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

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

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

A society where only certain views and opinions are allowed is not a tolerant society.

The text-book definition of tolerant is:

Quote

Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.

You are, according to the definition of the word, intolerant, and don't expect fighting intolerance with intolerance to work. All it does is lower yourself to their level.

 

 

5 hours 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.

If you get stabbed for holding your boyfriend's hand then that is because of a person's actions, not their thoughts and opinions, and we already have laws which state that you are not allowed to stab someone. We don't need a specific "you can't stab gay people" law because "you can't stab people" already covers that.

And while someone being passive homophobe doesn't necessarily help you, it can't harm you either as long as they do not act upon those opinions.

 

 

5 hours 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.

Where did you get the (very incorrect) idea that I am saying sexual discrimination doesn't happen because it's a crime or against the CoC? I honestly do not understand how you or anyone could get that from my post. I never said anything of the sort.

What I said was that I do not see why sexual orientation needs to be explicitly mentioned when it is already covered under the more general rules (just like we don't need a law which specifically says you can't murder gay people, because the law against murder already covers that).

 

2 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

No, thats not what homophobia is.

 

Homophobia is having an irrational reaction to someone being gay, like beating them and dragging them behind a truck.

No, that is not what homophobia is.

Homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". That's it.

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

and we already have laws which state that you are not allowed to stab someone.

Yes, yes we do. Stabbings still happen, my guy.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Where did you get the (very incorrect) idea that I am saying sexual discrimination doesn't happen because it's a crime or against the CoC? I honestly do not understand how you or anyone could get that from my post. I never said anything of the sort.

What I said was that I do not see why sexual orientation needs to be explicitly mentioned when it is already covered under the more general rules (just like we don't need a law which specifically says you can't murder gay people, because the law against murder already covers that).

Are you willing to test how much people are gonna try to skirt the rules and try to justify shitty behavior because "it's not explicitly mentioned in the CoC"?

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that is not what homophobia is.

Homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". That's it.

Correct. While -phobia generally refers to an irrational fear (like my irrational fear of tight spaces, claustrophobia), homophobia refers to hatred.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that is not what homophobia is.

Homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". That's it.

It seems to me that the subfix "phobia" has been bastardized then, because phobia means extreme or irrational fear.  merely disliking or being against homosexuality is not a phobia.   At best it is sexual bigotry.    But this bastardization of words furthers the issue with this type of person,  in that if you try to solve a problem by making laws up to effect the motivation rather than the action we run into the same complications as bastardizing language where everyone becomes guilty of a crime because of their personal feelings and not becasue of their actual actions.  

 

This is not acceptable in any discipline. 

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that is not what homophobia is.

Homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". That's it.

No, it's not.  It's an irrational fear, and many people who disagree with homosexuality get broad brushed with this claim of "homophobia"; which is inaccurate at best and an outright lie at worst.  Words mean things, and you can't just redefine a word because you believe it should mean something else.

 

However, this is (and has been) getting way off track from the original topic.  To try and steer it back, I would say that if people were actually more tolerant (not accepting, just tolerant) of opposing viewpoints - even ones they vehemently disagree with - then there would be no need for a CoC to begin with.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

No, it's not.  It's an irrational fear, and many people who disagree with homosexuality get broad brushed with this claim of "homophobia"; which is inaccurate at best and an outright lie at worst.  Words mean things, and you can't just redefine a word because you believe it should mean something else.

 

However, this is (and has been) getting way off track from the original topic.  To try and steer it back, I would say that if people were actually more tolerant (not accepting, just tolerant) of opposing viewpoints - even ones they vehemently disagree with - then there would be no need for a CoC to begin with.

You know that a social narrative is being unfairly pushed in the direction of law making when you have perfectly rational people accepting that a phobia is no longer a condition people suffer,  but an intentional and controllable  mindset hell bent on being physically discriminatory.

[KarathKasun]

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that is not what homophobia is.

Homophobia is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". That's it.

No, that is what it has been adapted to mean, that is not what it was classically used to describe.

 

I dislike people, does that make my anthrophobic?  No, no it does not.

 

In modern times there are still classical homophobic people, they tend to be from a particular religion.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

What a mess.  Can't we do something about those SJWs?  Like make being one a capital offense?

[Trik'Stari]

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You know that a social narrative is being unfairly pushed in the direction of law making when you have perfectly rational people accepting that a phobia is no longer a condition people suffer,  but an intentional and controllable  mindset hell bent on being physically discriminatory.

I'd like to interject for a moment.

 

I have largely stayed out of this thread because as the OP, I felt it would be wrong to argue directly with anyone who blatantly disagrees with me, mainly because I want this thread to remain open, and want real discussion where people are respectful and logical, and perhaps minds are changed (unlikely as that may be).

 

But to be fair, is a phobia actually something that can be diagnosed? If so, can it be cured? At what point does a dislike of something become an actual phobia? I know my own father has a phobia of snakes. If he sees one he is likely to literally vomit almost immediately (I have seen this happen, multiple times), he will then attempt to kill the snake in any way possible. When he was a child, on more than one occasion, because of where he lived, snakes ended up getting into his bed (it was the 50's). So he really, REALLY hates the damned things. I only take issue with them when they're close to my house because I have dogs, one of which is stupid and will fight anything up-to and including a full grown 8-point male deer, despite the idiot dog weighing only 65lbs.

 

More to the point, at what point does an emotional response to something become a phobia? I know the term is "irrational fear", but I don't think I've ever seen anyone vomit when encountering a "homosexual". I've seen people be irritated, I've seen people make snarky off-handed remarks behind said "homosexual"s back, but I've never seen someone have an uncontrollable, visceral response to such an encounter.

 

Keep reading, because I am going to make a point for both sides here.

 

1. Is "homophobia" a confirmed, legitimately recognized phobia? How does one make the distinction between a phobia, and merely a deep-seeded bias? Is there a difference? Could one make the argument that members of certain religions have a phobia about pork products?

 

2. At what point do we start criminalizing, or rather, enforcing and allowing social consequences (which might as well be criminalizing) people's opinions? At what point can we, as a civilized and supposedly "tolerant" society, criminalize private thoughts?

 

 

And this is the problem I see with the CoC being suggested. Hypothetically, if one Linux dev. rejected a piece of work by another Linux dev., and the second Linux dev. happened to be gay, how can you prove that the first Linux dev. acted purely out of hatred/dislike of homosexuals? The first Linux dev. being a straight white male is not enough. "convicting" that person based on those grounds, would as bigoted and racist as that crime that he would be accused of committing. Even if he legitimately does not like that person for the person they are, you first have to address whether or not he was factually correct in rejecting the work of the second developer. If he was not, then perhaps you can move forward to either overturning his decision, maybe even reducing the first dev's authority.

 

Unless you have direct evidence that said person acted out of bias, how can you honestly say that that is what happened? I hate to say "beyond a reasonable doubt", but at some point we have to realize that social consequences might as well be consequences by law. Especially in a government who's motto is supposed to be "by the people, for the people, and of the people".

 

We walk a fragile line as a society. We value both freedom, and fairness, which are often contradictory. By that ideal, we must both allow and shun bias. We must consider that maybe person A has a legitimate bias against person B, but also was factually correct in rejecting the work of person B because that work is potentially, legitimately shit.

 

 

If you can't tell, I'm trying to make the point that a code of conduct that allows for checks and balances is not inherently a problem.

 

A code of conduct being touted by people who make blanket statements based on race and gender (Blank thing has too many white males, thus is obviously racist and sexist), that has no inherent oversight or appeals process, is a terrible idea that will only make problems and be divisive.

 

You can't fight racism, from a perspective founded in a racist belief.

 

Above all, please remain excellent towards one another. I'm quite happy to see this thread has lasted as long as it has without just being flat-out locked and forgotten.

[Laura-Marie]

On 9/23/2018 at 9:07 AM, Trik'Stari said:

Well, this looks interesting. An open letter has been posted to the Linux Kernal mailing List, which details how developers can retroactively rescind the licenses for their contributions made to the Linux Kernal. If people or companies continue using that code, now under a rescinded license, they are potentially open to copyright lawsuits.

I am an indie game developer and use debian as my server. However, I don't understand the "rescind the licenses for their contributions" part? What does this really mean? If someone who made a package for debian, decided not to follow the CoC, I (the developer) can possibly get sued for using it? I am sorry, but I'm just really confused at all this

[spartaman64]

This is nothing new most coc have vague wording to be flexible enough to cover all senarios. The Constitution the "coc" of the us purposely has vague wording in some of its clauses for this same reason also. If they are too specific about what counts as harassment and someone does something that is clearly harassment but they didn't foresee it then they won't be able to do anything. What they need is some process that gives the accused a chance to appeal. And hopefully it's not a single person that's making all the decisions

[spartaman64]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

You know that a social narrative is being unfairly pushed in the direction of law making when you have perfectly rational people accepting that a phobia is no longer a condition people suffer,  but an intentional and controllable  mindset hell bent on being physically discriminatory.

 

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

No, it's not.  It's an irrational fear, and many people who disagree with homosexuality get broad brushed with this claim of "homophobia"; which is inaccurate at best and an outright lie at worst.  Words mean things, and you can't just redefine a word because you believe it should mean something else.

 

However, this is (and has been) getting way off track from the original topic.  To try and steer it back, I would say that if people were actually more tolerant (not accepting, just tolerant) of opposing viewpoints - even ones they vehemently disagree with - then there would be no need for a CoC to begin with.

Actually yes you can if enough people agree with you and I think enough people are using the word homophobic to apply to people bigoted towards homosexual people that it's a valid definition of the word not just as a medical condition. 

Quote

The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as ‘incorrect’. The Dictionary aims to cover the full spectrum of English language usage, from formal to slang, as it has evolved over time.

 

[Jito463]

25 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Actually yes you can if enough people agree with you

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?

24 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage

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

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

Yes, yes we do. Stabbings still happen, my guy.

Not sure what your point is. This conversation started because you said that there needs to be an explicit clause in the CoC that forbids discrimination towards someone's sexual orientation. I said that was not necessary because such attacks will already be covered in the more broad rules outlined in the Ruby CoC.

 

You said that someone's opinion affects your life negatively. I said it can't unless those people act upon those opinions, and that it is the act itself which causes you harm, not someone's thoughts if they are kept to themselves. Your response to this was "people get stabbed even when we have laws against it", which doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation.

What is your point exactly? Right now you're kind of arguing that rules doesn't matter because bad things happens anyway, which strictly goes against your previous posts that the Ruby CoC needed special rules to address homophobia.

No laws or rules prevent crimes. They just define what is and isn't allowed.

 

8 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

Are you willing to test how much people are gonna try to skirt the rules and try to justify shitty behavior because "it's not explicitly mentioned in the CoC"?

1) Ruby has a 20+ year long history of being a very nice and friendly community. I don't see that changing.

2) The CoC clearly states that personal attacks, disparaging personal remarks and harassment are explicitly not permitted. If you want to explicitly mention every single thing which may fall into those categories then you'll have yourself a 20,000 pages long document. 

3) I don't think homophobia is going to be an issue in Ruby's community, because Ruby is a coding language and unless you name some variable "iLoveCocksBecauseIamAHomosexual" then your sexuality most likely won't get brought up to begin with. Like I said before, you really have to make an effort to bring up your sexuality when you're working in these projects where you don't even meet the people face to face.

 

3 hours ago, 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?

Yes, that is correct.

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

It seems to me that the subfix "phobia" has been bastardized then, because phobia means extreme or irrational fear.  merely disliking or being against homosexuality is not a phobia.

In this case, yes, the suffix "phobia" no longer means what it used to.

It still has its original meaning in words like arachnophobia though.

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think homophobia is going to be an issue in Ruby's community, because Ruby is a coding language and unless you name some variable "iLoveCocksBecauseIamAHomosexual" then your sexuality most likely won't get brought up to begin with. Like I said before, you really have to make an effort to bring up your sexuality when you're working in these projects where you don't even meet the people face to face.

Thing is, I'm pretty open about my sexuality. A bit casual, even.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, NowakVulpix said:

Thing is, I'm pretty open about my sexuality. A bit casual, even.

Even in things like work-related emails?

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

 

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.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

But to be fair, is a phobia actually something that can be diagnosed?

As far as I know it is not a medical illness per se, it is a condition that is generally diagnosed through observation, If the patient has a fear response to something that would in normal situations not cause a fear response then it is a phobia. 

 

However more to the point homophobia is not an official phobia as the term is wrong, homo means same and phobia means fear, so in a scientific/medical setting someone with homophobia would have an irrational fear of anything that is the same.  It would be no more related to sexual orientation than a fear of twins would be.   This is how we know it is a made up term to try and alienate people who do not like homosexuality for what ever reason.

 

Quote

If so, can it be cured?

Sometimes, just like any other fear response, it can be dulled.  But you would have to know why the person has that fear.  If someone genuinely fears homosexuals then they have they same chance of being cured as someone who fears spiders, heights, tight spaces.

Quote

At what point does a dislike of something become an actual phobia?

I guess when it is a genuine fear response that you cannot control rather than a distaste.

Quote

More to the point, at what point does an emotional response to something become a phobia?

I would say when a fear response of something usually benign produces the same reaction as having a gun to your head you probably qualify for the diagnosis of having a phobia.

Quote

 

1. Is "homophobia" a confirmed, legitimately recognized phobia?

I have yet to see it as an official phobia as such, but certainly psychologists use the term frequently to define a person with the current colloquial characteristics.

Quote

How does one make the distinction between a phobia, and merely a deep-seeded bias? Is there a difference? Could one make the argument that members of certain religions have a phobia about pork products?

I don't think a distinction is made most of the time.  That Is my personal gripe,  the term has arrived to us courtesy of lobby groups, it has now been adopted by society in general and now psychologists refer to the term.  It does not have it's roosts in any observed mental illness or conditions,m its definition has largely been made by extremists in the LGBT community. 

 

Quote

2. At what point do we start criminalizing, or rather, enforcing and allowing social consequences (which might as well be criminalizing) people's opinions? At what point can we, as a civilized and supposedly "tolerant" society, criminalize private thoughts?

This is where it gets dangerous as far as I am concerned, what we now have is a condition made up by lobbyists to character assassinate anyone with a different opinion being turned into a recognized mental health condition.  Traditionally they change the name of health conditions when they gain a negative stigma (like manic depression became bipolar, shell shock became PTSD, Retarded became intellectually handicapped.  But homophobia is the exact reverse, it is a condition designed to carry and portray a negative stigma and now it is being adopted as if psychologists are some sore of justice force out to write their own wrongs (being the ones who initially claimed homosexuality was abnormal).

 

Quote

 

And this is the problem I see with the CoC being suggested. Hypothetically, if one Linux dev. rejected a piece of work by another Linux dev., and the second Linux dev. happened to be gay, how can you prove that the first Linux dev. acted purely out of hatred/dislike of homosexuals? The first Linux dev. being a straight white male is not enough. "convicting" that person based on those grounds, would as bigoted and racist as that crime that he would be accused of committing. Even if he legitimately does not like that person for the person they are, you first have to address whether or not he was factually correct in rejecting the work of the second developer. If he was not, then perhaps you can move forward to either overturning his decision, maybe even reducing the first dev's authority.

exactly that same problem I see with accepting the term homophobic and giving it relevance in the APA or DSM.

Quote

Above all, please remain excellent towards one another. I'm quite happy to see this thread has lasted as long as it has without just being flat-out locked and forgotten.

I think at lease one thing I know for sure is that most of this forum is not bigoted towards Homosexuality. 

 

5 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

 

Actually yes you can if enough people agree with you and I think enough people are using the word homophobic to apply to people bigoted towards homosexual people that it's a valid definition of the word not just as a medical condition. 

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, that is correct.

In this case, yes, the suffix "phobia" no longer means what it used to.

It still has its original meaning in words like arachnophobia though.

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"?

 

 

Now I am a big proponent of homosexuality being normal and everyone having the same rights, I voted yes in our plebiscite.  But I do not like lobbyists making things up and then pushing them for long enough that they become commonly accepted to the point where the medical fraternity now lends weight to the idea that what is essentially an insult is now a recognized condition.  As I said earlier, the medical fraternity normal change the name of conditions to avoid people having such stigma's attached to them but in this case they seem to be embracing it.

 

 

[Gdog]

 

On ‎24‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 6:01 PM, Sauron said:

That makes no difference. At all. They simply make some examples of what doesn't matter. Is this what will destroy Linux?

So you're saying it's the same as the old one, yet it's absolutely outrageous and must be changed? I never said the CoC needed to change, but now that it HAS changed I'm at least ok with it. You guys are the ones saying it's intolerable.

 

"This new face of Linux"

 

what are you even talking about? Literally nothing changed except the wording of the CoC. As for not getting the "reward", don't THEY use Linux? The whole idea is that people contribute to make the kernel better for everyone, it's not a competition or a job. If that is your mentality when contributing, then the project is better off without you OR your code - you just don't get to force them to remove it after you wrote it and the rest of the community started building on it.

 

Yes, Linux will be changed for ever. You should really understand this is not about a CoC at all. This is about toppling the white male patriarchy, who these people have been taught are responsible for all their woes by professors of university humanities courses.  This is how the SJW-type work. Hijacking compassion to force change in laws/rules which are then used to remove the current power structure with them in its place. Anyone who comes up with a counter-argument is considers a 'rape apologist', 'racist', 'bigot' etc. Any disagreement from their argument is considered an attack on their existence. There is no deviation from the party line, any discovered is swiftly stamped out and the culprits tried and sentenced by the court of twitter. This system is not compatible with a free meritocracy.

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Gdog said:

 

 

Yes, Linux will be changed for ever. You should really understand this is not about a CoC at all. This is about toppling the white male patriarchy, who these people have been taught are responsible for all their woes by professors of universality humanities courses.  This is how the SJW-type work. High jacking compassion to force change in laws/rules which are then used to remove the current power structure with them in it's place. Anyone who come up with a counter argument is considers a 'rape apologist', 'racist', 'bigot'. Any disagreement from their argument is considered an attack on their existence. There is no deviation from the party line, any discovered is swiftly stamped out and the culprits tried and sentenced by the court of twitter. This system is not compatible with a free meritocracy.

 

10/10 propaganda. Straw man of "the enemy", avoidance of the actual topic of discussion, buzz words, you have it all.

[Gdog]

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

10/10 propaganda. Straw man of "the enemy", avoidance of the actual topic of discussion, buzz words, you have it all.

It's only a straw man if it's not true  Am I avoiding the topic or have you misunderstood what is at stake?

 

You can act with moral superiority if you like, time will tell what happens. You should at least be open the possibility that you are wrong.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Gdog said:

You should at least be open the possibility that you are wrong.

That's rich coming from you after that last statement

[Gdog]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's rich coming from you after that last statement

Just don't assume that this is purely about compassion, is all I would ask. For every decision has an easy answer which people assume with have no consequences and make us all equal on the same playing field. the only problem is the utopia cannot be achieved and you end up with the soviet union

 

I know there is hope for you and that you are not one of them as you have not called me a racist bigot yet ^^

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, Gdog said:

Just don't assume that this is purely about compassion, is all I would ask. For every decision has an easy answer which people assume with have no consequences and make us all equal on the same playing field. the only problem is the utopia cannot be achieved and you end up with the soviet union

There is nothing in the CoC that suggests that. It is purely your projection of your own opinion of the person who originally wrote it.

 

The people who adopted it in the kernel are engineers and computer scientists who have worked on it for decades.

[Gdog]

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is nothing in the CoC that suggests that. It is purely your projection of your own opinion of the person who originally wrote it.

 

The people who adopted it in the kernel are engineers and computer scientists who have worked on it for decades.

I know, I know. The CoC is just about compassion for each other

 

I'll stop replying now, Take it easy.

 

Exactly. Nobody is arguing with “be nice and don’t harass others” everybody wants this.

The problem is that I already have a couple of devs and one reporter here trying to use the code to find wrong thinkers and punish them with this new COC, often while violating it. https://t.co/kze8jRrNpU

— Mark Kern (@Grummz) September 18, 2018

 

Already suggestions of rescinding of code, legal action and burn it to the ground for those who find themselves guilty of the vague terms of the Code of Conduct: https://t.co/Bxd0SyX0ew

I just hope the Linux and FOSS community will push back against this.

— Gareth Hart (@tgheretford) September 20, 2018

[thedude4bides]

8 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

 

Actually yes you can if enough people agree with you and I think enough people are using the word homophobic to apply to people bigoted towards homosexual people that it's a valid definition of the word not just as a medical condition. 

 

This guy gets it.  Mob rules FTW!

 

sigh...

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

10/10 propaganda. Straw man of "the enemy", avoidance of the actual topic of discussion, buzz words, you have it all.

It's not a "straw man" if there's actual evidence of what @Gdog is suggesting.