sort of things).
My initial post simply attempted to answer your question by explaining the rationality I believe the Linux Foundation followed here.
That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech.
All this offense before understanding and flinging crazy associations around does nothing but cause more divide.
> That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true.
I believe you have misread that last sentence as I didn't make any sort of assumption.
> Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech.
I never said that, but wearing an iconic hat created, used, and sold by a person who said what I previously quoted can obviously be interpreted as supporting such speech. This however, as I have already said, is not my personal view.
Could you clarify what "crazy associations" I made?
> "someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal"
> "believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity"
This is your assumption. Nobody said this. Nobody believes this.
The stretched association is then calling anyone who wears a hat to also be a supporter of this incorrect assumption. That's the problem. It's creating outrage against a made-up position that nobody holds.
You are clearly misreading what I wrote, please read it again: I do not believe that all people who wears a MAGA hat believes in those ideas, what I said is that many people do (since that's the sort of rhetoric Trump often uses).
> Nobody said this
Yes, Trump said that Mexican immigrants bring drugs and crime, that's literally what he stated in that speech. In a similar fashion he also wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering" the US:
It is extremely disingenuous though to say that "nobody" who wears that hat associates Mexican immigrants (and other demographics) with crime.
The statements you are making now are already retreating from your initial position. "Bringing in drugs and crime" is not equivalent to "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation. I think it's reasonable to disagree with Trump on matters of degree and relevance, but not to wholly twist his statements or rely on divining his state of mind.
One, his statement is not qualified wrt other populations. A strong defense against a similar statement about immigrants in Germany was that the crime level of immigrant populations was of a similar magnitude to natives. Trump's argument could easily be challenged the same way.
The second way would be relevance. It's trivially true that some of the immigrants may bring in crime. Is this important to the discussion? Many decisions have adverse consequences but are still taken as a measure of overall good or moral fortitude. An example would be giving free speech to people with reprehensible ideas - while it may lead to offense and actual harm, it is argued as both a net positive good and a show of moral fortitude, that the societ is secure enough in its beliefs that it ia willing to entertain arguments striking against its core. Similarly, one could argue that Mexican immigrants bring in a net positive(it is a common trope that they are hardworking and willing to take on otherwise undesirable jobs). You could also argue that American society should have(within reason) the fortitude to accept immigrants and give them a chance to integrate and enjoy the benefits of Amercian society.
You don't need to strawman Trump to argue against his rhetoric. By far Trump's strongest political weapon has been to bait people into emotional outrage and theb turn around and use that as ammo.
I am not retreating my initial position. It would be generous if instead of just accusing me of doing so, you could point out what exactly made you believe that.
> "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation
If by "every immigrant" you meant "every Mexican immigrant" then yes, that was sort of (and still is) my interpretation: to say that Mexican immigrants bring drugs is equivalent to say Mexican immigrants are criminals. I beg anyone who disagrees with this interpretation to clearly state why. I honestly want to understand how else the aforementioned speech could be interpreted.
Well, lets look at the exact quote that you are referencing.
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I got this from RealClearPolitics and I'll ignore the fact that they quoted it as "they're" instead of "their", even though those words sound identical when spoken. His very next sentence is "And some, I assume, are good people."
So my interpretation is that Trump believes that a disproportionate number of the people illegally crossing the US Mexico border are involved in drug or human trafficking, but some are just people trying to find a better life.
I think Trump is a very poor orator and is kind of dumb, so this didn't come off very well and I can see why people were offended by it, but it is also not fair to leave out the context of his very next sentence when it refutes your agenda.
he was talking about illegal immigrants, per reports by border patrol. this was in the original statement, and the "unbiased" "respectable" media reported that Trump called all Mexicans rapists.
border patrol gives pregnancy tests to girls 10 and up when they arrive, due to the high prevalence of rape among illegal migrants.
The rape victims are Mexican women and children. he has said this many times as well.
Antitrump folks also like to ignore sex traffic, presumably because it's politically expedient to let those women suffer.
the recent peak in apprehensions is 140,000 in a month. border patrol estimates they catch 1/3 of border crossers. if 1% of that population is rapists, that's a whole lot of rapists.
you can remain wilfully ignorant of what was said and what was meant if you so choose, but at least be quiet about your opinions that disagree with readily verifiable facts.
For some people, sure. For some people, support for Bernie Sanders is support for the communist ideology that murdered millions of people, and as a person who personally suffered under a socialist regime I would certainly be uncomfortable in the presence of the socialist or communist symbolics. Does it mean Linux Foundation has an obligation to exclude anybody who ever proclaimed sympathies to Sanders and other socialists, to create safe space for me (in case I'd ever want to visit Linux Foundation sponsored event) and people like me who, personally or through their family and relatives, suffered under socialist and communist regimes?
Of course, singling out communism is not fair - I could name many other ideologies that some people may be very uncomfortable with, especially if you pick out the worst statements you could find, interpret it in worst and most uncharitable light possible and pretend that anybody who have ever agreed with anything in that ideology also fully agrees with that maximally uncharitable interpretation. It would be rather sad safe place if that policy would be carried to its logical conclusion.
But of course it would never happen. I can't imagine anybody being kicked out of a conference for ever wearing (even outside of the conference context) Che Guevara t-shirt or being photographed in presence of hammer-and-sickle flag (and I'm not even talking about religious symbols, most Abrahamic religions at least having very dark pasts and rather ambiguous present). It would be carried out arbitrarily and capriciously, following where current political winds are blowing and what tribal pressure groups happen to be more vocal and scare the organizers the most. That makes it not only a bad policy, but also a hypocritical one.
I am not sure that I understand your point: as you probably know, Bernie Sanders is not a communist, so why would anyone associate his persona with the horrors of authoritarian communist regimes?
The difference between "communist", "socialist" and "democratic socialist" is mostly marketing branding. Same ideology, different wrapping. But my point is not about Sanders but about the fact that people disagree on a lot of things, and if open source organizations start excluding people because somebody could disagree with them on political questions we'll get into a bad place quite fast.
Which problems exist that would be addressed by this?
What specific problem are they fixing here?
Regardless of what he did or didn't do (I don't have any information on that), I find the phrase "we have reviewed social and video" concerning.
What does that have to do with the event and its code of conduct?
> 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'm sure that policy is enforced in a fair and totally non-arbitrary fashion— have they banned Linus Torvalds from their events? He's "tone policed" way harder than this guy.
Are the participants of the epic flame wars of the 90s immune from retroactive CoC violations or is there a statute of limitations?
Thank you for providing the source.
That sounds incredibly far-reaching.
It sort of is but it basically just means they can ban anyone from their events at any time for any reason--and they pretty much have that right anyway CoC or no CoC.
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.
Now I know a thing about this Wood guy that I would never have known without UB's complaint. It does not, in fact, inspire me to lend him support, or even the clean socks I am led to guess he lacks.
Another result of UB's announcement is that I have noticed Uncle Bob, appropriately or ironically, shares initials with the infamous Undefined Behavior.
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.
In Steve Jackson Games' card game Illuminati (probably the most accurate model of online communities today) the fanatic is the opposite of the fanatic.
Strongly agree. "People you may have blood feuds with"
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.
But it feels natural, too.
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.
I keep one account for everything because I want to draw people who are like minded to my circle. I don't want to hide that. I am who I am.
But are you, really? As an amateur radio operator my interests and social circle have almost no overlap with my interests and social circle as a programmer, and almost no overlap with my interests and social circle politically, religiously, etc. in a very true sense I am several different people at once and if my hobbyist self manifested at work to the exclusion of all else the best I could hope for is that I be asked if maybe I should take a day off and rest. I don’t expect to find people who overlap with more than one of my interests but am overjoyed when I do. I can’t imagine being a bigger jackass than to manifest all of my interests to all people at all times and express a “this is who I am, take it or leave it!” attitude. The greatest joy in life is finding a good friend or even best friend who shares three or more of these interests. Heck, our spouses don’t always share more than two!
We, the people, should just make a new Linux Foundation and new FSF. The current ones are clearly broken. Postmeritocracy my ass.
Or even a more broad software development community that strives for fairness and well-thought guidelines instead of the current ones.
Help yourself. The door's right there.
I don't understand. Are people mad because he posted a picture of himself in a maga hat? That seems awfully milquetoast. You know you live in a bubble when you want to black-list half the nation for a common political view.
Edit: it seems that people are annoyed because he's tied to a guy named John Sonmez. Any context on why this guy is bad? It looks like he caters to the same crowd Jordan Peterson does, but hasn't said anything offensive? The most I can find are references to "SJW"s, which doesn't sound particularly bad (especially when you consider what people on the "other side" say/do).
From the most recent controversy - he seems like a pretty odious person?
I agree that guy sounds like a jerk, but he's not the guy who got kicked out of a conference. It was someone associated with him. And I believe the rationale for that guy getting kicked out was wearing a maga hat.
He participates a flame war on the internet! No one has done this since Hitler!
Seriously whats so bad about that tweet? He is a bit rude "shut your mouth", but so are 90% of the other participants. The parent tweet could be interpreted as much more rude -- She is assuming her collegaues are racist just because they are saying that "she should be happy to work there" I'd say that to almost everyone in IT, just compare the job to anything in retail or a school teacher.
It’s ironic how the excess of political correctness is distancing people more than the original problems PC was aiming to solve.
There is a term for this distancing, "butthurt": People used to privilege outraged when it is withdrawn.
There is a twitter feed where more is discussed, this is a good starting point:
This is the person and comments he is discussing:
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.
Alright, I've spent a couple hours trying to figure this out. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Asking the "woke" individuals on twitter what Charles did wrong will invoke a response of "F you do your own research it's obvious what Charles did wrong."
Man A said something racist to Woman B, Charles then stepped in and said "let's have a reasonable phone call and sort this out civilly." What gets more interesting is Woman B has at least one tweet saying "White men in tech ain't shit." So she's definitely racist. edit: (could be wrong about who is who here, but someone involved in getting him banned definitely said the white men in tech comment.)
Charles is getting this hate because by saying to the "Obviously racist" man A, "lets have a civil phone call about this," He's obviously siding with racists instead of siding with the marginalized minorities. (sarcasm)
Charles is getting tons of comments that he should shut the F up and listen to these marginalized groups instead of trying to butt in and make himself look good. Charles is Mormon, 9 Mormons were just burned alive in Mexico, so obviously Charles has no idea what it's like the be a part of a hated, marginalized group.
edit: Sorry it's hard to tell, I'm definitely being sarcastic in parts of this post.
Opinion here, I think people on twitter are working very hard to turn "differing politics" into "unacceptable bigotry." And it's definitely working. It seems the original racist guy mainly has a problem with affirmative action. And he definitely doesn't use current politically correct speech around gender either. But is that grounds for banning a dude just for associating with the "racist guy". I'll leave that up to the reader to decide.
What is happening to the USA? I am honestly more scared for our country because of the current pervasive political divisiveness than I am because of climate change. At least with climate change you have a few decades to prepare. The USA wasn't anything like it is now 20 years ago in terms of divisiveness, and it seems like the divisiveness is getting worse every year. A "cold civil war" I've heard it called.
> 20 years ago
It wasn't even like this 4 years ago.
Maybe you missed donglegate six years ago. These people aren't new, but they seem to be gaining in numbers and influence.
It's almost like something really divisive happened within the last 4 years or so. I can't imagine what.
You bet - the political elites got thoroughly rejected and the resulting temper tantrum hasn't stopped yet!
The next five years should be even more exciting.
EDIT: we really need to stop referring to them as political elites; that's giving them too much credit. The wannabe political elites then - because obviously they weren't as elite as they thought - ha!
Somewhat less divisively: what ought to have been a routine democratic election took place which a lot of people invested a lot of emotion into. It’s hardly the first time a world government has had a political upset, but it does seem to be the first time a significant segment of the population lost sight of the fact that democracy only works when everybody accepts the results, even if it wasn’t the result they voted for.
I don't believe your assertion that it was the losers who didn't accept the results. The person most prominently questioning the integrity of the election was the winner. He spent months putting out strange lies about about "3 million invalid votes" and opened an advisory committee to investigate election integrity. He's only escalated it since. A couple of months ago, he claimed that the 2016 election had 16 million fake votes.
I don't think that outweighs the literal years of the RUSSIAN COLLUSION nothingburger, if you're going to talk about bogus investigations.
One of those two investigations produced 34 indictments, convictions, or guilty pleas (one of the indictments is on trial today!). The other accomplished nothing but disbanded itself after a judge ordered that the Democrats appointed to the committee should be allowed to see what the committee was doing.
One of them was headline news for years on end before fizzling out after it became evident that it didn't even come close to the supposedly imminent impeachment of the president. The other was a minor thing that nobody really took seriously and ended years ago.
"Well, other than 34 indictments and convictions, it was a nothing burger..."
"Well, other than the interruption, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"
Did she say something about Trump's election being illegitimate?
I mean, I was argumentative AF on facebook as long as 8 years ago.
This is why I moved out. Look up the DAFT.
Is there any way to have evidence for what you're saying?
I've been looking for at this HN thread and there still hasn't been any evidence of the original tweets.
Why would people be mad at Charles for "let's have a reasonable phone call and sort this out civilly."?
There seems to be some missing information including a video that no one has posted.
It's also clear as mud how things got from a tussle on Twitter the whole content/participation of which is also pretty fuzzy to a ban from a conference that had no apparent connection. (The conference is in about a week so nothing happened at the conference itself.)
The Linux Foundation did do a code of conduct post thread on Twitter which, among other things, mentions you can violate an event CoC before an event although it's also unclear what that means. I'm sure more than a few of the 10,000 people attending Kubecon have, at some point in their lives, done something to upset someone else on Twitter.
That was actually their stated reason: "tone policing":
So that means they fully accepted and swallowed Mei's fabricated, ascribed motivation.
Wonderful. Another big score for Mei's list of successful reputation attacks.
Isn't policing tones what CoC are about?
I doubt 10 people know the real story behind this. Everyone here should practice the MYOB principle.
edit: DuskStar - I obviously edited this substantially, because I added nothing of value and only served to continue discussion of this submission. Both of the conclusions you jumped to are incorrect, it's a shame we were unable to have a mutually respectful exchange about it.
EDIT: My apologies for the lack of conversation here, then.
I'm confused by the significance of that link. Are you trying to suggest that since he was against firing James Damore, or since he's complained about character assassination in the past, his future opinions should be ignored?
What is the MYOB principle? I did a Google search, but Google seems to think I'm looking for a company out of Australia that makes accounting and resource planning software for businesses. Given your commment and the context of this thread, I suspect that's not what you're referring to.
I'm guessing MYOB => Mind your own business.
I'd like to point out that this "racist guy" has also never said anything racist. The WORST thing he said was told a black woman to "shut your mouth"
> ...He's obviously siding with racists instead of siding with the marginalized minorities.
Hopefully you aren't being too serious. I could easily imagine someone saying that who was taking B's side in the dispute. No one should be banned from a conference and slandered as a hateful, violence-inclined etc. person for trying his best to de-escalate a conflict, no matter how misguided and perhaps even outrageous.
I read that as sarcasm, but yes it is a little hard to tell.
For anyone who wants to hear Mr. Sonmez's side of the story, here's a video on the topic from his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yYSi32fKI
Don't try to logically think your way out of issues that weren't logically entered into in the first place, it's pointless.
These folks don't want to resolve anything, they just want to point at a "bad guy" and have them be harmed.
Saying that making a complaint public and it's answer public constitutes harassment just sounds trollish. If it all happened privately he would have complained about that as well. Actually he does when he says the exact motives are hidden.
I find it funny that the tech community, here like in many instances, is struggling to reinvent the wheel.
Processes to handle violation of rules and complaints exist, they are called tribunals. They are based on a few things that are there for a reason:
- clear written rules
- independent judges and executives
- appeal procedures
- public process
- contradictory procedure where plaintiff and defender are heard
If you are going to enforce rules without these, you'll always be called tyrannical
> Saying that making a complaint public and it's answer public constitutes harassment just sounds trollish
Have we really reached the point where people think it’s normal to run every proceeding live on Twitter? Imagine if this was at an event, and a person was wearing a “I love HN” hat”, if another attendant stood up on a chair and started screaming from the top of their lungs “This makes me feel uncomfortable!!! It’s a violation of the CoC!!”.
Would your first thought be “this is a great process” or “perhaps we should tell the screamer to stop yelling and talk to the officials”.
It constitutes harassment because the aim here was not a proper review of a potential Violation, but an attempt at instilling mob mentality against an individual and forefinger due process in evaluating the case.
As for the complaint about exact motives being hidden. The argument is only that since the rest was conducted in public, the public should have transparency into the motives and review. Which seems reasonable as a response to this case, not as a general rule.
First, twitter is one of the many public medias. If something is appropriate publicly, then it is appropriate on twitter. It all depends on the rules.
> if another attendant stood up on a chair and started screaming from the top of their lungs “This makes me feel uncomfortable!!! It’s a violation of the CoC!!”.
First, you'll have to admit, putting on twitter would be far less disruptive.
Then, if people in the community value a CoC (I personally am on the fence over that tbh) they should value a fair process and examine the complaints they receive.
"No, that complaint is frivolous" could be the judges answers. And quickly they'll discover why there are penalties for frivolous lawsuits.
> It constitutes harassment
Exactly. And its great that there is a process to file your complaint!
> Which seems reasonable as a response to this case, not as a general rule.
Yeah, so what is the problem again?
But generally, you want as much of the judicial process open. You want to know what was done, what the witnesses confirm, how the defendants pleaded and how the judges reasoned on the conclusion.
Closing one of these parts has to be done only consciously for protection reasons, which in that case, I see none.
Events have occured just fine for a long time without these rules. Meanwhile the introduction of the CoC (which many have rightfully called out as being mostly political) has caused nothing but constant outrage, grief, and general chaos for everyone involved.
I think back to the epic flame wars of the 1990s and wonder why nobody has retroactively applied CoC infractions on all of the offending parties of the past. Would there even be a Linux Foundation left if we did that?
Through the history, we've learned that the trial shall be hold at open court. It's not that open court is best to protect the plaintiff/defendant, but it's least harmful way to ensure fair trial.
The history proved countless times that the secret lawsuit filling, followed by the secret court judgement was not gone well.
Even in the world where be judges, prosecutors and lawyers requires years of formal training and qualification, we had and are continuously having so many harmful judgement and only after decades if not centuries later, when complete third parties who doesn't share the outdated moral of that time can have the truly fair view of that event.
Even worse, in the context of OSS community, the people who judge are not lawyer, probably no formal training on law and moral. They are in the current position because they had been contributing the OSS for long time.
So. I think it's best to handle these situation to the traditional court rather than private decision from self-elected OSS chair.
If a well-known white supremacist political commentator got into Linux and wanted to do an introductory talk on some Linux aspect at the conference, should the conference be obligated to accept them just because they haven't been found guilty of ... what?
If I hosted a party (or a conference), and a large fraction of the people I talked to at the event told me that person X at the event was creeping on them and they weren't coming back if person X was there, do I need to wait for person X to be found guilty of being a creep to ban them from the next event?
Event organizers should have more leeway over their events than just "keep convicts out".
Not saying that the conference organizers necessarily made the right call here with Charles Wood, just arguing that they have the right to make such a call. And people have the right to argue that it was the wrong call. I'm just disagreeing with the concept that it wasn't even their call to make. It especially doesn't seem to make much since to expect that the current court system can handle this call.
Who is honestly suprised? This is the inevitable outcome of all these modern CoCs.
> In summary, it appears to this humble observer that The Code of Conduct process at The Linux Foundation went very badly off the rails with regard to Charles Max Wood. That LF owes Mr. Wood, and the Software Community at large, a profound apology. That LF should keep all future Code of Conduct complaints and decisions personal and confidential. That LF should publish and follow a well defined process for accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating future Code of Conduct complaints. And that some form of reparation be provided to Mr. Wood for the public harm that was done to him by the careless and unprofessional behavior of The Linux Foundation.
> Robert C. Martin.
> That LF should keep all future Code of Conduct complaints and decisions personal and confidential. That LF should publish and follow a well defined process for accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating future Code of Conduct complaints.
How any organization of any significant size can adopt a CoC without having these types of policies in place is madness. Especially handling it in private first!
There are people who end up conservative for predetermined reasons, like where they were born or what religion they were born into. Statistically you inherit your politics from your parents. Some of those people will become good developers and engineers. Should they be forced to stay in the closet or be ridiculed or fired? Should they scrub toilets instead?
In other words-- a hiring process would look at things like team cohesion, but also take into account that an applicant's potential difficulty in that area may likely be due to circumstances that were outside of their control.
I've always found that a fair idea. Oddly, this is the only reference to that idea I've seen on HN that didn't have a bunch of child posts attacking it.
There is a reason it's illegal to ask about political affiliation during job interviews in the US.
I think you are trying to be tolerant, but are you implying that people cannot reason themselves into conservative views?
Or that they cannot reason themselves out? I did. It leads me to wonder why they can't.
Reasoning oneself into -- let's be honest, there are no conservatives anymore -- reactionary views abuses the term "reason".
Let's not lump conservatives in with Trump supporters. It's unfair to conservatives.
Are there any, anymore? I haven't heard from any in a long, long time. It's reactionaries from here to the horizon.
True. Upbringing and parents can form a foundation, but reality can shake it, too.
I voted solely for Democrats in every election (local, state, federal) from 1980 until 2012. By then, though, the party I had always supported was telling me that I'm inherently racist by consequence of being a middle-aged white male; that I don't pay may fair share in taxes (though I do); meritocracy is now bad; capitalism is now horrible, most all problems are due to white males, ...
I found myself quoting Reagan, although I despised him in my 20s (many of us at the time believed he would lead us into WWIII). He said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me".
As someone not from the USA, I'm mystified by the implication that wearing a political party hat (the currently elected political party at that) makes a place unsafe. And not even wearing it at the event, but at some place else, some time in the past.
I'm glad that brilliant people like Uncle Bob mention how... strange this stuff is.
Aside from employing Torvalds, LF has a lot of really muddy business. The whole OpenAPI gang is a shame on FOSS, and this is just something I touched professionally.
What's the backstory on OpenAPI for someone completely unfamiliar?
Er.. in short, tech-blind industry representatives are using the LF brand to advance their careers, and LF insiders are helping them out of sheer kindness.
Here's John's side of the story.
Main thread from cmaxw weighing in. No issues with him): https://mobile.twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1187108668606541824
Kim Crayton's oh so enlightened response (scroll to the top): https://mobile.twitter.com/e_p82/status/1187175306010005504
Personally, I find the behavior absolutely unacceptable. Two people can agree to disagree, but if someone flat out rejects coming to the table in the first place, you are in the wrong, which seems to be the MO of John's accusers. Sarah Mei at least is one of the same folks who was involved with the "cancelling" of Richard Stallman.
I probably missing context (I for sure haven't spent much time on looking into it, and don't plan to), but it seems to be a call to come to the table with someone who's self-described actions are:
> "Because this, my friends, is how you deal with SJWs. You troll the hell out of them and they have no weapon they can use against you.
Stop fighting them with logic. Just say inflammatory, illogical things to them."
I don't think you should assume people are in the wrong just because they do not want to spend time playing nice with that.
This is the most enlightening post I have seen on this page. Thank you.
So outside this individual case, how open or public should these types of decisions be made? For transparency, shouldn't people that are part of the community know when these actions/accusations take place and what/how decisions were made?
> First let me say that I find it highly problematic that the complaint and the decision were public. Indeed I am surprised that LF would accept a publicly submitted code of conduct complaint. I am much more than surprised that LF would ever consider publicly responding to such a complaint.
Transparency is good though.
There is nothing less transparent than giving a public judgment without any of the reasoning that led to that judgment.
There is, not publishing anything at all would be worse in terms of transparency. I will agree however that publishing the reasoning would be much better.
"Our events should and will be a safe space."
Seems like a pretty clear reason. He demonstrated that he promotes a hostile attitude toward marginalized individuals who they want to attend the conference.
How? There's been a lot of motivations ascribed to him, but where has he concretely promoted or performed in a hostile way?
I'm not surprised by this. Kubernetes specifically got a very left activist community. Anyone even slightly disagreeing with the vocal minority is being shamed on Twitter under the excuse to keep it an "inviting" and "open" community. I hope everyone can see the irony here.
No refunds for canceling KubeCon registration after November 4th.
This part loses me:
"Indeed I am surprised that LF would accept a publicly submitted code of conduct complaint."
Of course they should accept a public complaint, this isn't a secret society, it is an open source society, not a secret box where you can only complain in private.
Public complaints such as these are a form of public harassment, which is forbidden by the CoC.
If there's going to be a public show of it, then the decision making process should likewise be transparent and open. That it wasn't falsifies your claim about it being an "open society".
These points were of course addressed in the letter.
Your statement that a public complaint == public harassment is an inference.
A pretty reasonable one, since people got Wood kicked out of a conference for trying to help and be civil.
I understand the title used on HN tries to follow what the article title is, but it is thoroughly useless in giving me any information on the link. Why should I even open this link?
I don't see whats wrong with the title? The article is exactly what the title suggests - An open letter to the linux foundation
> I don't see whats wrong with the title? The article is exactly what the title suggests - An open letter to the linux foundation
The problem is the title gives you no information about what the letter is actually about. An open letter could do anything from raising an important for the community...to something that's tedious and irrelevant (e.g. "An open letter to the linux foundation about the lack of vegan food in the cafeteria").
That seems to be general policy. I track title edits and they are frequently (though certainly not always) made less informational: https://hackernewstitles.netlify.com/ .. there are pros and cons so it's not a clear cut good or bad thing.
Fascinating! Thank you!
See my comment for the gist of the article.
Indeed, why should one.
This letter doesn't really inform the reader of anything. The very fact that it talks around the issue so much that you cannot even discern at all what the issue was, hints at "I don't need, nor do I want to know".
This whole discussion thread has really made me disappointed with the HN community. Almost every reply is expressed in the same, alt-right terms ("SJWs", "free-speech", and mock outrage, as evidenced by the outsize number of f-bombs). Inexplicably, the scapegoat throughout seems to be a woman.
Take stock of your anger. Our industry is dominated by men, in a culture that has repeatedly shown to be hostile to minorities of all kinds, women, and people of color. Is this the best you can do? Even if this particular incident is unjust in your opinion, you are certainly not the victim here. At most you are asked to moderate your already dominating voices, slightly.
I never saw nearly as much engagement with posts that document actual abuses of financial or professional hierarchies: systemic rape, discrimination, harassment. But god forbid someone got reprimanded for being a bigot in public (or whatever this story is about). Conferences are well documented source of toxicity in our profession. The means to remedy the problem may be clumsy, but instead of punching down, try understanding what these policies mean to address and suggest something constructive.
Sjw and free speech are not "alt-right" terms. Both predates the existence of the alt right. The fact you believe so tells more about how indoctrinated you are.
Is Linus going to be banned from LF conferences for the ugly words he said about people?
Okay I went digging for context.
There are some comments here about 'ddd' but AFAIK that drama is not part of the sequence of events in this drama. (instead that appears to be a separate issue worth it's own facepalming)
It appears to me that the sequence of events goes something like:
A person tweeted that she's glad she's not getting into tech today because the violent language used by people promoting diversity would have scared her away (actual tweet is removed, but here is the proximal discussion:) https://twitter.com/Aimee_Knight/status/1185755719762620416
People piled on and responded abusively.
An acquaintance of hers, John Sonmez a lifestyle vlogger (who's shtick is apparently telling people how to be a man) waded into twitter and aggressively told off everyone who was attacking in an effort to deflect the attacks, here is his video talking about what he did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvjQ3Mx-jWg He was about one notch more civil than the sterotype of a foul mouthed 13yr/old boy playing a first person shooter on xbox. (or at least I don't think he actually told someone that he *ed their mother... but you get the idea...)
Predictable consequences were predictable and included getting his books pulled by publishers and other serious fallout.
Charles Max Wood (cmaxw), subject of the open letter, was friends with Jonh Sonmez and was pressured to disassociate with John. He said he didn't approve of John's remarks but declined to disassociate, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5jY1FQHLdk and tried reaching out to people to insert himself as a mediator. https://mobile.twitter.com/cmaxw/status/1187108668606541824
This was not welcome by some people who described his calls for civility as tone policing. (and worse: https://mobile.twitter.com/KimCrayton1/status/11871112486783... )
A 2016 picture of cmaxw visiting the trump tower wearing a MAGA hat, was found and was used to support an argument against cmaxw: https://twitter.com/nebrius/status/1191821800302206976
The events covered in the letter pick up from there.
[If I'm entirely off place, lemme know quickly so I can fix or nuke this post. I freely admit that I am entirely incompetent at sorting out twitter dramafests, I try to never use twitter: It says right in the name what it's for: Twits. And who has time for twits?]
I remember sitting in a session at a linux foundation conference where someone on staff at TLF was the speaker and took a shot at President Trump and his supporters. It was subtle but unmistakable. I think the shot likely violated the CoC but nothing ever came of it. I can't find a session video or I'd link it.
I remember hearing it and thinking, statistically speaking there are supporters of Trump in the audience. Later, when I brought this up with others, I found someone who was a Trump supporter who is uncomfortable about that attacks on Trump and Trump supporters are allowed. The CoC notes unacceptable behavior includes, "offensive or degrading language".
I share this because the linux foundation is over a global community of people from various countries. People have different opinions on politics and other beliefs. Open source is a place where people of many differences can come together.
Having personally seen a bias against Trump supporters makes me want see this be handled above reproach.
You have misunderstood this movement. It's not about fairness or stopping discriminatory behavior. It's about banning all opinions except the sanctioned one.
"Do not speak unless you are one of us, do not think unless you have been told how to, do not hold us to the same standards as we hold others."
Those should be the mottos of these idiots.
Just keep telling yourself that.
Actions speak louder than words.
Please let the Linux foundation know how you feel directly:
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery— and Witch-hunting is Tolerance.
>The timeline of events, as far as I can determine them, is as follows:
-content that has a lot of missing context-
Is what is described what actually happened?
It seems like the writer might not know either.
That's why the letter is a request for clarity in light of seeming impropriety.
Good thing illumos implemented the CoC a few weeks ago, we wouldn't want anyone to miss out on the cancel culture!
Charles Woods was denied a pass to Kubecon on the basis of his podcasted support for attacks on women and black people in tech by Mr. Somnez. It had absolutely zero to do with MAGA hats.
Those of us who warned against the CoC's who were lambasted are over here saying "I told you so" but will continue to be ignored. I have had multiple very liberal hacktivist type friends approach me asking how we are going to avoid these things being used to weaken the FOSS community, and I don't have a very good answer other than we need to fork the orgs... but now that even our former arch enemeis (microsoft) have become funders and influencers in those orgs, it's a large uphill climb to get any org-fork to relevance. Certain people and orgs who have always hated FOSS are probably giggling in the corner as we all turn on ourselves.
Does the CoC even apply to conferences? Or the rest of the foundation? I thought it was just for the Kernel development process?
it's probably not the same CoC. Lots of conferences have CoCs, and the CoC aren't always the same as any related software projects.
COC's being used as a weapon to purge political opponents? Shocking, who could have predicted it.
Damn, this letter really highlights the sad state of things :/
It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct. Unless there is a general ban on hats and clothing with political statements at software events, this is clearly discriminatory.
"The Linux Foundation received a public tweet sent to the @KubeCon twitter address. That tweet recommended that Kube Con discontinue their association with Charles Max Wood. The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat.
The Linux Foundation publicly replied from the @linuxfoundation twitter account as follows:
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."
That's what Uncle Bob is insinuating, but is that what really happened? I can't even see the tweet he's talking about. He mentions an @KubeCon twitter account. That account is not associated w/ the event.
https://twitter.com/KimCrayton1/status/1191697390799130624 is the tweet that got him 86ed from the convention. In addition to the hat photo, there's also a 30 minute video where he talks about diversity, twitter, etc
> general ban on hats and clothing with political statements
In some schools of thought, a MAGA hat is a hate symbol like a swastika armband. They view it differently than they would a Republican National Convention hat. Whether they're right or wrong, these are the people writing and enforcing codes of conduct these days
> In some schools of thought, a MAGA hat is a hate symbol like a swastika armband.
Excuse me, but what could ever be hateful about making America great again? Doesn't this rather suggest that these schools of thought themselves are being quite hateful towards America? It's sure convenient that "these are the people writing and enforcing codes of conduct these days", because if they weren't, the case for banning them as CoC violators would be pretty clearcut.
>Excuse me, but what could ever be hateful about making America great again?
The belief that what has weakened America is multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and racial diversity, and that what is needed to make America great again is reversing the aforementioned trends, and restoring to heterosexual, Christian white males their former status of cultural and political hegemony.
That has got to be the biggest strawman I've ever seen in my whole life!
That "belief" is what you want "them" to believe, so you can degrade & oppose them as inherently evil. Pardon the mind reading; it's the conclusion I come to when subjected to such bad-faith & ignorant labeling. It's baffling to accuse Trump of such bigotries, when he specifically hires immigrants from around the world, married an immigrant, has such a high percentage of women on staff, and has long been lauded & awarded for promoting racial diversity - and his followers share & support his mindset thereof. Seems opponents want MAGA types to be racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc and go to great lengths to impute such labels thereon - when such labels absolutely do not apply.
I, and many others, are seriously outraged at this chronic & intentional libel of our sociopolitical positions - especially by those touting the banner of "tolerance & diversity".
The Trump campaign has never made such a claim, though. They pushed "draining the swamp" in Washington D.C., nothing much about reversing "multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and racial diversity".
I don't necessarily approve of the pitchforks coming out at the sight of a MAGA hat, but it's either delusional or just intellectually dishonest to deny the racial component to Trump's rhetoric.
Just like everything in California causes cancer, everything Trump says has racial components.
Sheesh - for a racist spouting rhetoric full of racial components Trump is pretty awful at actually being a racist. Just look at his immediate family! He's not only an incompetent politician he's an incompetent racist!
I'm not asserting that Trump is personally racist, nor that all of his platform is racist. I think the term 'racist' as a concept has such divergent meaning across society that it's rarely useful. I'm saying he is leveraging the dimensions of the current political landscape to his advantage (something he has bragged about having no scruples in doing), which includes exacerbating racial tension. Is it more a projection of his followers than himself? Probably.
It's either delusional or just intellectually dishonest to impute "racial components" to Trump's rhetoric. He, and MAGA types in general, is not racist nor has anything he's done explainable by "racism". The persistence of imputing "racist!" belies projection, lacking an objective basis. We really, truly, don't care what race anyone is; what matters is hard work, abiding by laws (including immigration laws shared by most nations), and earning your way. Alas, those seeking racism everywhere see racism everywhere, especially in designated opponents.
But enough of his supporters have that the culture of support for Trump has been conflated with support for those other, far more toxic ideals.
Trump supporters can pretend that American white supremacists and neo-reactionaries didn't flock to him like moths to a flame and turn his campaign into a referendum against the loss of white male political and cultural relevance and the advance of progressivism and feminism, or that they aren't tainted by association, but that is what happened.
Trump supporters were perfectly aware of the racial narrative forming around him, and they chose to embrace it, rather than fight against it, because they found common ground with the racists in their hatred of the left and Hillary Clinton. They don't now have cause to complain about being tarred with the same brush.
If it's OK to exclude people thanks to 2nd degree taint like that, does this mean it would be fine for a conference to exclude everyone who supported Bernie because of his association with AntiFa?
People already associate progressivism, socialism and liberalism with Marxist and Stalinist ideals and a desire for authoritarian violence, and do occasionally throw in Antifa to demonstrate how the leftists are the "real Nazis." So it's apparently already "fine."
I tried to find out what Bernie Sanders' "association with Antifa" was, and I couldn't find anything that would indicate that he supports the group, or that his supporters do by a particularly wide margin. But yes, if the same shoe was on the other foot, obviously that would happen.
"white supremacists and neo-reactionaries" are practically non-existent. Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them. We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!").
>Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them.
I do understand my opponents - they won't shut up about themselves. The labels I ascribe to them are reasonable extrapolations of the rhetoric they use when they express their contempt for liberals, progressives, feminists, "city dwellers," immigrants, and anyone to the left of themselves, or with whom they disagree.
If such people are a minority, then they are a very vocal and, apparently, very influential minority. And if their views don't represent yours, then I would humbly suggest that you may be the one who doesn't understand your allies.
>We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!").
You seem to be implying that narrative was imputed from the outside, but it wasn't. It's a narrative that the extremists who took the party over from within embraced and a banner they proudly waved in everyone's faces.
It wasn't fought against because a house divided against itself cannot stand, and it was embraced because the narrative of the "alienated, disenfranchised white male" at the center of the victim mentality driving right-wing populism was so effective as a galvanizing force that its true white supremacist roots didn't even register, or didn't even matter, to a lot of people.
You're misled, that's a political ideology driven by hate, not a "school of thought".
I think he's talking about this tweet:
> It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct.
Check the date on the picture...
It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat in 2016. And is thus banned from a conference in 2019.
Are you saying there is evidence to suggest this was the reason they revoked his conference pass? I believe that this was just a part of his character that has come out since then.
> It appears that someone were a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct. Unless there is a general ban on hats and clothing with political statements at software events, this is clearly discriminatory.
You don't know (and this letter's author doesn't know) that wearing a MAGA hat was what they considered a violation of the code of conduct.
Literally the only evidence presented was a polite call for discussion, and a picture of the guy wearing a MAGA hat. Then the org directly responded, saying they reviewed the evidence and found he violated the code of conduct. Regardless of what they may claim or of how much anyone may try to dissemble, the MAGA hat picture was clearly the impetus for the decision.
The whole exchange was public. LF might not have banned Mr. Wood for wearing a MAGA hat (the true reason they banned him was probably to avoid a confrontation with Code of Conduct zealots), but it sure looks like it based on the public tweet exchange.
In fairness, the letter's author seems more concerned about how the complaint was handled in public regardless of what it was about.
> The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat.
It is the only possible conclusion given this information. Is there more?
This is what they said:
> We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated
It could have been "he wore the wrong hat" but it also could have been "we looked and he was harassing people on Twitter".
I've observed that there is often more to the story in these sorts of cases. Not always, but >50% of the time. The little thing everyone is reacting to is usually the last straw.
The same often holds true with outbreaks of political protest, like the ones in Chile right now. The mainstream story is that the protests are over a subway fare hike, but the reality is that this was just the lightning rod event.
Whenever I saw news like this, I feel the system designed for USA might be close to expire, mean it is no longer working for the goodness of the people.
Left and right can no longer tolerate different opinions at all, left controls most of the media and universities and to some extent, the social media, so in most cases, it actually is the left bullies the right, to the point some of the left just lost their mind when they spot a MAGA hat, this is insane.
the left combined with socialism agenda looks great on paper or ideology, but it will kill the society for good. I have long been thinking that we're doomed, the current system is an version out of date, and there is no new release on the horizon, chaos is the only step next.
Just... don't. use. Twitter.
I mean, dear god, it's a cesspool of incivility. It's very structure discourages civil discourse because everyone is trying to be the most pithy.
And clicking on the links that are supposed to be the 'context' around this shit show.... how on earth is anyone supposed to navigate that mess?
No, just stay far, far away.
I entirely agree. I tried Twitter years ago, but had no patience for it. It's like Usenet, but with "threads" that are much harder to follow.
But if you must use Twitter, you gotta play safe. If you work for a living, your real name account must be 100% work focused. No religion or politics. Nothing at all controversial.
And it it amuses you to join the fray, use a pseudonym. Seriously, with solid OPSEC. Because your career may well depend on it.
You're right, but you missed the biggest part of the problem. The "nothing at all controversial" part changes, often without warning. Your history, however, is immutable.
I think the only way to fix it is for everyone to be cancelled.
If you exile enough people, pretty soon that itself becomes a problem.
We're currently in this dangerous middle point where people think it can't happen to them, or that the accused probably did something wrong.
There's a chance we might be creating a permanent underclass of people who have said or done unacceptable things in public. If that's 10% of the population, that's a big problem. But if it's 50% of the population, that's actually a smaller problem.
Is it possible that the ethical thing to do here is to join the cancellation brigades?
That is a good point. I did lots of wild and crazy stuff back in the 60s through the early 80s. And then I did est/Landmark. And learned how to be rigorously professional.
But I'm lucky. There are very few public records about my dissolute youth. Maybe a couple news reports, that don't mention me by name. Maybe a few photographs. And lots of memories that could still come back to bite me. But nothing like it is today.
Today, it's necessary to start the "nothing at all controversial" act very young. So that's something parents need to be teaching their kids. Along with "don't play in the street" and "don't accept rides from strangers". Plus using pseudonyms, with VPNs and Tor. And never trusting that "friends" won't sell them out.
> I think the only way to fix it is for everyone to be cancelled.
That doesn't work. Because there are multiple factions that cancel each other. So what you'll get is not just a permanent underclass, but permanent castes. Which will hate each other.
And given the demographics, it seems like what you're calling the underclass will be the majority, and will elect governments that pretend to cater to them. And the woke will end up working for social media etc, who will pretend to cater to them.
> Is it possible that the ethical thing to do here is to join the cancellation brigades?
One aspect of saying nothing at all controversial is being ambiguous. You want all factions to think that you're one of them. It's like playing a double, triple, etc agent.
Every day someone somewhere gets fired for something they posted on Twitter. I've never heard of anyone getting hired for a tweet.
I got, sent out a tweet looking for work and got an interview the next day in my city. ended up working there for a while.
... until you say that, and they spring out of the woodwork.
It's just a thing that never comes up.
I hired someone from something I initially saw them Tweet about.
I've been hired because of Twitter twice.
I haven't had a twitter account for years (and in fact block all twitter domains on my home network). I fail to see any upside of it especially when something like this happens. There seems to be potential backlash for posting anything these days; are there any downsides for not posting or having an account to show off who I "follow"? Is my e-cred lacking because of it?
My WireGuard server hosts my DNS server which NXDOMAINs all social media and ads for my machines.
If I really want to see what's up with some mess like this, I at least need to spend the 15 seconds it takes to turn WireGuard off.
I joined twitter in 2013 or 2014 for the math community. It was great. We were all posing little problems to each other. Then 2016 came, and it was never the same. Now you can't the politics seeping in. The way twitter shapes you and almost makes you respond is terrifying. I quit earlier this year and am glad I did.
@ mods I 100% understand why this is flagged and it is already being a mess but it has 100+ upvotes in <1 hour. If possible I think this issue is important enough to some such as myself in the community that this post should be allowed on the front page.
Should the LF members and sponsors be swatted every single night until kubecon until they understand brown shirts or mao's "politicol power grows out of the barrel of the gun"?
Neo nazi scum.
There should be a very clear vocal boycott of kubecon going on, or a protest. Enough is enough. Fuck these pretendengineers.
who wants to go to kubecon anyways? it's not like any of those fools know how to provision software on linux - it's just a bunch of social-mad js hipsters with memes like "service mesh" (translation: I know how to install a nginx reverse proxy)
I like the open and public way of handling such matters. You won't have much transparency in private and that is dangerous. However, i am against their decision. All these "community guidelines" and "code of conduct" bullshit just get abused to attack and censor people.
This isn't a conversation worth having. I cannot delete my comments. Please flagkill them.
> A MAGA hat can serve as a useful heuristic for "likely to cause trouble".
Wow. And here I am, thinking that we no longer discriminate people based on their political leanings and everyone has the right to freedom of political opinion.
Move over racial profiling. Here comes political profiling.
People rationalize that political profiling is acceptable using the paradox of tolerance. Basically, if you can convince yourself that every member of a political party is intolerant due to their worldview, you no longer have to be tolerant of anyone in that party and you are allowed and even encouraged to politically profile them, name and shame them, or any other tactic you think will make them less intolerant (such as getting them kicked off of github projects, kicked out of conventions and events, etc.).
You misunderstand the paradox. It's not merely 'rationalizing' to recognize that the paradox demands that we do not tolerate intolerance. The system simply does not work if we tolerate the intolerant.
I find the only way for the system to work is to tolerate the intolerant. That is to say, it's vastly easier and more consistent to allow everyone their right to speak their mind than it is to justify why one person's speech isn't another person's threat. We're at the point where people are claiming MAGA hats are actionably threatening. So should that not also apply to anyone who says "eat the rich"? How about actual real communists that want to dismantle the government? Anarchists? How about anyone who promotes anti-establishment music (e.g. f the police) Which political positions, which political speech is dangerous and which is allowed? How do we know?
Or put more succinctly, when all the other intolerant are gone, who will speak up when they come for you?
[redacted] Please flagkill.
There are plenty of LGBTetc. Republicans who would happily wear such a hat though, if perhaps not at a "LGBTQIA+ community" event. Peter Teal is a particularly high-profile example.
> Someone showing up with a MAGA hat ... to harass one or more of our attendees (which is unacceptable)
How does one "harass" someone by wearing a hat? If that is at all possible then no one can wear a hat because someone might claim harassment (cowboy hats - racists, MAGA hats - extreme right wing, Australian hats - cultural appropriation, etc).
If someone annoys the organizer of a private (non-government) event they simply have the right to throw them out if they don't like something about them. That is why it is in fact okay to throw out a guy with a MAGA hat (or a LG group organizer), but statists can't say it because it'd mean it's okay to discriminate. But they like to be able to practice discrimination.
> Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices.
We protect religion because it is a fundamental expression of deeply-held values and it is everyone's right to do so. Political persuasion is also a result of those values, and not mutable. You can't "just change" what you believe.
> Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict.
"There are many clean-cut black kids in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear hoodies and saggy pants in public because they're not looking for conflict."
If you replace a your chosen group with "blacks" and it sounds like something David Duke would write, you may wish to re-consider your phraseology.
Edit: the above poster deleted his comment, but I feel the need to replicate the text so mine makes sense. Here is what it said:
"I often help my friends organize and operate LGBTQIA+ events at hacker cons.
Someone showing up with a MAGA hat is rare, and when it does happen, they're either there to make a statement about free speech (which is fine) or to harass one or more of our attendees (which is unacceptable). So when it does happen, we have to be aware of it, but we don't take any specific actions unless they misbehave.
In the wake of white supremacist violence (see second link from my previous comment), not taking note whenever someone with a MAGA hat shows up would be negligent and put targeted people at risk. If you put "allow white supremacist violence against minority groups" on one end of the scale and "avoid any perception of 'political profiling' behavior" on the other, protecting the LGBTQIA+ community that these events serve is going to win every time.
Unlike race and sexual orientation, your political beliefs are mutable and the result of your choices.
Even moreso, the decision to wear a MAGA hat is a choice. There are many LGBTQIA+ republicans in America, including many of my friends. They don't wear MAGA hats at such events because they're not looking for conflict."
I think it's perfectly legitimate to consider the MAGA hat a hate symbol. Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat.
At one time the hat represented something legitimate but Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now. The MAGA hat is yet another symbol that the alt right appropriated for itself. It doesn't just represent Trump supporters and Republicans at large anymore.
How is the MAGA hat a threat?
I'm a minority. Not only do I not think it's threatening, I'm even considering buying a few.
Not for political reasons, but just because its become so iconic I think they'll be worth a lot more as vintage items in 10-20 years.
They would be great in case you ever run out of firewood.
> Trump's first term is coming to its end. The campaign has been over for a long time now.
Long enough for it to start all over again in short order, though. And Trump may well choose to keep the "MAGA" slogan for his re-election campaign - last we heard, it was a choice between that or "Keep America Great".
> Specifically because of what it represents to American minorities; an implicit threat.
Why does it represent a threat? Did Trump made any laws that negatively discriminiates minorities? Are there death camps for them? Are they not allowed to hold certain positions?
Don't expect much sympathy for minorities on this site. More likely to hear cries over "free speech" and "reverse racism". smh.
Near as I can tell, this "MAGA hat is a hate symbol" notion comes from people who want a group to embody evils X, Y, & Z so that group can be opposed. Lacking such a group, progressives have designated Trump supporters as such via wanton misinterpretation of legitimate, normal, and earnest positions. The term "alt right" didn't exist to any meaningful degree until Trump was elected, to the dismay of Leftists convinced Hillary would win; her supporters suddenly started using this term to slander the opposition. There are, for most practical purposes, no "white supremacists", "alt right", "Nazis", etc. (have you actually met any?). The Trump Right have been wrongfully slandered as "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", etc; they just haven't figured out how to counter such libelous & intolerant abuse.
Um the "alt right" existed well before Trump, and no the notion comes from Trump being absolutely toxic and evil, if you actually followed his policies and positions on a whole multitude of issues you would see why people are criticizing what he is doing on a daily basis, so much to the point that yes, Trump supporters are considered "Nazis" and "White supremacists" or lets just call them "assholes".
Point blank that's what they are since the only benefit they seem to claim from his policies is the "economy" which we all know will begin faltering given enough time as things are slowing down and have been on a global scale, given that I don't see how his bullish policies will do anything other than create more seeded hatred among his own supporters, lie enough times about illegals or immigrants doing something and surprisingly people take the bait.
Behold the party of self described “tolerance understanding and diversity” folks.
I concur fellow citizen. Wearing a MAGA hat is clearly indicative of a double negative minus thought crime, when will people think crimestop better? It will allow us to beat Eastasia in the war. Now come let us join in our minute of hate against Eurasia for war is peace, ignorance is knowledge and slavery is freedom.
This guy's original comment, because otherwise others' comments will be taken out-of-context:
"A MAGA hat can serve as a useful heuristic for "likely to cause trouble".
The current zeitgeist of white supremacist violence and stochastic terrorism that revels in dog-whistle messages from the Trump administration  makes it simply irresponsible to not beware anyone who touts one. 
That said, a photo of someone wearing a MAGA hat is insufficient evidence of misconduct.
Unless there's more to this story (which there very well could be), it sounds like the Linux Foundation was reacting rather than following a carefully constructed process to handle abuse complaints and detoxify the community.
I'll be disappointed if this turns out to be the case.
(EDIT: To be clear, I'm reacting to the article. I have no context outside of this submission.)"
Being a Muslim can serve as a useful heuristic for “likely to be a suicide bomber.”
The current zeitgeist of Islamic violence and stochastic terrorism that revels in extreme verses in the Koran makes it simply irresponsible to not beware anyone who reads one.
See how easy this crap is?
Spineless is the word. Be spineless or be crushed. Look at Brendan Eich. We live in a tyranny of the weak. The weak win, just because they are weak and we have to pity them. And even worse, this makes strong people pretend to be weak to score pity points. This will only lead to bad times.
(this was a child comment to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21486569 but it was detached by a moderator)
And you believe that letting the though ones win doesn't also end in pain for everyone else? Life needs balance, the strong ones, by definition, grab their own end and swing it.
Toxic individuals get what they deserve.
So, the dude in question appears with a MAGA hat to a conference filled with people of diverse origins and sexual/gender orientation and wonders why he is kicked out? Seriously?
It's one thing to be ignorant of the current political climate and the approval ratings of/the hate against Donald Trump, but I don't buy the excuse of "ignorance" here. The incidents involving collaboration with ICE, for example, should be wide-spread enough that it should be common knowledge to see that large parts of the tech world are highly disapproving of Trump (with the probable exceptions of Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg).
Whoever dons a MAGA hat on a conference is asking for trouble, he got his trouble he wanted and now people from all over the Internet are defending this classic case of real life trolling. Heh, if I were him, I would celebrate right now.
PS: Don't come around with "but free speech". Free speech does not mean "freedom of consequences" or "freedom of people rejecting your speech". Wearing a MAGA hat is free speech, sure, but don't complain if you get a serious talking-to or getting kicked out for wearing the MAGA hat.
> So, the dude in question appears with a MAGA hat to a conference filled with people of diverse origins
No, the conference is scheduled to take place 10 days from now and the dispute seems unrelated to the hat photo.
sod off swampy
We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments.
Could you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
So... clearly this is correct. He wore that hat to attract conflict. He recorded his interactions wanting to catch his political enemies in embarrassing statements. He seems to have deliberately inserted himself into the conflict that got his pass revoked.
To wit, he's absolutely a right wing troll.
That said, he doesn't seem to have done anything actually wrong here. It doesn't even seem to be alleged that he's done anything objectively wrong. If LF wants to disallow right wing trolls at its conferences, they need to put that into the code of conduct more explicitly than they did.
> That said, he doesn't seem to have done anything actually wrong here. It doesn't even seem to be alleged that he's done anything objectively wrong. If LF wants to disallow right wing trolls at its conferences, they need to put that into the code of conduct more explicitly than they did.
The LF CoC is quite explicit: "Harassment will not be tolerated in any form, including but not limited to harassment based on gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion or any other status protected by laws in which the conference or program is being held."
Given Mr. Trump's political actions especially against members of the LGBT community, disabled people (e.g. him mocking a reporter) or women ("grab them by the pussy"), it is crystal clear that associating oneself with Mr. Trump by wearing a MAGA hat is at least accepting those values and actions, and that this is open harassment towards people affected by Mr. Trump's politics.
Additionally, two paragraphs from the CoC also are a justification of the removal:
> All event participants are expected to behave in accordance with professional standards, with both the Linux Foundation Code of Conduct as well as their respective employer’s policies governing appropriate workplace behavior, and applicable laws
While wearing a MAGA hat is not illegal in itself, it is a violation of any kind of professional conduct.
> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, ranging from issuance of a warning to the offending individual to expulsion from the conference with no refund
And exactly this was the consequence. The troll knew what was coming for him, and I don't shed a tear.
>While wearing a MAGA hat is not illegal in itself, it is a violation of any kind of professional conduct.
To reduce your argument a bit, in the name of inclusion and diversity we must ban anyone who wears a MAGA hat.
Something seems off with that...
That's the paradox of tolerance in a nutshell, yeah.
As stated, I don't think public conferences are an appropriate forum for this kind of polarized argument, but it's not wrong either. Wearing a MAGA hat is declaring your alignment with a political platform that pervasively equates mexicans with dirty criminals, muslims with terrorists, gay and trans people with the mentally ill, and anyone who isn't a white rural christian with "not a real american".
That's intolerance, straight up. And that's what you're telling me if you wear that thing. And if it's my environment your standing in I don't have to put up with it. Refusing to tolerate intolerance is the paradox, and the solution is to get out of my face with that hat.
>a political platform that pervasively equates mexicans with dirty criminals, muslims with terrorists, gay and trans people with the mentally ill, and anyone who isn't a white rural christian with "not a real american".
Those are some extraordinary claims, I'd like to see something to back them up with.
These are hardly extraordinary claims. If you survey the daily news from dozens of media outlets for the past 3 years, what was described above is barely scratching the surface of the platform in question. The content itself, on the other hand, is certainly extraordinary in a perverse way. It's why event organizers have to take action against individuals who promote it.
>These are hardly extraordinary claims.
Then they should be easy to substantiate. I've heard about a mexican issue before, which turned out to be a statement directly addressed at the mexican cartel gang MS-13, not mexicans in general.
In a way, I envy you. You have a simple and straightforward explanation for how Trump got elected. At the same time, I pity you. You seem to have lost the ability to see good in people that disagree with you.
There are a lot of loving moms and dads that decided in 2016 that they wanted to live in a country ran by Trump. They wanted to have their kids grow up in a country shaped by him. These are people who would gladly wear a MAGA hat. Can you think they are wrong? Have at it, you might be right! But boiling down all their reasons to intolerance is a simplification I am unwilling to make.
> There are a lot of loving moms and dads that decided in 2016 that they wanted to live in a country ran by Trump. They wanted to have their kids grow up in a country shaped by him.
I don't care of someone is a "loving parent". Whoever voted for Trump despite knowing about the countless accusations of sexual misconduct (the top being the "grab them by the pussy" leak) and listening to his racist speeches is a sexist and a racist, there is no excuse for voting for someone like him.
> ... a sexist and a racist, there is no excuse for voting for someone like him.
I will concede that Trump has sad a did some awful stuff. Even with that, there are people who feel just as strongly about abortion as you do about sexism and racism. For them, the choice to vote for Trump was just as apparent to them as the choice for you to vote against.
Again, you're (deliberately?) conflating "republican voter" with "Trump troll" here. We're not talking about your grandmother, we're talking about the jerk in the hat. We tolerate her, and will even debate with her. It's the jerks that get deplatformed by the SJWs.
I've never once seen anyone in a MAGA hat who wasn't an aggressive jerk, sorry. This is not a simple statement of political opinion, it's the marker for a movement (or gang membership, if you swing that way). You knew who I was talking about, yet you insisted of substituting an image of a soft-spoken Kansan grandmother because it suits your argument. Who's simplifying now?
To wit: if you quietly admit to voting republican I'll quietly agree to disagree, or quietly debate. You get in my face wearing that hat, and I know who you are.
> it is crystal clear that associating oneself with Mr. Trump by wearing a MAGA hat is at least accepting those values and actions, and that this is open harassment towards people affected by Mr. Trump's politics.
You used the world "the". Charles Manson also used it and liked it. Are you advocating for serial killers?
> While wearing a MAGA hat is not illegal in itself, it is a violation of any kind of professional conduct.
Wearing a MAGA hat is literally political speech protected by the first amendment. I don't like it either, but... you can't go there, not really.
I mean, yes, it's legal (because of the same first amendment) for the LF to enforce a de facto "No republicans" policy (which is effectively what you're asking for) at their conferences. But to argue that that was the intent behind the code of conduct policy is stretching reasonability way too far.
> Wearing a MAGA hat is literally political speech protected by the first amendment.
Sure, but (at least from my understanding of both US and German law) employers can demand that their employees not blast their individual political speech into the faces of their colleagues or customers.
> But to argue that that was the intent behind the code of conduct policy is stretching reasonability way too far.
The thing is it's almost exclusively Republicans and outright neo-Nazis who regularly and intentionally cross the lines between speech and harassment. Left-leaning people, from the odd "off to Gulag" meme and beaten up Spencer memes except, don't do this. It's not a fault of the CoC that today's Republican Party is a toxic white male supremacist hellhole.
If you paid attention to any of the stuff, you'd have known that the photo of Chuck wearing a MAGA is from 2017.
So now he's being kicked from a conference that has not happened yet, because he wore a hat 2 years ago?
> > Wearing a MAGA hat is literally political speech protected by the first amendment.
> Sure, but (at least from my understanding of both US and German law) employers can demand that their employees not blast their individual political speech into the faces of their colleagues or customers.
But this isn't "don't talk politics with colleagues or customers". This is "don't talk politics when off work, ever", which is a whole different ball game.
> > But to argue that that was the intent behind the code of conduct policy is stretching reasonability way too far.
> The thing is it's almost exclusively Republicans and outright neo-Nazis who regularly and intentionally cross the lines between speech and harassment. Left-leaning people, from the odd "off to Gulag" meme and beaten up Spencer memes except, don't do this. It's not a fault of the CoC that today's Republican Party is a toxic white male supremacist hellhole.
Um. Every "look at this deplatforming!" post I've seen on HN has been against someone insufficiently far left, being attacked by someone farther left - including this one. How is it that the Right is both so prevalent that their harassment campaigns are the vast majority of incidents, while also being so ineffective that all the major events we see here are the opposite?
> The thing is it's almost exclusively Republicans and outright neo-Nazis who regularly and intentionally cross the lines between speech and harassment.
Do you really believe that? You could watch videos for hours on YouTube with leftists screaming the most outrageous and ridiculous things. Then you have the endless fake incidents such as Jussie Smollett's tall tale in Chicago.
I don't know how you answer the question of who is doing it the most but the claim that members of the left aren't engaging in harassment is absurd.
Thanks for this, I unfollowed Charles Max Wood. Thanks for making me aware of this Uncle Bob.
For hat he wore in 2016?
I wonder who's behind this SJW organization. America has many powerful enemies, and SJW looks like a standard radicalization technique: divide the society into two camps and make them hate each other. Divide and conquer. The divide is made at the white males vs the rest line. On the other hand, SJW is clearly flourishing under the all seeing Feds Eye, but if it's them, then what's the point? Feds don't win anything by making the society waste energy on silly fights. My bet would be on Saudis: the radicalization technique smells like middle east and they have money and tensions with the US.
Bad things can happen by chance too.
The odds strongly favor chance: Of all the things that 'happen' the overwhelming majority of them do not have plots behind them.
Can you imagine what the pitch would be for this sort of plot? It would sound utterly absurd.
This isn't to say that plots don't happen-- they do, but so rarely its doubtful that you'll successfully detect them in this sea of chance.
So, I think it's better to worry about how to come with a difficult and changing world-- whatever the cause.
Looking too hard for the cause of some piece of chaos is the path to schizophrenia.
Besides, if someone is trying to divide and conquer how better to play into their hands by pointing blame here and there. Better to refuse to be divided and find ways to collaborate with everyone around us, even people we distrust or find distasteful.
The pitch is simple. There are organizations in the middle east that hate western people and their success. And they openly state that as their mission. I'm more curious about about the mechanics of this "SJW invasion". Just blaming someone on twitter isn't enough. Various companies, universities and other organizations need to collaborate and recognize the "SJW anathema". How? By paying them. Paying for implementing the SJW agenda would be too gross. Instead they likely just pay for non-existent services (like being a honorable member) and behind the scenes they hint that if that company/university/etc. continue employing that individual who's been detested by SJW, that money stream may disappear because they would feel unwelcome in this non-diverse place. The head of say university scratches his head and thinks that firing one person for no reason is not nice, but that money source funds half the university and he'd have to lay off half the staff, so he feels he'd doing the right thing when firing that person. Others see that SJW effectively has teeth. If I had the feds powers, I'd watch very closely the SJW talking heads: I doubt they are smart enough to leave no traces: I mean some questionable contacts, fishy bank transactions and so on.
Article flagged, because despite the relevance to a tech community, and the high profile of R Martin, some people in HN can't help abuse "flagging" for things they disagree with.
To be clear: The article was flagged, not that I flagged it.
To call something like this orwellian is to misunderstand and disrespect the whole concept of what orwell was warning about in the first place. Im not going to reply because the quality of theses conversations are simply apologist at best and I dare not say what they are at worst, if you think this is a left right thing you've not been paying attention. With that said, I think as usual an xkcd sums this up better than I could in many paragraphs.
Can you explain how that comic applies in this circumstance?
Two men walk into a bar one wearing “si se puede” and the other “make America great again”. The bar happens to be in Silicon Valley......
What grinds my gears about situations like this is that the people inventing and enforcing these so-called CoCs are never actual engineers, just individuals who have somehow infiltrated the engineering community and are dictating to its authentic members.
That's an interesting point. Can you share more about who is an actual engineer and who isn't? Is this a certification? Do you consider yourself part of the engineering community, and if so, how does someone get admitted, either by your standards or the standards of the community?
> just individuals who have somehow infiltrated the engineering community
That just means they're being good social engineers.
The really troubling thing is how people like this “Sarah Mei” are allowed to call shots. Why does anyone even give credence to what she says? She’s clearly a power-hungry megalomaniac who spends all of her time “calling out” people who violate her religious beliefs (Intersectionalism / Foucaltian Power Dynamism).
Sorry, not everyone is a member of that religion, so we should not be policing based upon your own personal religious beliefs.
So his complaint is they accepted a public complaint and responded publicly, he thinks this is evil incarnate, but he is going to justify publicly posting his lengthy complaint about the whole thing based on "This was all done publicly."
My knee jerk reaction is to think of my mother saying: Two wrongs don't make a right.
(To be clear, if this were framed differently, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it is, it just reeks of "Do as I say, not as I do.")