Quoting: scaine(Disclaimer: I'm drunk)

I find Purple Library Guy (how'd you come up with that name anyway??)

It's an oddly mundane self-description. My favourite colour is purple, I wear purple including a purple beret most of the time. And I work in a library. I kind of became known around the university as the "purple library guy". And I thought, wherever I go that handle probably hasn't been taken . . .

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSyldatNot that there is anything wrong with being a Fleming (although lately 2K and EA beg to differ ... ) but you know if one day you end up in my neck of the woods at the night in Lille's "street of thirst" you might come back home with more ethanol than blood in your bloodstream :P

I have only ever been in one very small part of Lille for a couple of hours while I waited for a train connection--was going from Arras, where being Canadian I'd been checking out the Vimy WW I memorial, to Oxford. That little bit seemed really nice though, wouldn't mind going back to check it out a bit more. I'm more up for patisseries and chocolate than drinking though.

I know your avater isn't precisely a beholder, but somehow it always makes me think of this:
Tsundere Beholder t-shirt [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The last few pages of back-and-forth started looking really boring to me, didn't seem like they were getting anywhere much, so I feel like saying it: All these identity issues, whether of gender, race, or whatever, would be, while still to some extent there, much more muted if we fundamentally changed society in a way that greatly increased equality generally.
Right now what we've got is a situation where there are huge differences in wealth and power. Most of it belongs to white males--although as Scott Adams once put it, those are other white males, not anyone you or I ever talk to. But going below the top people in control, there is a whole pyramid of difference from bottom to top, and who goes in what bit is systematically influenced by all the prejudice factors. The economic system divides us up into (mostly) white haves and black (mostly) have-nots, male have-mores and female have-lesses, and so on. Not that there aren't any poor white people--there's plenty spots at the bottom to go around--but there's still a serious pattern. And it leaves those higher up deathly afraid of other groups taking their spots, because a hierarchy pyramid is a zero-sum game. There have to be a bunch of people at the bottom, so if anyone moves up, someone previously secure is gonna have to move down. This incidentally is true even if it's a genuine meritocracy (which it clearly isn't)--if every member of some disadvantaged group suddenly acquired awesome qualificatons by the wave of a wand, and jumped up into the excellent good-paying jobs those qualifications deserved by some act of a deity, someone would still have to clean the floors and pick the fruit and serve the coffee. Maybe someone who wasn't doing that before.
Further, our political economy is deathly afraid of people combining into groups; those at the top gain from people being at each other's throats by category. It's no accident that certain very rich people don't just finance economically right wing, free market groups (which is what you'd obviously expect), they finance socially right wing, racist, anti-LGBTQ-et-al, antifeminist type groups as well. It is useful for the dominance of capital if people who don't have any are at each other's throats instead of looking up at the people with the money and power.
So the politics of identity (alone) is forced to be rather extreme as long as it can't address the problems of inequality, social atomization, and systematic insecurity which fuel the problems of prejudice. You have to treat symptoms a lot harder when you can't touch the cause or don't even know what it is. Not that treating symptoms is useless, but if someone is really serious about trans or racial or gay or women's issues, they should also back some variant of socialism (real socialism, as in workers owning the means of production, not whatever Bernie Sanders means when he says it), because people can't all be equal until people are all equal, and people can't truly come together until they are no longer being systematically divided.

There. Now everyone on all sides can be mad at me! ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

All in all, it sounds lovely but I'm really uncertain what it means.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeI'm not sure how the agenda is hidden, it's pretty plain. When contributors, even of software that isn't directly part of the source code (like the SC controller that just integrates with the kernel) decide to stop developing because of it, it's already caused damage. Whether intentional or not.

He paused development to make a statement. The price of progress I guess. Maybe he'll come around when this storm in a teacup blows over.

I find it sad that it's come down to this. Like during a war, I can see protestors. But when people are like 'I want you to respect that I don't want to be identified as a male or female'? It's like being okay with watching a child burn themselves and then they say "I want to burn myself, just accept me for burning myself, I identify as a burner." You still want to take the lighters away...

Wait, what? WTF difference does it make?! Someone wants to call themselves a girl or a boy or neither or whatever . . . either they know more about themselves than you know about them (seems quite likely), or they don't--but even if they don't, who gives a shit? Burning themselves my ass, how the hell does what gender role they're rocking do any harm? Sure, I'd want people to be pretty damn sure what they're getting into before they go for surgery that's awfully hard to reverse, but how they identify . . . whatever.

And like, we can call people by the internet handle they choose (even though it's totally not their name and may not even be a reference to a human being), and if they decide to change it we call them by the new version. One of the more respected people around the Linux gaming scene calls himself a piece of cheese, nobody bats an eye. What makes a pronoun such a big hairy deal? Hell, most of the people on the internet we don't even know what gender they biologically are, we just use whatever pronoun seems to apply or whatever one they specify if it comes up. So like, people identifying as this or that doesn't even change the process any.

This kind of stuff is just rationalizing. The bottom line here is a discomfort with people thinking a different way from you, not a concern for the person in question.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lqe5433I still prefer open-source engines (like doom 3), or Feral ported games to Wine. I believe it will never work flawlessly.

Well, it is supposed to be (non-)emulating Windows, after all. Working flawlessly would be quite inaccurate. ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That strikes me as one of those oh-my-god-let-me-set-everyone-straight posts that has the opposite effect from what it intends. But everyone's about out of energy so it might not matter.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Nope.
Read the CoC.
It does not center on abusive behavior. It focuses on vaguely-termed abusive persons. It does not tell people not to write racist/sexist/etc. posts. It tells they can not be racist/sexist/etc. Wording is important. This potentially empowers moderators to expel people based on their own personal choices in other domains, apart from the linux kernel. This is an enormous difference.

Hmmm. Where [External Link]? All the language in the Contibutor Covenant, the template CoC adopted by the Linux Foundation, focuses squarely on behaviours. There's no mention of "abusive persons" and no language that I personally find to be vague. Well, no actually there is one "catch all" phrase at the end which could be an issue: "Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting". I have no idea if the Linux Foundation left that in though.

So I'm curious how you see that this could possibly "empower moderators to expel people based on their own personal choices". The examples of behaviour are cut and dried. And there's only five of them? Read for yourself.

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

• The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances



• Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks


• Public or private harassment


• Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission


• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Seriously, have you read the right CoC, or have the Linux Foundation added a bunch of stuff that I don't know about??

EDIT: Nope, the Linux Foundation adopted the core template pretty much as is, as far as I can tell. [Read for yourself [External Link].]

You are correct.
I apologize for it and I am fixing it wherever I said that.
An explanation is warranted. At the time of the CoC, I opened a lot of tabs for the reading materials. Amongst them, many were for other CoCs. Although I can't recall which one (I am typing on my cellphone, which doesn't have the reference), it seems I confused Linux's CoC with a CoC from another project. If you still doubt my honesty on this issue, I can try and get which CoC it was after I get a hold of my main computer in about two days.

Even though it is hard to admit a mistake, I am myself relieved that this specific criticism was unwarranted. I don't want to worry more than what I already am with all these social engineering initiatives.

That was very handsomely said.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Nope.
Read the CoC.
It does not center on abusive behavior. It focuses on vaguely-termed abusive persons. It does not tell people not to write racist/sexist/etc. posts. It tells they can not be racist/sexist/etc. Wording is important. This potentially empowers moderators to expel people based on their own personal choices in other domains, apart from the linux kernel. This is an enormous difference.

That seemed like a significant objection. Except, scaine has made clear (plus I followed scaine's link and did read it) that you turn out to be completely wrong. As you were on the Canadian supposed "wrong pronoun-->jail" legislation. Whatever your sources are on this kind of thing, I think you need to start doubting them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: DolusYou know damn well what the tiki torch is a dog whistle for. Even if you're not an American. Don't play coy.

Ahh, yes, I know that arrogance. Presuming the whole world is exactly the same as your own experiences. I've said twice that I don't understand the reference. I've not seen that movie (and it does look like it's a still from a movie, but it could be a play for all I know, or random Internet meme that I've not seen).

So grow up a little and stop acting like a spoiled child.

The specific reference is the opposite of the point. The point is that in the absence of the specific reference, it looks like one of those weenie white supremacist neo-nazi types who parade in the US with tiki-torches (because they can't get real ones) and have been increasing significantly in visibility in the US in recent years. There are similar types on the rise in many countries in Europe. They've been all over the friggin' headlines ever since Trump was elected; whether there are actually any more of them or whether this is largely a media narrative thing is unclear to me. But they are there, they are nasty, and they certainly all object strenuously to "SJWs". So if you take someone who is complaining about a Code of Conduct and, strenuously, about a person who is being described as an "SJW", and you say they look like that, then in the absence of whatever specific meme, you're calling them a neo-nazi. Sure, maybe it looks a little silly to be a real neo-nazi, but there are some pretty silly-looking real neo-nazis out there.
I would say it was that post with the picture which, at best, arrogantly assumed everyone had the same experience. I have no idea what the specific reference is supposed to be either; the person said it was a character who was some sort of ironic fake neo-nazi and so it's OK. I have no reason to doubt that it really was that character, but I'm not at all so clear that that makes it OK, and only partly because I don't know who the hell the character is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments