Inclusivity groups risk harnessing the energy of both marginalized groups decent, good people and marginalized groups willing ... in order to empower amoral power-hungry sociopaths (if not outright bigots) who wish to enforce their will on the world and demonize certain enemies.

In other words, it's politics as usual - just in this case, "left-leaning San Francisco" politics in the "technology" space. A pity, as when this happens, it becomes a groupthink exercise and critical thinking is most unwelcome (hampering the realization of real diversity and inclusivity). Instead we're left with the Vocabulary Police game and pluralism is dead.

(To say nothing the "this guy supports a political party I don't like; let's conspire to destroy his livelihood" witch hunts, which are rarer but even more vicious.)

That's the amazing thing. For all their talk of "inclusivity", when they find anyone disagrees with their goals or methods their strategies revolve around: public denouncements, banishment, and going after people's livelihoods. All the warm-fuzzy talk belies one of the most viciously aggressive anti-free-speech political machines ever assembled.

Criticizing speech with more speech (denouncements) and exercising your right to freedom of association (banishment) are two of the key ideas of free speech itself. You seem confused.

I don't think banishment and freedom of association are linked in the way you are implying. I'm not free to associate with someone if they are removed from my professional circle for reasons that I don't agree with.

Criticizing speech is most definitely part of free speech, but it's the consequences of that speech that is worrying. In the east your professional opportunities dry up when people start accusing you of being an enemy of the state. In the west the same happens when you are declared an enemy of the minority.

Inclusion is fantastic, but not if it means excluding people for trivial examples of speech that people have to work hard to be offended by.

I'm just going to keep posting this until I see some recognition of this, but none of the details here or in the "In Defense of Douglas Crockford"[1] post from yesterday are actually called out in the Nodevember statement[2]. Furthermore, the only detail corroborated by either of these posts, in what is ostensibly their source (a blog post from Kas Perch[3]), is the alleged slut shaming incident, which is a very minor note in a blog post otherwise criticizing his negative and dismissive attitude.

There's a mountain of tweets discussing this in replies to Nodevember's announcement, but nothing directly affirmed by Nodevember as the basis for their decision. Seems like a lot of outrage being stirred up over bullshit no one can substantiate.

[1]: http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford

[2]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html

[3]: https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-...

There's a pastebin of a Nodevember slack channel. http://pastebin.com/3mQc7DfG

Granted, it still isn't official, but even one of the conference's founders said to look to twitter for more context for the disinvitation of Crockford, so it isn't too off base.

William Golden and Jason Orendorff seem to be the only organizers in this discussion, and neither of them says anything more than "he was uninvited because other attendees and speakers did not feel comfortable attending/speaking with him there". There's some speculation and links to a video where he references genitalia, but none of that appears to be acknowledged by the organizers.

I don't see anything in this chat log that changes anything.

18th line, "there is more context around it on twitter but that’s the basic gist".

So, again, referencing the tweets & subjects preceding their announcement as context aren't unreasonable as Golden says there's more context on Twitter. Emily Rose, notably, unleashed a series of tweets at them until they capitulated. It's still not the official word you're seeking, but to ignore it seems willfully dismissive.

Moreover, in what manner would a direct affirmation or counterpoint by the Nodevember organizers be advantageous to them? I'm not trying to be conspiratorial about it; being quiet and vague is the far more diplomatic path. It's not in Nodevember's interests to be precise with the particularities of the disinvitation, nor are we, as outsiders, owed any sort of particular explaination. But neither were any details provided to Crockford for him to ameliorate. "It is a mystery to me too." per https://paulstraw.svbtle.com/crockford

Reading that I feel sorry for HermitPy, it would seem they're trying to please everyone and getting burned :(

I agree with you here. I think a lot of the discussion is around the general topic raised by this situation. But good call that this is not the best example to get upset about.

Are you kidding? Of course it is. We have a guy who was booted out of a conference for completely opaque reasons, based on alleged complaints with absolutely no details by completely anonymous people. That doesn't bother you?

It does, but it sounds more like the organisers were just poorly equipped to deal with negative feedback. I don't think they wanted to do much more than avoid trouble. It was not handled well but I think that's about all there is to this one.

I'm not going to touch what happens in the east, wherever that is, because that's irrelevant to the American concept of free speech.

But your basic point is you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?

And people shouldn't be excluded (freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate) if they produce speech xupybd doesn't find offensive (trivial examples blah blah blah)?

I reiterate you and gp are deeply confused.

> you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?

I can't tell if you're talking about the inclusivity crowd, or the people who are standing up against it.

The nodevember crew seems (I don't know all the facts and I don't really care) to be silly. But it's their right to so be.

I'm criticizing overgard, etc, for claiming that public criticism / not associating with Crockford is somehow anti-free speech on the basis that overgard etc disagree with it.

Even the American concept of free speech has it's limits. There are Libel laws for that very reason.

What does libel have to do with banishment, public criticism of Crockford, or freedom of association?

I'll help: Nothing.

ps -- you are exactly free to associate with someone if they are removed from your professional circle for reasons you don't agree with. Doing so is itself free speech. Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. Still free speech. You're free to never go to Nodevember or any conferences the Nodevember principles are involved with. You're free to go to the next conference that invites Crockford just because he's there, and to brag about that on twitter and hn. You're even free to attempt to create your own conference featuring 8 hours of Crockford making bad biceps jokes. More free speech!

For what it's worth, I've seen no one claiming conferences doesn't have the right to exclude whomever they want.

> Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so.

I believe that is what is happening here. A portion of the tech community (of which I am a part) have begun to see this movement[1] as toxic, and are speaking out against it. The desired result is to either come to an equitable compromise, or eject the members of the movement from the community.

[1]: "this movement", meaning what others here have referred to as "SJW". I'm unaware of a term for it that is not implicitly biased, and while I oppose the movement as a whole I recognize that there are underlying issues that must be addressed and am loath to group everyone who would describe themselves as passionate about "social justice" into a single group. It's far more nuanced than that.

If I disagree with someone, I will state it, but I won't try to get them banned from a speaking engagement and I won't track down their employer, or go out of the way to label them publicly. There are ways to have a discourse without going to extremes. What's happening now looks more like a witch hunt then it does a public debate.

You can either

1 - support free speech, which includes criticism, even public (maybe even virulent! or unhinged, as long as you don't incite violence!) criticism (free speech!). And the freedom to associate (or not!) Also free speech! Including this thread, which is criticism of the criticism.

or

2 - your idea of "free speech", where you certainly can't criticize someone in public, or not invite them / disinvite to your privately run privately owned conference speaking to individuals who have voluntarily chosen to associate with each other.

I have no problem with you and others criticizing nodevember; they seem incompetent. But you don't understand free speech if you think public criticism is anti free speech.

You've invented a strawman. I am aware free speech has consequences. I am not against criticizing a person publicly, if the argument lies in that realm.

My point is that the SJW's often escalate a discussion from the realm of words to the realm of actions. It's an extremely passive aggressive style where the implicit threat is "if you don't tow the party line, we will go out of our way to create bad consequences for you". As an example of that happening, well, look right here. Douglas Crockford did not apparently do anything, but his views were deemed "problematic" by someone, and because of this he is now suffering in the actual real world.

Personally, I think that's fucked up and I don't abide by that behavior. I view people that act in such a way as hypocritical cowards.

If that's as far as it goes. However, they are going far past that. They are using coercion and bullying. They are trying to get people fired. They are taking their children away.

This is intolerance. This is totalitarianism.

This is an awful lot of outrage over details that aren't substantiated by the Nodevember statement[1] or any cited sources whatsoever.

[1]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html

The phrase "you seem confused" appears to be almost derogatory in nature, or do you believe the parent poster was in a state of confusion ? I fail to understand how it could be relevant to the argument in either case, or was it intended to silence someone elses voice?

The legal concept of free speech is not a hammer to solve every problem, and neither is it an instruction manual for how to act in any situation. Free speach is a framework within which communication is implicitly encouraged and explicitly guaranteed, except in certain cases when it causes damage to others, defamation per se being one example.

Your right to say something does not always make it the right thing to say, this is not in any way nullified by the existence of legal protection for the speach in question.

Within two sentences, the parent said "public denouncements [speech], banishment [freedom of association/speech]" are anti-free speech. Rather, they are a core part of the right to free speech, and something that is being countered with more speech. Hence confusion. I'm not sure how you think "you seem confused" will silence gp; it's a comment on the transition in the two sentences above. That free speech includes speech you don't care for is an implicit part of the deal.

I'll go ahead and jump down your throat for saying something really stupid. For one thing, no speech is banned. Wild hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Crockford can say whatever the fuck he wants. He has no inalienable right to be invited to private conferences. Secondly, this was just a poor attempt at placating people against some seemingly misplaced umbrage. This was a mistake. If you think this somehow sinks the entire mission of treating people fairly, you are simply wrong. Inclusivity and diversity are great. Treating people with respect is great. Respecting complaints of abusive behavior is great. Placating whiners is not. Striking the balance is not easy and some attempts will miss the mark. That doesn't mean you give up.

>I'll go ahead and jump down your throat for saying something really stupid. For one thing, no speech is banned.

Perhaps you mean "no speech is totally banned". Because it sure as hell it IS banned from being part of the conference.

>Crockford can say whatever the fuck he wants.

Nobody said they established their own dictatorship across the country and prevented him from speaking everywhere, so this "correction" is beside the point.

He is totally not allowed to say what he wants as part of his presentation, because it was cancelled. And that was because some people couldn't accept him saying some things elsewhere either.

What if someone takes offence of your "whatever the fuck he wants" line as sexist? Should you be thrown our from HN?

You'd still be able to say "whatever you want" elsewhere, so no harm, right?

> Perhaps you mean "no speech is totally banned". Because it sure as hell it IS banned from being part of the conference.

That's the problem though, isn't it?

It's clear from Nodevember's statement[1] that the action was taken because some member of the community felt uncomfortable, and explicitly not because of any specific speech or action on the part of Mr. Crockford.

If this were a movement to censor certain specific speech, I would likely be opposed to it on philosophical grounds but would support and empathize with the motivation. That's not what this movement is about. I see this as an example of a movement based on an extreme political ideology usurping power within a community by shaming its members into submission.

[1] http://nodevember.org/statement.html

"For one thing, no speech is banned"

For the million, billionth time, this not about speech being banned. It has never been about speech being banned. Stop talking as if people are claiming his speech was banned.

I'm going to try to go meta. Wish me luck.

PG had an essay a while back about things you can't talk about.

I've found lately that there are many topics where you just can't mention them at all online. I will not list these topics. To do so would just invite the kinds of conversations that end in a death spiral.

I'm reminded of the old joke of accusing somebody that they are in denial. Once you do that? There's no way they can reply without agreeing with you. It's a semantic trap.

There are scads of topics like that today. People have taught themselves the appropriate kinds of wordplay such that they are able to declare certain areas off-limits.

Our society, world, and species depends on open and sometimes offensive civil dialogue. I find it depressing that so many people have paid so much money for an education and are not aware of this basic prerequisite for a modern world.

I think it's because we seriously aren't made for this environment.

Consider that 100 years ago a picture was a novelty, there was no such thing as perfect recollection.

Today we have a perfect/accurate record of exactly what was said/done on social media; it's led to a culture of virtue signalling and often dishonest but politically correct dialogue.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology and the amazing things it's let us do, but I don't think this aspect is discussed enough.

Our day to day existence as a human being has completely/foundationally/fundamentally changed within the span of a couple generations.

It is a species-level critical topic, but I doubt anybody will give it enough attention.

Since recorded history, we've evolved a way of dealing and working with each other that assumes a certain physical world. That world no longer exists.

>We've evolved a way of dealing and working with each other that assumes a certain physical world. That world no longer exists.

Couldn't agree with this more. It's going to be interesting to see how things play out.

Who says a lot of that previous physical world won't return? The Gods of the Copybook Headings and all that?

E.g. how long can the US Federal government continue to borrow "a trillion dollars a year" to fund continuing operations? Not forever, I submit to you.

(And, yes, I know it's dropped to around half of that, but there's no plan to drop it further, and that's not counting things like the Fed keeping interest rates so low.)

Yep, that's why it will be interesting.

"stop being so defensive" is another one.

Done!

A old, but good piece on the culture war from 16 years ago is John Fonte's "Why There is a Culture War" (http://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war). First published in Policy Review, put out by that often marginalized bastion of Silicon Valley conservative thought, Stanford's Hoover Institute.

I didn't get the whole PC crowd until I read this article. The obvious contradictions in the PC movement can't really be ascribed to any other reasoning then Antonio Gramsci's counter-hegemonic culture war strategy that Fonte chronicles the history of in this article. The strategy seeks to join together all coalitions of those who oppose "hegemonic" values such as meritocracy and other "common sense" in order to seek its overthrow and to pave the way for a utopian revolution.

Edit: I left out any examples of PC contradictions because anyone with critical thinking skills can identify many easily and I wanted to be kind and not inflict hurtful cognitive dissonance on those who are still PC true believers.

Whether "Meritocracy" is an egalitarian or hegemonic value depends heavily on who is allowed to define the Merit function.

Of course there's a subreddit for these GitHub issues written by SJWs. https://www.reddit.com/r/GitInaction/

I think it's striking how these people seem to be on a crusade, often they don't even seem to be users of the code in question and often barely developers at all.

The intention is to take over and subvert the organisation into a platform for there activism. The goals and tactics including codes of conduct are premeditated. Its a trojan horse technique called entryism used by radical leftist political groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

Who are "these people"?

The person who opened the bug report asked about a process that's relevant to the purpose of the group (flagging inappropriate language early in places that can be hard to change later, like APIs). There was a previous case with a flag named "suicide", which was removed because it was deemed to be in bad taste. The flag was a honeypot for arguing about the tastemaking question, so once the process question was answered, the thread was closed and locked.

Seems reasonable to me. There's certainly distraction around politics-style questions of taste and language, but it's not a bad thing to address the concerns of the community in a formal and standardized way, which is what that thread was nominally about.

"these people"

Refers to a long list of attempts by social justice warriors to join projects and organisations with the intent to subvert the organisation into a platform for there social activism. Which includes introducing extremely vague codes of conduct and then trying to use these vague guidelines to purge the organization of whomever they see as an obstacle of consolidating power and subverting resources. I am not going to drag in a bunch of links because anyone who has been observing this for the past few years has seen these people attempt this trojan horse tactic multiple times in multiple communities.

One of the most awful episodes was when the gnome foundation was essentially bankrupted by having there entire budget for developer outreach subverted to 'Outreach Program for Women' which essentially entailed giving checks for 5,000 to any women to wanted the money regardless of there qualifications talent or history in open source. Needless to say the director was forced to resign.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/gnome-bled-dry-by-outreach-prog...

No one is ever going to take you seriously if you use the term "Social Justice Warrior".

Perhaps you have some enlightening refutation? Tactical deflection is not an argument its simply intellectual cowardice.

What term would you propose to describe the group/movement we're discussing?

People that already subscribe identify with a particular tribe will, others will not.

AFAICT, the whole point of using that term is as a tribal membership signal.

Empirically false.

Please don't. We ban accounts that repeatedly post uncivilly like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is a gold mine.

> problematic language

> [a word] is very difficult for many others to stumble across in the codebase

> a word choice can be problematic/distracting/triggering/offensive

This isn't even something that might reasonably be considered "triggering" material, like a story that might plausibly give someone a PTSD flashback. If someone is so mentally unstable that just seeing a word in an API screws with their head, their problem is sufficiently serious that they ought to seek immediate psychological help.

>If someone is so mentally unstable that just seeing a word in an API screws with their head, their problem is sufficiently serious that they ought to seek immediate psychological help.

It almost seems like child-like behavior. "I don't like this, so everyone has to change to fit my whims." Of course, there's almost certainly valid reasons for wanting change - it's probably not a good idea to make rape jokes or similar in your code[0] - but this seems over the top. Things in the world are going to be offensive, and if seeing a word causes that much trauma for someone, then they probably have bigger issues than just a symbol name or something.

[0] Not saying that anyone has done this

Isn't that what rot13 is for? A think a special compiler switch, along the lines of -Drot13, would work just fine for people who have special needs like that.

Well but then that mangles the symbol names, which would make programming a pain.

True. I think Kurt Vonnegut had a short story that dealt with that aspect of the plan. A search for "Handicapper General" should dredge it up.

Inclusivity is a attempt to be included in the exercise of power, dressed up in language to make it seem less like a power grab and more like a moral imperative. The goal itself is laudable and the usual tactics "toward" that goal are lamentable.

No, inclusivity is not about banning speech, it is about making sure that people can feel comfortable in an environment.

Sometimes that means enforcing certain standards of speech and behavior. Which you already agree with, if you are at all functional in society.

The question in this case is not whether inclusivity is a good thing, it's whether Crockford's speech/actions were "bad enough" in the context of a conference. I don't know (and don't care to know) about that, but it's vitally important not to throw the inclusivity baby out with the bathwater.

While in principle I agree with you, I think at a certain level people need to just learn how to deal with stuff that offends them. I hear things that offend me on a regular basis, including inflammatory (and absurd) remarks about people I care about and groups I am a part of. At the end of the day, I just brush these speakers off as assholes who don't know what they are talking about and go about my day.

I couldn't agree more. While there are certainly people out there who make inflammatory statements in order to offend and marginalize others, they are in the extreme minority. I've got an essay cooking in my head right now that's tentatively titled "Gaining useful insight from aggressive comments".

Just because people claim to have good principles doesn't make them good people or mean that their tactics will accomplish the principle. These systems of public shaming, mobbing, and self-interested entryism clearly aren't creating inclusivity; rather, they are dramatically counterproductive in that regard. If you truly support inclusion, you should be opposing these tactics and the people who use them.

Some highlights:

"terminology sensitivity"

"host may be insensitive, use presenter, entertainer instead"

"disabled may be insensitive, use turned off, person with a disability, people with disabilities instead"

"psychotic may be insensitive, use person with a psychotic condition, person with psychosis instead"

F--- that.

You guys are psychotic....er, people with psychosis.

How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.

What if the host is a homeless person, and calling them a host bring all the feelings about how they can't actually host anyone at their own place?

Better use "presenter" just to be safe.

Presenter has "present" in it. Something that said person would be unlikely to receive as well, and would be sad about it. Not to mention it might be triggering for time-traveling people or time-lord wizard.

That's a valid point I haven't considered.

My own guess, for entirely different reasons: originally, a "host" referred to an army (see the Bible term "lord of hosts", etc.) Thus the adjective "hostile", and the grouping noun "a host of" mostly used for bad things, e.g. "a host of issues."

It's gender-specific (male).

The female counterpart is hostess.

Tons of the words in the english language are gender specific -- ban them all because some small number of people decided not to "identify with established gender roles" anymore, and that its not enough for them to do so, all speakers of the language should also change their ways?

It's mostly pandering to individuals with an inflated sense of self importance (everybody change the language to cater for our particular use case and "offence"), and it's disgraceful and hypocritical because it leverages previous generations fights for actual discrimination and intolerance (e.g. against gays and lesbians) by taking to extremes from people that have it too easy today (or don't even belong to said minorities, but just "fight the good fight" in their name).

Take, for example, "he" and "they".

For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person.

Now, some find that situation unacceptable and are trying to make everyone else change the way they speak and write.

The OED has citations for singular they predating modern English.[1] If you look, I think you'll find that many of the English "rules" floated today date back only a century or two, and were ignored by great writers even then.

1. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 Pastebin link for non-subscribers: http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV

I don't doubt it was used at some time or another. Ancient texts are filled with grammar errors, even judged by the proper grammar of the time.

"He" has been the _proper_ usage way back from its roots at the German "er", which has the same usage.

"Man" or "one" (German, "Mann" or "man") has been used in the indefinate case.

http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352

Your StackExchange link is not the most conclusive thing: you have people answering that you can still get away with saying "he", or possibly "he or she", and you also have people correctly pointing out that almost all English speakers use "they".

We are not talking about grammatical errors here. You're free to declare great speakers and writers through the centuries to be in error, but what are you even claiming at that point? You could declare that saying the word "bread" is a mistake and it would be just as meaningless.

As with most arguments against the singular "they", your argument from German etymology also precludes the singular "you". Do you say "thou" all the time?

I believe the link proves my point: "he" is the formal/traditional use, but people are changing that for PC reasons.

> Do you say "thou" all the time?

"You" was not only the plural second-person but also the formal singular second-person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#Englis...) -- similar to German "sie" and "Sie". So it was always correct.

Anyway, I'm sure the PC crowd will win. It's just an (in this case, innocuous) example how systemically they can change they way we speak and communicate.

So this is a different change than the one you were originally talking about, when you made the incorrect claim that 'For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person.' It sounded like you were proscribing the singular "they". There's no change in whether the singular "they" is a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun, only the generic "he".

The singular "they" has existed throughout modern English. Getting rid of it is an insurmountably awkward and drastic change. People have tried, and they can't even remove it from their own speech.

The generic "he" is a relatively newer affectation that has risen and fallen in popularity in formal writing. I guess you can find a "PC crowd" to blame for its current decline, but this decline supposedly started around the 1960s, so you're not really observing anything new.

The only thing that's recent is (as EdiX pointed out) that there are people speaking out to say that they, as individuals, would prefer to be referred to with the singular "they".

To make an analogy, "y'all" (or "ye aw") has likewise been in use for hundreds of years. No argument there.

But both "y'all" and singular "they" usage has always been informal, and inappropriate/ungrammatical for more proper contexts, which should instead have the more formal, traditional equivalents.

> ...it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual context, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing.

- Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition

The singular "they" is an established part of English that has been used by competent writers for centuries, almost as long as the singular "you", whose grammar it shares.

You probably use it daily without noticing.

Only as a bound variable pronoun, it's use as a singular personal pronoun is very very recent and not very common.

Okay, that is an interesting distinction. It might even be true. Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them).

It is at least a reasonable claim that could be investigated further, as opposed to the claim that singular "they" is always an error, which any corpus will show is false.

> Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them).

That's possible but I've never seen any historical example of this nor I have seen anyone do it (outside of a specific subculture) so I don't think it's true: after all it's usually easy to deduce the gender of someone you haven't met from their name and if you get it wrong nobody (outside of that same specific subculture) will get really angry because of that.

I'm not sure that's the reason. Are these language police really suggesting new versions of words for every gender they invent?

Yes.

Do you remember flight stewards before they became attendants?

I don't really see much of a problem here in the example linked, except that some people sometimes move a little too fast towards loaded exclusionary tactics with talk of sanctions against some poor attitudes - an easy thing to do when one is inexperienced with moderation (I believe I am qualified to comment on that due to having almost 15 years of experience with online moderation in various communities in some fashion). Otherwise, they exert good patience in the comment threads in response to some with not well meaning intentions with regards to having a productive discussion. A productive discussion would be to try to assist in coming up with a good balance in terms of being inclusive of those who have legitimate concerns with certain tone/terminology/etc. and those who don't want to appear too stifled in terms of having to be overly watchful in what is said to avoid undue public shaming for an accident.

These sort of social problems don't have unilateral solutions, so the sooner that is recognized by all parties, the better the end result can be.

I read only the beginning of that discussion. One idea that came to my mind is that they are really looking for a strict linter that do not allow many custom options, something that approaches the strictness of Crockford's JSLint, perhaps.

It was really difficult for me to understand that nodejs (internal?) source code could be that offensive to anyone to require this level of PC commitment, and I am not even a WASP...

It is also quite ironic that they do it on GitHub.

I'm hopeful that inclusivity/SJW will destroy itself through its own messed up principles. Eventually, many members of those groups will mess up one of the unwritten rules of the club, and see what it's like to become a social pariah for innocent speech. For example, look at the backlash against Lena Dunham, a pretty prominent SJW, over what she said about OBJ.