Linux Dev's threaten to pull killswitch over CoC (somewhat clickbaity title)

[Nowak]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Even in things like work-related emails?

If you are then I suggest you tone it down, because it is not appropriate.

Oh no, I mean elsewhere I'd be casual about it.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Anyway, I think we have strayed away from the original conversation. I don't see why you would need a specific clause for discrimination against homosexuals in the CoC when such behavior is already not accepted in other parts of the CoC.

Like I said, we don't have laws which says "you can't stab straight people" and one that says "you can't stab homosexual people". We just have one which says "you can't stab people". That's equality.

Touche. I don't think we woulda gone anywhere anyway,

[cesrai]

4 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

Oh no, I mean elsewhere I'd be casual about it.

 

Touche. I don't think we woulda gone anywhere anyway,

Why don't you like dress all of @LAwLz points ? I've read the whole thread and I'm trying like to follow your train of though, but like your post are too vague and you never address point of other members at least directly. Why would your suggestions achieve ??

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, cesrai said:

Why don't you like dress all of @LAwLz points ? I've read the whole thread and I'm trying like to follow your train of though, but like your post are too vague and you never address point of other members at least directly. Why would your suggestions achieve ??

I already said I don't know what I was expecting  

[Sauron]

@Trik'Stari there's an update https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/

[Trik'Stari]

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

@Trik'Stari there's an update https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/

Uhhh, doesn't that not apply since they are changing the definition now to something that is different than what was "agreed to" then? I don't think you can do that.

 

What follows is more general, and directed at everyone as a whole:

 

My friend, who is more into and knowledgeable about Linux than I, predicted the following outcome.

 

The kernal will fork, there will be one that people continue to work on, and one that will fail because it's a toxic environment where any and all criticism is met with accusations of racism/sexism/random-made-up-ism and no one with any real talent will touch it because why would they? Who wants to dance in a minefield full of people who can't take any form of criticism?

 

 

 

Sooner or later, people are going to have to learn to accept that there will be people who do not like you, or your way of life, but have enough integrity to not allow that to affect their actions. It's called integrity. I don't have to like you, but I believe in what my country stands for, and part of that is recognizing your right to exist as you are, I only ask that you do the same in return.

 

I have plenty of personal bias and contradictions, which I will not espouse here because I feel it would be inappropriate. I work in the IT field (sort of) and in that field I have had to interact with plenty of people who I do not like from a..... (Idealistic?) point of view? I still remain polite and professional with them because they do the same for me even though they know I am somewhat conservative leaning. We've even had political arguments at work, I still remain polite and courteous, despite that. Always go after the argument and not the person. Always try to consider that a persons life has lead them to think and feel the way they do, even if you disagree with them 100%.

 

Disagreements should be about challenging one another to be better than you both are, to evolve your understanding of what simply is. We need to get past this petty bullshit identity politics that serves no purpose beyond division and strife.

 

 

More personal opinion:

Spoiler

The problem with SJW's is that they think they have a moral right to force people to change, or enforce social/economic consequences against people they disagree with. That is essentially moral dictatorship. A "my way or the highway" attitude.

 

This is not a moral action. This is no different than the actions of some of the people they claim to stand against. Tolerance means you have to acknowledge someones right to exist, it doesn't mean you have to like or love that person.

 

Some of the people on the right are equally guilty of this, but I feel like there are FAR fewer of them, and they have less political currency as it stands. The media is 100% on board with them.

 

[Evanair]

6 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

Sooner or later, people are going to have to learn to accept that there will be people who do not like you, or your way of life, but have enough integrity to not allow that to affect their actions. It's called integrity. I don't have to like you, but I believe in what my country stands for, and part of that is recognizing your right to exist as you are, I only ask that you do the same in return

Sooner or later they really don't. The fallout, from the examples of Twitter comments from those incharge, prove they don't.

 

There are turning points in history that change the whole idea of free speech and accepted thought. The movement to pubish people for wrong think *could* turn into a socially acceptable movement by the masses, or be forced down their throats by legal agreements.

 

Then again, it could also fade away like McCarthyism did in the 50s with the red scare

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Uhhh, doesn't that not apply since they are changing the definition now to something that is different than what was "agreed to" then? I don't think you can do that.

 

I'm not sure, I'm just the messenger ^^ the people there are supposed to be lawyers though. Note that they only updated their explanation of the gpl v2, not what's in the license itself.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, Evanair said:

Sooner or later they really don't. The fallout, from the examples of Twitter comments from those incharge, prove they don't.

 

There are turning points in history that change the whole idea of free speech and accepted thought. The movement to pubish people for wrong think *could* turn into a socially acceptable movement by the masses, or be forced down their throats by legal agreements.

 

Then again, it could also fade away like McCarthyism did in the 50s with the red scare

I should have said "if we want to continue being what we think we are as a nation" then people are going to have to accept those facts.

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I'm not sure, I'm just the messenger ^^ the people there are supposed to be lawyers though.

I would question their motives.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I would question their motives.

Their motives are pretty clear - they want to protect free software projects. Again, they didn't change the definition; the text of the license is unchanged. They just updated their guide to avoid confusion.

[spartaman64]

On 9/26/2018 at 8:08 PM, thedude4bides said:

This guy gets it.  Mob rules FTW!

 

sigh...

This is just how language works. It's not static but a evolving thing

[spartaman64]

On 9/26/2018 at 4:26 PM, mr moose said:

 

That is the natural evolution of language, which is fine, I can accept that,  but when a made up mental condition becomes a legitimate mental condition because enough people believe it,  then we face a rather scary time where all science and good health policy go out the window because of public opinion means more than accuracy of a diagnosis.  It also means that we can impugn anyone's character with a mental diagnosis because they don't like something.

 

And there in lies the problem when it is used in the same sense and the medical fraternity are using it in a medical sense, what we have is literally a mental condition that was born out of the need to character assassinate anyone who opposed LGBT normalization.  What we have is a term that reads as a fear of things that are the same, being used to define anyone who dislikes homosexuality as being scared or irrationally fearful of it.  What was wrong with the term "bigoted"?

It's like when people call you autistic on the internet. Are they diagnosing you with the medical condition? Obviously not they are using it as an insult

[spartaman64]

On 9/26/2018 at 11:41 AM, Jito463 said:

So, if I can get enough people to agree that the word 'purple' actually means the smell of bacon, then that's what it means from now on?

Can I use Merriam-Webster as the arbiter, then?  

Yep that's how language works no dictionary acts as an arbiter only as a reporter

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

It's like when people call you autistic on the internet. Are they diagnosing you with the medical condition? Obviously not they are using it as an insult

So imagine if Psychologists starting using the accusations of internet trolls to diagnose autism. Or worse, create a whole new subset of autism based solely on the observation of repeated internet insults and then used that new condition to argue for changes to laws etc?  

 

There is a difference between the natural evolution of language and the intentional misuse of language.   If they really want the word homophobia to describe bigotry toward homosexuals then they need to create a new word to describe an irrational fear.  Because ambiguous language is why we have some many self assured morons protesting for us to return to the dark ages in the name of saving the world.

 

As I said before, Psychologists, mental health workers and carers are constantly changing/lobbying for the changing of the names of mental conditions to avoid people becoming stigmatized by a name.  Homophobia is clearly the reverse of that,  it is not the natural evolution of nomenclature in the mental health. It is the exact opposite.  It is an insult that has become so socially accepted that psychologists have actually started requesting it be entered in the DSM. 

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So imagine if Psychologists starting using the accusations of internet trolls to diagnose autism. Or worse, create a whole new subset of autism based solely on the observation of repeated internet insults and then used that new condition to argue for changes to laws etc?  

 

There is a difference between the natural evolution of language and the intentional misuse of language.   If they really want the word homophobia to describe bigotry toward homosexuals then they need to create a new word to describe an irrational fear.  Because ambiguous language is why we have some many self assured morons protesting for us to return to the dark ages in the name of saving the world.

 

As I said before, Psychologists, mental health workers and carers are constantly changing/lobbying for the changing of the names of mental conditions to avoid people becoming stigmatized by a name.  Homophobia is clearly the reverse of that,  it is not the natural evolution of nomenclature in the mental health. It is the exact opposite.  It is an insult that has become so socially accepted that psychologists have actually started requesting it be entered in the DSM. 

The use of the word is in a context doesn't have anything to do with health. That's the point. It's like how the word retarded went into use as a insult in a context thats separated with it's original medical definition 

Quote

re·tard·ed

rəˈtärdəd/

adjective

DATED•OFFENSIVE

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

INFORMAL•OFFENSIVE

very foolish or stupid.

"in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea"

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

The use of the word is in a context doesn't have anything to do with health. That's the point. It's like how the word retarded went into use as a insult in a context thats separated with it's original medical definition 

 

When the word has a direct connection to a mental condition then it has everything to do with health.

 

And you have just illustrated exactly my point, health professionals do not use the word retarded anymore because of the insulting connotation and the stigma that it carries,  but with the use of the label homophobia we now see exactly the opposite happening, health professionals are trying to instate it as a diagnosable condition.   Conventionally when a condition or disorder starts to carry a stigma or is becoming used as an insult medical professionals refrain from using it, but in this case the term homophobic started it's life as an insult and now the medical professionals are starting to treat it as a bonafide condition.

 

How can you not see the distinct difference between that and the normal evolution of language.

[spartaman64]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When the word has a direct connection to a mental condition then it has everything to do with health.

 

And you have just illustrated exactly my point, health professionals do not use the word retarded anymore because of the insulting connotation and the stigma that it carries,  but with the use of the label homophobia we now see exactly the opposite happening, health professionals are trying to instate it as a diagnosable condition.   Conventionally when a condition or disorder starts to carry a stigma or is becoming used as an insult medical professionals refrain from using it, but in this case the term homophobic started it's life as an insult and now the medical professionals are starting to treat it as a bonafide condition.

 

How can you not see the distinct difference between that and the normal evolution of language.

I never heard of any doctor treating it as a medical condition and phobia comes from phobos meaning fear. surely doctors don't have a monopoly on greek roots. Words like hypothermia and hypotension are medical conditions but hypotenuse isnt. Also xenophobia has been widely accepted as a word and I don't think it's a diagonsable condition

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

Words like hypothermia and hypotension are medical conditions but hypotenuse isnt.

It goes back to the root of 'hypo', which means 'under'.  From dictionary.com

Quote

a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “under” (hypostasis); on this model used,especially as opposed to hyper-, in the formation of compound words (hypothyroid).

Quote

Word Origin and History for hypotenuse

n.

1570s, from Late Latin hypotenusa, from Greek hypoteinousa "stretching under" (the right angle), fem.present participle of hypoteinein, from hypo- "under" (see sub-) + teinein "to stretch" (see tenet). Formerlyoften erroneously hypothenuse.

So in this case, hypotenuse is not a misuse of the term 'hypo', as it's congruent with its original form.

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

Also xenophobia has been widely accepted as a word and I don't think it's a diagonsable condition

I will grant you that one as being in (semi) common use, though I also believe that it's a misuse/abuse of the term phobia.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It goes back to the root of 'hypo', which means 'under'.  From dictionary.com

So in this case, hypotenuse is not a misuse of the term 'hypo', as it's congruent with its original form.

I will grant you that one as being in (semi) common use, though I also believe that it's a misuse/abuse of the term phobia.

That's my point it's a proper use of the word and if you look at phobia there's nothing in the meaning of that root that prevents it from being used in non medical contexts. This is additionally supported by words like hydrophobic a scientific term not to be confused with the medical term aquaphobic.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

That's my point it's a proper use of the word and if you look at phobia there's nothing in the meaning of that root that prevents it from being used in non medical contexts. This is additionally supported by words like hydrophobic a scientific term not to be confused with the medical term aquaphobic.

Would you also acknowledge that homophobia is a term often misapplied to people who simply disagree with the homosexual lifestyle?

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

I never heard of any doctor treating it as a medical condition and phobia comes from phobos meaning fear. surely doctors don't have a monopoly on greek roots. Words like hypothermia and hypotension are medical conditions but hypotenuse isnt. Also xenophobia has been widely accepted as a word and I don't think it's a diagonsable condition

I think you'll find many psychologists deal with severe phobias all the time. In fact I already told you that some want to have homophobia entered into the DSM as a diangosable mental condition.  This quote from a psychologist:

Quote

“However, homophobia, a phobic, psychopathologic trait, possibly should be present within the forthcoming edition of DSM [the diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists],”

It is clear that some consider it a genuine mental condition that should be in the DSM,  this is above most of the practice who refer to it as colloquially understood.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-homophobia-a-disease-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

 

 

This is not about having a monopoly on a word or it's roots, In fact I never said anything like that.  If you read my posts I am making a very specific observation about language usage and how in this case it is being used to manipulate society.   Just because something is happening doesn't mean it is natural or normal or should be accepted.  Some people just don't like homosexuality, and with current trends, this goes from a disliking (which isn't abnormal) to a diagnosable mental condition.

 

Do you understand what I was saying about the adoption of new names for mental conditions when current names gain some type of stigma?

And do you understand how the use and existence of homophobia as a descriptive for a condition of being is exactly opposite to that practice and the reasoning behind it?

 

This is not about who has rights to the definition of a word, this is about the usages and ramifications of said usage. This is about social justice issues being leveraged to the point where general society is now accepting a character assassination as a mental illness.  Imagine  if psychologists decided to enter all other forms of character assassination into the DSM.   Shill would become a diagnosable mental disorder that required no more evidence to prove than you supporting a company online. 

 

 

[KarathKasun]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you'll find many psychologists deal with severe phobias all the time. In fact I already told you that some want to have homophobia entered into the DSM as a diangosable mental condition.  This quote from a psychologist:

It is clear that some consider it a genuine mental condition that should be in the DSM,  this is above most of the practice who refer to it as colloquially understood.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-homophobia-a-disease-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

 

 

This is not about having a monopoly on a word or it's roots, In fact I never said anything like that.  If you read my posts I am making a very specific observation about language usage and how in this case it is being used to manipulate society.   Just because something is happening doesn't mean it is natural or normal or should be accepted.  Some people just don't like homosexuality, and with current trends, this goes from a disliking (which isn't abnormal) to a diagnosable mental condition.

 

Do you understand what I was saying about the adoption of new names for mental conditions when current names gain some type of stigma?

And do you understand how the use and existence of homophobia as a descriptive for a condition of being is exactly opposite to that practice and the reasoning behind it?

 

This is not about who has rights to the definition of a word, this is about the usages and ramifications of said usage. This is about social justice issues being leveraged to the point where general society is now accepting a character assassination as a mental illness.  Imagine  if psychologists decided to enter all other forms of character assassination into the DSM.   Shill would become a diagnosable mental disorder that required no more evidence to prove than you supporting a company online. 

 

 

The problem is that even when the word surfaced it was many times used to describe something close to its root meaning.  At least in my observation it was used to describe people that actually wanted to physically harm others.

 

Over the years it became used more and more generally to describe those who did not agree with the agenda of the gay community.

 

Just like how the current social justice movement believes words are violent.

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

The problem is that even when the word surfaced it was many times used to describe something close to its root meaning.  At least in my observation it was used to describe people that actually wanted to physically harm others.

 

Over the years it became used more and more generally to describe those who did not agree with the agenda of the gay community.

 

Just like how the current social justice movement believes words are violent.

Yes, in it's very earlier days (late 60's) it was used to label people who feared homosexuality (originally it meant fear of men, As I alluded to earlier the word has a specific meaning). These people had genuine and correct use of the subfix.  But later on as the movement finally managed to get past the tightly controlled media and broadcast standards (toward the 90's)  it was often used to dismiss the opinions of someone by accusing them of being scared of homosexuality.  I.E it was frequently used as "your opinion is meaningless and isn't a problem because it is the result of you being scared of gay people". This is just your basic  character assassination rather than a diagnosis , any other accusation that would claim a state of mental being should be accompanied with evidence lest it become defamatory. It was commonly used in conjunction with the accusation of being uneducated (which is just an insult rather than a rational argument).    

 

However today the term is now used universally without the specific notion of fear as it has been proven that most people don't actually fear homosexuality (often the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality are gay themselves).  I would arguer at best there is a subset of religious people (in my experience they are generally loud and marginalized) who are fearful of a world where homosexuality is acceptable.  Lucky I don't live any where near them.

[spartaman64]

11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Would you also acknowledge that homophobia is a term often misapplied to people who simply disagree with the homosexual lifestyle?

If they have no fear of homosexuals then they just won't care if people are homosexual. You don't just disagree with something for no reason. If you disagree then there's something about it that you don't like.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you'll find many psychologists deal with severe phobias all the time. In fact I already told you that some want to have homophobia entered into the DSM as a diangosable mental condition.  This quote from a psychologist:

It is clear that some consider it a genuine mental condition that should be in the DSM,  this is above most of the practice who refer to it as colloquially understood.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-homophobia-a-disease-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

 

 

This is not about having a monopoly on a word or it's roots, In fact I never said anything like that.  If you read my posts I am making a very specific observation about language usage and how in this case it is being used to manipulate society.   Just because something is happening doesn't mean it is natural or normal or should be accepted.  Some people just don't like homosexuality, and with current trends, this goes from a disliking (which isn't abnormal) to a diagnosable mental condition.

 

Do you understand what I was saying about the adoption of new names for mental conditions when current names gain some type of stigma?

And do you understand how the use and existence of homophobia as a descriptive for a condition of being is exactly opposite to that practice and the reasoning behind it?

 

This is not about who has rights to the definition of a word, this is about the usages and ramifications of said usage. This is about social justice issues being leveraged to the point where general society is now accepting a character assassination as a mental illness.  Imagine  if psychologists decided to enter all other forms of character assassination into the DSM.   Shill would become a diagnosable mental disorder that required no more evidence to prove than you supporting a company online. 

 

 

I would hope psychologists have other means of determining whether something is a mental illness than just looking at the word. If the only merit that homophobia has to be a mental condition is the word  then I'm not worried that it will be added to the dsm. It's like being worried that senioritis will become an accepted medical condition. And I don't see you yelling at scientists and engineers to stop using the word hydrophobic or else it will summon the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by spartaman64

[Jito463]

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

If they have no fear of homosexuals then they just won't care if people are homosexual. You don't just disagree with something for no reason. If you disagree then there's something about it that you don't like.

So you refuse to concede that point.  Then I would say there's nothing further to discuss, and I'll bow out of this conversation.

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is just your basic  character assassination rather than a diagnosis

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

If they have no fear of homosexuals then they just won't care if people are homosexual. You don't just disagree with something for no reason. If you disagree then there's something about it that you don't like.

I would hope psychologists have other means of determining whether something is a mental illness than just looking at the word. If the only merit that homophobia has to be a mental condition is the word  then I'm not worried that it will be added to the dsm. It's like being worried that senioritis will become an accepted medical condition. And I don't see you yelling at scientists and engineers to stop using the word hydrophobic or else it will summon the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. 

Do you think I am only worried about this because it is about homosexuality?  It really sounds like it.  Which is a shame because I am a big proponent of same sex equality, I just don't like seeing the seesaw go backwards because some people don't like where the true level is.

 

This bit in bold tells me you understand the legitimacy of my fears and are now trying to character assassinate me and deflect from the problem by accusing me of not crying foul when this happens in other sciences (insinuating it is only about homosexuality).  This really means you have not been reading my posts. 

 

I'll lay it out in black and white:

Any professional that preferences idiosyncratic social justice over unbiased rational scientific discourse or tries to implement a social justice law using a bodged scientific foundation annoys me and in some cases down right scares the pants of me.  Even some of the most well regarded psychologists end up in trouble with the establishment because they refuse to curtail to such idiosyncrasies, like Jordan Peterson.  And when someone with his experience, education and standing gets dismissed as a bigot for telling the truth you know I have little hope.