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

[RejZoR]

It's fine to hate on white males. But don't dare to say anything over 700 trillion made up genders... That's a total NO-NO. That's how they operate.

[Deus Voltage]

I find it quite interesting how some individuals in the "anti sjw" crowd are using the ethical failings of others to push their homophobic/ racist agenda.

 

What they fail to realize is that they are not positioning themselves well ethically/ argumentatively for the long run. But the hysteria will diminish in due time, as important issues that unite people (healthcare/ employment/ unnecessary wars/ corporate greed....) become more and more foregrounded in future political debates. 

 

While it is true that third wave feminism is problematic ( the needless shaming of all men simply because of one, admittedly, traumatic experience), I still think that we shouldn't dismiss the cause so readily and easily. Particularly when one considers that there is much work to be done in the middle east and Africa (I'm African, so when I see people bashing feminism without nuance or constructive argumentation, it makes it a little hard to encourage other closed minded people to support the cause) 

 

I think that's the problem as a whole, lack of nuance. It's a hard thing to master, and I still fail at getting it right to this day. 

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Sauron said:

-snip-

Let me ask you this then, and I want your opinions not "well Linus thought it was necessary so..." type of answers. Just your honest opinion.

1) Do you personally believe that adopting this new CoC was necessary or was the old one enough?

2) If your answer to the previous question was yes, this new one was needed, what exactly do you think will change now that the new one is in place?

3) Do you believe that this new CoC is a good one, or do you believe that a CoC like the one Ruby has adopted is better? If so, why or why not?

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

The problem with that is that, say, "I want to throw gays into an asylum, because it's wrong in the eyes of God and gays should be punished for it" isn't an opinion. That's something that directly affects my (and other LGBT people's) ability to live a good, fulfilling life. It's hatred.

 

That's a problem that I personally have with that CoC. It doesn't address sexual discrimination and instead says that we must be "tolerant" of "other views". I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

First of all, believing that homosexual is wrong is in fact an opinion. It's an opinion that you don't agree with, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Secondly, as long as people do not act upon those beliefs I don't see how it can or should affect your life. I know for a fact that several vegans and vegetarians I know hate that I eat meat. They actually hate that about me and would love for me to change that about me. But I don't let that effect my relationship with them. You won't ever find someone I agree with 100% on every single subject.

 

And before you say "hating on someone who eats meat and hating on someone for their sexual preferences are two different things". To me it isn't, as long as no actions are made because of those beliefs.

Remember, we're talking about Linux development here. 99% of people working on this won't even meet each other. They just see code suggestions flying back and forth. You really have to be very deliberate for your sexuality to even get brought up. 

 

Thirdly, why does sexual discrimination have to be explicitly mentioned? Sexual discrimination is not only a criminal offense already, but if someone was to act or personally attack someone then it would also go against the other parts of the Ruby CoC. More specifically these parts:

Quote

• Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.
• Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

 

And lastly, the personal beliefs of someone should not matter at all when judging their code.

Did you know that ReiserFS, a file system natively supported by the Linux kernel, was developed by a man who was convicted for murdering his wife? I won't feel bad for using it despite it being coded by a murderer. I think his code should be evaluated on the merits of the code, not his other actions.

 

 

By the way, tolerance goes both way. Don't expect to be tolerated if you yourself is intolerant towards others.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

I find it quite interesting how some individuals in the "anti sjw" crowd are using the ethical failings of others to push their homophobic/ racist agenda.

 

What they fail to realize is that they are not positioning themselves well ethically/ argumentatively for the long run. But the hysteria will diminish in due time, as important issues that unite people (healthcare/ employment/ unnecessary wars/ corporate greed....) become more and more foregrounded in future political debates. 

 

While it is true that third wave feminism is problematic ( the needless shaming of all men simply because of one, admittedly, traumatic experience), I still think that we shouldn't dismiss the cause so readily and easily. Particularly when one considers that there is much work to be done in the middle east and Africa (I'm African, so when I see people bashing feminism without nuance or constructive argumentation, it makes it a little hard to encourage other closed minded people to support the cause) 

 

I think that's the problem as a whole, lack of nuance. It's a hard thing to master, and I still fail at getting it right to this day. 

This is another problem. They keep on screeching in the west about all of this and then say "but in Africa". No. It's not even virtually the same on any level and people should really stop using 3rd world countries to push their stupid narratives and agendas. I think there is not a single normal human being who doesn't want position of women and children in 3rd world countries to improve dramatically, but using them to benefit yourself in the west is just straight up disgusting.

 

We are talking about the same sort of people who screech about their million genders and sexual orientations, but then side with muslims who still follow archaic teachings even in the west, to this very day. Not even younger generations seem to have changed much in that regard compared to other religions where younger generations are far more open and liberal. Makes you kinda stare with mouth wide open in disbelief how inconsistent and hypocritical they are in this regard. I think they are just so damn spolied in the west they don't know what to do with their lives anymore (same reason why Brits go joining Isis and other stupid stuff like that). Where people in Africa, Asia and Middle east are actually facing all the problems snowflakes are screeching about in the west.

 

It's a really bizarre situation I still can't understand why the hell is even happening. But at first glance, it just seems like a bunch of selfish people who hoard privileges and benefits on the misery of others.

[Deus Voltage]

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

This is another problem. They keep on screeching in the west about all of this and then say "but in Africa". No. It's not even virtually the same on any level and people should really stop using 3rd world countries to push their stupid narratives and agendas. I think there is not a single normal human being who doesn't want position of women and children in 3rd world countries to improve dramatically, but using them to benefit yourself in the west is just straight up disgusting.

 

We are talking about the same sort of people who screech about their million genders and sexual orientations, but then side with muslims who still follow archaic teachings even in the west, to this very day. Not even younger generations seem to have changed much in that regard compared to other religions where younger generations are far more open and liberal. Makes you kinda stare with mouth wide open in disbelief how inconsistent and hypocritical they are in this regard. I think they are just so damn spolied in the west they don't know what to do with their lives anymore (same reason why Brits go joining Isis and other stupid stuff like that). Where people in Africa, Asia and Middle east are actually facing all the problems snowflakes are screeching about in the west.

 

It's a really bizarre situation I still can't understand why the hell is even happening. But at first glance, it just seems like a bunch of selfish people who hoard privileges and benefits on the misery of others.

It puts a lot of us folks in third world countries in an awkward position when we try to direct people's attention to feminist causes, particularly in Muslim dominated nations.

 

One interesting and rather peculiar trend that I have noticed is people (from my country) calling for more patriarchal/ archaic practices on the one hand and claiming to be moderate/ fair minded on the other hand. There is a similar cognitive dissonance in our part of the world as in the west. 

[KarathKasun]

2 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

I find it quite interesting how some individuals in the "anti sjw" crowd are using the ethical failings of others to push their homophobic/ racist agenda.

 

What they fail to realize is that they are not positioning themselves well ethically/ argumentatively for the long run. But the hysteria will diminish in due time, as important issues that unite people (healthcare/ employment/ unnecessary wars/ corporate greed....) become more and more foregrounded in future political debates. 

 

While it is true that third wave feminism is problematic ( the needless shaming of all men simply because of one, admittedly, traumatic experience), I still think that we shouldn't dismiss the cause so readily and easily. Particularly when one considers that there is much work to be done in the middle east and Africa (I'm African, so when I see people bashing feminism without nuance or constructive argumentation, it makes it a little hard to encourage other closed minded people to support the cause) 

 

I think that's the problem as a whole, lack of nuance. It's a hard thing to master, and I still fail at getting it right to this day. 

I love that people argue from the position of "corporate greed" is bad, but accept money from the major corps like Google, Facebook, and Twitter like they are not giant multinational corporations.  Have any of those people given thought to the fact that they are being used?

 

If you stop and think about the terminology used in the CoC, which can be seen as influenced by third wave feminism, nothing is what it seems.  You have to understand what third wave deconstructionist theory is to see what is meant by the language used.

[RejZoR]

Just look at MO's of these corporations. They are all these virtue signaling leftist fruitcakes from top to bottom. I used to love Google for the innovations, but for a while I've been hearing weird stories floating around Silicon Valley and after they fired James Damore few months ago, I started researching and realized these companies are all crazy leftist control freaks. And I'm left leaning!

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

I love that people argue from the position of "corporate greed" is bad, but accept money from the major corps like Google, Facebook, and Twitter like they are not giant multinational corporations.  Have any of those people given thought to the fact that they are being used?

 

If you stop and think about the terminology used in the CoC, which can be seen as influenced by third wave feminism, nothing is what it seems.  You have to understand what third wave deconstructionist theory is to see what is meant by the language used.

Actually I can see where third wave feminists are coming from, but the way they go about it is so ridiculous and out of touch with reality, and their framing is so inconsistent that it puts feminism as a whole in bad light. 

 

I will digress a bit here, but I'll try to remain succinct and link my arguments to the main topic at hand. The Derriridian way of going about things (deconstruction) is essentially (from my understanding during my college years) about de-centring the powerful and calling for the rights of the marginalized. I have no problem with this notion both ethically/ philosophically.

 

The main point of contention, as I have argued before, is people's inability to divorce the author from the book. The author of the CoC is definitely in the minority in terms of her social views. Now this doesn't mean we can't argue against her positions. In fact, I support that call because it hurts social progress in my nation (women rights, domestic violence, shaming culture.....). 

 

At the same time, I believe that we shouldn't let our darker and more reactionary side get the best of us. We should call them out, yes, let's also try to advocate for pragmatic and equally well measured solutions. 

 

[KarathKasun]

7 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Actually I can see where third wave feminists are coming from, but the way they go about it is so ridiculous and out of touch with reality, and their framing is so inconsistent that it puts feminism as a whole in bad light. 

 

I will digress a bit here, but I'll try to remain succinct and link my arguments to the main topic at hand. The Derriridian way of going about things (deconstruction) is essentially (from my understanding during my college years) about de-centring the powerful and calling for the rights of the marginalized. I have no problem with this notion both ethically/ philosophically.

 

The main point of contention, as I have argued before, is people's inability to divorce the author from the book. The author of the CoC is definitely in the minority in terms of her social views. Now this doesn't mean we can't argue against her positions. In fact, I support that call because it hurts social progress in my nation (women rights, domestic violence, shaming culture.....). 

 

At the same time, I believe that we shouldn't let our darker and more reactionary side get the best of us. We should call them out, yes, let's also try to advocate for pragmatic and equally well measured solutions. 

 

Deconstructionism is not about "de-centring the powerful", its about elevating your own tribe (status group, orientation/poc/sex/etc) to the position of power.

 

I come from some of these "status groups", and can not stand the condescending nature of deconstruction theory.  In effect, its telling me that my group is worthless and requires a free handout.  Deconstruction theory is the height of modern othering (racism/sexism are examples of othering) as it mandates different treatment of anyone who is outside of the mainstream.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

Deconstructionism is not about "de-centring the powerful", its about elevating your own tribe (status group, orientation/poc/sex/etc) to the position of power.

 

I come from some of these "status groups", and can not stand the condescending nature of deconstruction theory.  In effect, its telling me that my group is worthless and requires a free handout.  Deconstruction theory is the height of modern racism/sexism as it mandates different treatment of anyone who is outside of the mainstream.

I highly disagree with that interpretation, but I already digressed a lot. We can discuss this via pm if you'd like.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Let me ask you this then, and I want your opinions not "well Linus thought it was necessary so..." type of answers. Just your honest opinion.

1) Do you personally believe that adopting this new CoC was necessary or was the old one enough?

2) If your answer to the previous question was yes, this new one was needed, what exactly do you think will change now that the new one is in place?

3) Do you believe that this new CoC is a good one, or do you believe that a CoC like the one Ruby has adopted is better? If so, why or why not?

1) No, I think the old one was fine. I can only speak for myself though, the maintainers have data we don't.

2) I answered no but, either way, I don't think much will change for most contributors and what change there will be will not be for the worse - that is sort of my point.

3) I think the current Linux CoC is fine. I think the Ruby CCG is just fine as well, though I have a hard time picking one as "better" than the other; since I don't moderate either community I don't know what kinds of behaviors are more common in one as opposed to the other. If you're referring to the suggested modifications to the Linux CoC by Ruby's creator, I do think they are a little better in that they go straight to the point without unnecessary preamble.

 

I'm not opposed to discussing how the CoC might have been written better, what I don't like is the overreaction. I don't particularly care for keeping the CoC as is, I just don't want potential changes to be discussed on these terms - and I'm concerned about the way the discussion has been instantly turned political and the contents of the documents misrepresented. Surely we can agree that it says nothing about white men not being welcome...?

[KarathKasun]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Surely we can agree that it says nothing about white men not being welcome...?

We will have to see how the CoC is enforced before we can agree here.  There have already been seemingly frivolous attacks on long standing Kernel contributors with the new CoC as the basis for attack.

 

The hilarious thing is, bringing accusations forth in public channels is against the CoC.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

We will have to see how the CoC is enforced before we can agree here.

It says nothing about white men not being welcome; that doesn't depend on anyone's actions. The document does not state it.

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

There have already been seemingly frivolous attacks on long standing Kernel contributors with the new CoC as the basis for attack.

Where the attacks along the lines of "you're a white man so we don't want you"? In that case, sure, under the CoC that should not be allowed and the community's moderators should intervene (assuming the channels that happened in where official channels of the community). The CoC does say that everyone is welcome regardless of race or gender.

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Sauron said:

It says nothing about white men not being welcome; that doesn't depend on anyone's actions. The document does not state it.

Where the attacks along the lines of "you're a white man so we don't want you"? In that case, sure, under the CoC that should not be allowed and the community's moderators should intervene (assuming the channels that happened in where official channels of the community). The CoC does say that everyone is welcome regardless of race or gender.

That does not matter, the CoC explicitly states that you can be held liable for anything you post on the internet if you are representing the Linux dev community.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

That does not matter, the CoC explicitly states that you can be held liable for anything you post on the internet if you are representing the Linux dev community.

Yeah, do you think I can just say I represent the Linux community to make it so? "The community doesn't want you" written on a private facebook account which only has the person's name on it doesn't make it an official channel. Either way you're derailing the point, you haven't even shown me the conversations you're talking about...

 

Also, if that's the case, sure, they should probably face some sort of repercussions if their statements are in violation of the CoC. If you think someone should be banned from the community you should speak with a maintainer, not throw it out in public - that's common decency if nothing else. Maybe the CoC needs a clause about backseat moderating.

[KarathKasun]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yeah, do you think I can just say I represent the Linux community to make it so? "The community doesn't want you" written on a private facebook account which only has the person's name on it doesn't make it an official channel. Either way you're derailing the point, you haven't even shown me the conversations you're talking about...

 

Also, if that's the case, sure, they should probably face some sort of repercussions if their statements are in violation of the CoC. If you think someone should be banned from the community you should speak with a maintainer, not throw it out in public - that's common decency if nothing else. Maybe the CoC needs a clause about backseat moderating.

Read the linked source in the OP.

 

It was even posted on a Wiki by someone in the community.  Lets not mention the fact that the Wiki it was posted to was the Geek Feminism one, which is a source for the Contributor Covenant.

 

Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.

[Jito463]

On 9/23/2018 at 1:03 PM, Ithanul said:

Agree.  I'm like the one of two gals in the IT where I work.  Our male co-workers have no issue with us nor us with them.  Really wonder what these chaps are waving pitch forks for at times.  At most, they making it worst, not better with these policies they are pushing.

It's almost like these people don't realize, that they can't be offended unless they choose to take offense.  No one can make another person be offended.  That's not to say people can't do offensive things, but that's always determined by the person being offended.

 

Also, I wish LTT would bring back the 'thumbs up', I just can't bring myself to 'heart' a post.

7 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

The problem with that is that, say, "I want to throw gays into an asylum, because it's wrong in the eyes of God and gays should be punished for it" isn't an opinion.

Unless such a person is in a position to make that a policy, it is just an opinion and you should get over it.  See my point above your quote.

7 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

In other words, you want to discriminate against people having an opposing viewpoint to your own.

[Fred Castellum]

6 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

The problem with that is that, say, "I want to throw gays into an asylum, because it's wrong in the eyes of God and gays should be punished for it" isn't an opinion. That's something that directly affects my (and other LGBT people's) ability to live a good, fulfilling life. It's hatred.

 

That's a problem that I personally have with that CoC. It doesn't address sexual discrimination and instead says that we must be "tolerant" of "other views". I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

Going to be straight here, believing that being homosexual is wrong is inherently a opinion. Albeit it is opinion you don't agree with. The topic isn't something that can be claimed to be factual, you can't say being homosexual is right or wrong. Hatred can easily form due to a difference of opinion, just because there is hatred created due to a opposing opinion doesn't mean the opinion is inherently wrong or right either. 

 

I don't have a problem with people being homosexuals at all, but it would be wrong to say that your tolerant of other views if that only applies to views you don't have a heavy disagreement with. Homophobia is a exactly that, a viewpoint. 

 

Society nowadays is becoming more accepting of homosexuals anyway so homophobia is becoming more of a minority viewpoint compared to how it was in the past. 

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I'm not opposed to discussing how the CoC might have been written better, what I don't like is the overreaction. I don't particularly care for keeping the CoC as is, I just don't want potential changes to be discussed on these terms - and I'm concerned about the way the discussion has been instantly turned political and the contents of the documents misrepresented. 

This new CoC itself is political, the person who wrote it up has stated so herself. The discussion turning political was inevitable, Linux wasn't put in such a large political spotlight until this CoC came into play. The party that wrote this new CoC in a sense knew they would cause this sort of reaction, and probably intended to do so anyway. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, MyInnerFred said:

Going to be straight here, believing that being homosexual is wrong is inherently a opinion. Albeit it is opinion you don't agree with. The topic isn't something that can be claimed to be factual, you can't say being homosexual is right or wrong. Hatred can easily form due to a difference of opinion, just because there is hatred created due to a opposing opinion doesn't mean the opinion is inherently wrong or right either. 

You can ask of someone to not bring that up in kernel related channels - and of course you can demand that they don't attack or harass anyone because of that opinion.

3 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

I don't have a problem with people being homosexuals at all, but it would be wrong to say that your tolerant of other views if that only applies to views you don't have a heavy disagreement with. Homophobia is a exactly that, a viewpoint. 

Not quite - there's a difference between thinking that being gay is wrong and hating someone for being gay. You have a right to your viewpoint so long as it's not actively harmful to other people. If my opinion is that stealing should be legal, that doesn't mean I won't be prosecuted for stealing - but I won't be touched so long as I don't translate that thought into action.

6 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

Society nowadays is becoming more accepting of homosexuals anyway so homophobia is becoming more of a minority viewpoint compared to how it was in the past.

That doesn't make the attacks that still occur any better...

7 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

This new CoC itself is political, the person who wrote it up has stated so herself. The discussion turning political was inevitable, Linux wasn't put in such a large political spotlight until this CoC came into play. The party that wrote this new CoC in a sense knew they would cause this sort of reaction, and probably intended to do so anyway. 

There's nothing about what the CoC says that makes it inherently political - unless, as I said, your politics involve harassment and bullying, in which case I don't think there's much more to discuss. There's an inherent paradox in the question of whether we should tolerate the intolerant - if you tolerate and ignore their positions, other people will suffer the consequences; if you don't, you aren't being 100% tolerant. Most people agree that in that situation, people who refuse to be tolerant should not be tolerated.

[Nowak]

I don't even know what I was expecting, heh.

 

7 hours ago, bitsandpieces said:

Isn't that intolerance? You expect others to share your view but others can't have their own?

Homophobia is intolerance, yes. A tolerant society should reject intolerance.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Secondly, as long as people do not act upon those beliefs I don't see how it can or should affect your life.

It affects my ability to live? It affects my ability to hold my boyfriend's hand in public without getting stabbed? Even if they don't act upon their intolerance, that doesn't help me or anyone else get the equality we, as humans, deserve.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Thirdly, why does sexual discrimination have to be explicitly mentioned? Sexual discrimination is not only a criminal offense already, but if someone was to act or personally attack someone then it would also go against the other parts of the Ruby CoC. More specifically these parts:

Do you really think that because sexual discrimination is a criminal offense or a violation of the CoC, people would not do it? I find the other CoC the Ruby dev posted far better, because it does explicitly mention that sexual discrimination (among other bad things) is not allowed.

 

15 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

Society nowadays is becoming more accepting of homosexuals anyway so homophobia is becoming more of a minority viewpoint compared to how it was in the past.

You'd be surprised at how many people have called me a "faggot" (among other wonderful words) for being gay. If anyone's gonna call me that, it's me! Sure, we've made progress, at least in western countries, but there's still a long way to go (especially in other parts of the world.)

[Fred Castellum]

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You can ask of someone to not bring that up in kernel related channels - and of course you can demand that they don't attack or harass anyone because of that opinion.

Not quite - there's a difference between thinking that being gay is wrong and hating someone for being gay. You have a right to your viewpoint so long as it's not actively harmful to other people. If my opinion is that stealing should be legal, that doesn't mean I won't be prosecuted for stealing - but I won't be touched so long as I don't translate that thought into action.

That doesn't make the attacks that still occur any better...

There's nothing about what the CoC says that makes it inherently political - unless, as I said, your politics involve harassment and bullying, in which case I don't think there's much more to discuss. There's an inherent paradox in the question of whether we should tolerate the intolerant - if you tolerate and ignore their positions, other people will suffer the consequences; if you don't, you aren't being 100% tolerant. Most people agree that in that situation, people who refuse to be tolerant should not be tolerated.

My initial response to the other gentlemen is not about the CoC. I think it is fair to not bring up those types of topics in kernel related channels, you don't have to know what sort of sexual orientation or political view someone your working with has so on that notion I agree. 

 

I'll also agree on the notion that you have a right to your viewpoint so long as it's not actively harmful to others. Now hating someone for having a different viewpoint than you doesn't fall under harmful to others unless said person is actually actively causing harm to those who have a opposing viewpoint. Just because I hate a said group of people doesn't mean I'll go and interact with them in anyway. You can keep your opinions silent and arguably that is best course of action in many scenarios. 

 

I never said it makes the attacks that still occur better, I just stated that society is becoming more accepting of homosexuals. The point is it's not as bleak as it has been in the past, there is progress being made and it's good progress. 

 

People who refuse to be tolerant should not be tolerated is essentially fighting intolerance with intolerance. I don't find that to be the most efficient way to fight intolerance. You are responsible for your own views on tolerance and intolerance, you are not responsible for other people's personal views on what they are tolerant or intolerant of. 

[Brooksie359]

On 9/25/2018 at 2:53 AM, NowakVulpix said:

The problem with that is that, say, "I want to throw gays into an asylum, because it's wrong in the eyes of God and gays should be punished for it" isn't an opinion. That's something that directly affects my (and other LGBT people's) ability to live a good, fulfilling life. It's hatred.

 

That's a problem that I personally have with that CoC. It doesn't address sexual discrimination and instead says that we must be "tolerant" of "other views". I'm sorry but I refuse to accept homophobia as a "view".

You don't have to agree with someone to be tolerant of them. I mean let's say you work in this group and in someone's personal life they had said views. It really shouldn't matter. They aren't going and personally harassing you. Also that's a bit of an extreme situation as well. I personally know someone who is quite homophobic but honestly I don't hold it against them. They were molested as a child by an adult male and have hated gay men ever since. Do I agree with them on their views? No but I also am tolerant and I just don't engage talking with them about said topics. The same can be done with said person. You can't have the freedom to have what ever options or views you want if others aren't as well. That's how this works. You can't have double standards just because you don't agree with them. 

[Fred Castellum]

34 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Do you really think that because sexual discrimination is a criminal offense or a violation of the CoC, people would not do it? I find the other CoC the Ruby dev posted far better, because it does explicitly mention that sexual discrimination (among other bad things) is not allowed.

I think @LAwLz's point there was there is no reason to bring sexual orientation into the conversation when working together on code in the first place. Not that people wouldn't do it just because it's stated that it shouldn't be done in the CoC. 

 

34 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Homophobia is intolerance, yes. A tolerant society should reject intolerance.

What is intolerance in your eyes may not be intolerance in others, to someone who is homophobic - being tolerant of homosexuals could easily be intolerance of said person's homophobic views. Intolerance goes both ways, it's easily flipped around. 

"Only the Sith deals in absolutes" sorta thing lol....

 

Your talking of a tolerant society where everyone essentially already has inherent agreement on what is tolerant and intolerant. That's not the society we have right now, it would in a sense be fighting intolerance with intolerance. 

 

34 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

It affects my ability to live? It affects my ability to hold my boyfriend's hand in public without getting stabbed? Even if they don't act upon their intolerance, that doesn't help me or anyone else get the equality we, as humans, deserve.

 

You'd be surprised at how many people have called me a "faggot" (among other wonderful words) for being gay. If anyone's gonna call me that, it's me! Sure, we've made progress, at least in western countries, but there's still a long way to go (especially in other parts of the world.)

I don't know what part of the state your living in but if reactions are that violent on a daily basis that's a horrid place to live. Western countries have made good progress indeed, other parts of the world that don't hold western values at the forefront you'll find hard pressed to change in a short time frame unfortunately. 

 

If you come across someone who is intolerant of your homosexuality or any of your other views what do you think is the best course of action to help sway them to be more tolerant? Do you berate them about being intolerant and just state your side of story on how you perceive it? Or do you start dialogue with them, try to better understand why they have such views so you have a better gauge on how to change their viewpoint? 

[Brooksie359]

49 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You can ask of someone to not bring that up in kernel related channels - and of course you can demand that they don't attack or harass anyone because of that opinion.

Not quite - there's a difference between thinking that being gay is wrong and hating someone for being gay. You have a right to your viewpoint so long as it's not actively harmful to other people. If my opinion is that stealing should be legal, that doesn't mean I won't be prosecuted for stealing - but I won't be touched so long as I don't translate that thought into action.

That doesn't make the attacks that still occur any better...

There's nothing about what the CoC says that makes it inherently political - unless, as I said, your politics involve harassment and bullying, in which case I don't think there's much more to discuss. There's an inherent paradox in the question of whether we should tolerate the intolerant - if you tolerate and ignore their positions, other people will suffer the consequences; if you don't, you aren't being 100% tolerant. Most people agree that in that situation, people who refuse to be tolerant should not be tolerated.

Honestly I think hating isn't any more than a strong opinion. Again if you don't act on that hate then everything is fine. 

[Nowak]

6 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

I think @LAwLz's point there was there is no reason to bring sexual orientation into the conversation when working together on code in the first place. Not that people wouldn't do it just because it's stated that it shouldn't be done in the CoC. 

Oh, I'm not saying that I'd just randomly bring it up. Not at all. I'm just worried about being personally attacked over something I have no control over more. I didn't choose to be attracted to other men, y'know.

 

8 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

I don't know what part of the state your living in but if reactions are that violent on a daily basis that's a horrid place to live.

Bristol County, MA. We got meth labs, racists, homophobes and no opportunity unless you wanna be a factory worker. Wonderful place, really /s

 

11 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

Western countries have made good progress indeed, other parts of the world that don't hold western values at the forefront you'll find hard pressed to change in a short time frame unfortunately. 

Unfortunately.