According to Contributor's Covenant, this line is offensive enough to expell you from the community that follows it.
Because Newspeak and thought control and a stubborn refusal to listen to ESR talk about race and gender and how his martial arts are ready to take on any Muslim.
That's a bald-faced lie - I never defended it. But thank you for this illustration of how you and the likes operate. You know that this is false, and that everybody can see it's false - after all, my comments are just above yours for everybody to see and it's obvious I never mentioned that matter and never defended it!
But you rely on the fact that your in-group would let you lie pass because you're attacking an enemy, and your out-group would be afraid to be associated with defending a racist - and if not, you'll just accuse them in racism too. This is not a good faith discussion.
> our frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
That's another bald-faced falsity - I never rejected idea of "basic civility". In fact, if anything, you are the one rejecting "basic civility" right now, by falsely accusing me instead of engaging in good faith and trying to impugn my motives instead of discussing the actual points raised.
Basic civility is great. But basic civility can be done in many ways, and this particular formulation of CoC is not the only one (in fact even having CoC is not the only one). Implying that anybody who opposes particular formulation of CoC and particular process of it's introduction is against "basic civility" is not telling the truth. And the events that surround it prove that the matter in question is way bigger than "basic civility" - there were numerous attempts under the guise of CoC to silence and remove from projects people that disagreed (even in outside fora having nothing to do with the project) with some views of people who often even not members of the community in question.
Hounding people out of working communities for a random comment and throwing around baseless accusations in not the way to do basic civility either. Yet somehow some people think if they say "we're for basic civility" they themselves are free from upholding basic civility. And that basic civility implies they can do anything, but their opponents better watch out.
> Because Newspeak and thought control
Yes, because speech and thought control is what it is all about. And, ultimately, power. You are not allowed to do crimethink, and if you do, you are an unperson. That's what you are trying to do here - you do not argue with ESR's article, you're trying to unperson him. And yes, stubborn refusal to listen and to actually know the position of somebody who you are supposedly criticize is the part of the deal - if you wanted to engage and refute the points, the minimum requirement would be to know what are you actually refuting. But if you want to unperson, the less you know the better.
Besides, aside from the "racist" and the last 4 words it's an ESR quote. So maybe I'm already in your head. And don't go saying "racist" is an insult, it's just a dictionary definition of some of his more infamous comments.
(And I suppose using "old" in this way is against the CoC?)
> One was: their skin color looks fecal. The other was: their bone structure doesn’t look human. And they’re just off-reference enough to be much more creepy than if they looked less like people, like bad CGI or shambling undead in a B movie. When I paid close enough attention, these were the three basic data under the revulsion; my hindbrain thought it was surrounded by alien shit zombies.
The overall piece's conclusion is "I, ESR, am so enlightened that that I managed to overcome this perception". http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001
Here is an example of ESR being misogynist: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907
In: Big Corporations will save us if we chase away all independent developers by calling them racists and bigots each time they disagree with us!
It is symptomatic though that PC proponents look for salvation in Big Government and Big Business, not in the community.
> fight over an agreement to adhere to professional standards is quite small.
It's like saying the American Revolution was "a fight about the address where tax forms are sent to". Formally correct, but the point is totally lost.
The problem with the project and license structure of Linux in 2018 is that literally any threat the relatively small number of neo-reactionary programmers can execute on can simply be paved over by various large corporations simply assigning more resources to pick up any slack. For them, ensuring continuity in Linux is both a public commitment and an business requirement.
In other words: this is another ill-considered example of burning shoes you already bought in protest. Since most of substance of their work has already been turned over to the public consciousness, it's relatively straightforward to continue with that work or to replace it if a licensing conflict comes up.
Doubly so since the actual slice of people who will put up this much of a fight over an agreement to adhere to professional standards is quite small.