If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
You can do that, too.
OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action.
Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.
FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.
Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."
And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia.
> If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried.
If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?
And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.
> "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."
NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad").
> the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world
Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.
> except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia
And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble?
> Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him
And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.
> Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions
Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get.
> using company political contributions
Eich used his own money, didn't he?
> then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class.
Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.
> NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons).
I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?
Not very fair, is it? But nice try.
> that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.
Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.
But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms.
> Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.
Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.
> Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out.
He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace.
His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.
> If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless
Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."
> It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time.
Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.
> And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."
The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.
Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand.
> It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.
No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.
> I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?
Sorry, I couldn't understand anything from the above. DSA positions are certainly not "centrist" in any serious meaning of the word, unless you think the center begins on the left of the Democratic party. And DSA is being embraced by the most mainstream press outlet we have here in the US. And some of its rank members openly brag about being communists (btw I never heard about a Republican openly bragging about being fascist...).
> Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.
No, it is not - not nearly enough compared to the seriousness of the problem. When we have countries that are still unsure if it's OK for a woman to leave home without a male relative following and completely sure any woman showing her face in public should be jailed (or worse), and that anybody gay should be just put to death, then mentioning it once a month in the "curiosities of the world" section of the paper, next to gardening tips, is not reporting. At least not if you want to make an impression you take the matter seriously. Nobody is quashing this reporting but the fear that serious discussion would be called cultural imperialism, racism, islamophobia, etc, - which is exactly what happens.
> Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.
Whether you personally discussed anything with him is immaterial for the point unless you had any key role in hounding him out of Mozilla. There was no discussion leading to that event, there was an attack and Mozilla folded and Eich was out. The fact that you privately discussed anything with him doesn't matter as that discussion did not have any weight in the events that followed.
> His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.
Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.
> Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."
Again, given the above, I am pretty sure "treating you as less than human" is wildly inaccurate description of what is actually happening. More accurate description is probably "they disagree with me, and that offends me a lot, so I would claim they dehumanize me, because this shifts the focus from the matter of disagreement to them being bad".
> Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.
That sounds as you are saying CoC is not needed for the purposes of preserving "basic civility", inclusiveness and so on, and "you just need to behave" is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project. Which is exactly confirming the original complaint. I guess we got some kind of the consensus here? Or did you mean something else and if so, what?
> There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."
I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. US government does a lot of terminally idiotic things, hundred times more plain stupid things, and more things that are outright evil that I would care naming here, to not make this unbearably long comment twice as large. And I mean any goverment, none excluded (of course Trump's too). I think you exaggerate a bit (actually, a lot). But, I don't see how it systematically terrorizes you - could you explain what you mean by that?
> You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people.
I do not. I know some people vehemently disagree with the government and its policies, and that's normal and OK. I disagree with it too all the time and on many issues. However, I don't see anything it is doing - excepting some classes of people that can legitimately claim being a target of systematic government persecution, such as illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, drug users, and some other classes like that - that warrants descriptions that you are using. If you mean any of these classes, please point out which one, otherwise it's very hard to understand your complaint.
P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand you.
Ah, we're at this stage of discourse.
> Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.
Not only did I not say that (but because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie), but you're clearly implying that you think there are policy grievances that fall to voters and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible. You're acutely aware of the complaint and even use it in the construction of your post, but then suggest you never implied or even imagined it?
Yeah. Okay Sure.
It's also worth noting you're at the phase of tactical retreat where it's important to start casting mental credibility into play. This will make it easier for you (either in a personal sense, or within the flow of the dialogue) to disengage with the proclamation, "I have determined that you lie, so therefore everything you have said must not only be untrue, and probably the exact opposite is true!"
Observe:
> Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.
Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC and pushing conservative ideology as if the two are linked.
They aren't, actually. What is linked is the CoC denial and the worst sort of behavior that festers in the US conservative communities. It's not unique to the US, even. But what's remarkable is that throughout this you've gamely accepted a tacit link between all three of these concepts, never even really stopping to question this.
This is the part where I apologize for being slightly disingenuous with you. I didn't do this accidentally. I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, but having read a bunch of your material before engaging, I figured you'd simply accept this. The result is a conversation about written standards of professional conduct leading to statements like,
> No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.
False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.
But at least you get back to the core of your argument, "The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, who have been violating these while insisting they haven't for decades."
> [that] is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project.
The Linux CoC does indeed take away the power to be abusive and unprofessional. If you were not doing those things (out of, I dunno, some kind of higher moral principle), then you've lost nothing. Indeed, it'd be "another hollow SJW victory" as SoA says.
To you, this is about power and control. I agree, but that power has always rested in the majority of the linux contributors, as proposed by their leadership. Now that their leadership has decided on this minimal course change. That you perceive the written standards of conduct as a power loss reinforces the need for it.
I'll repeat it, for emphasis: You view a policy that condemns public abuse in a professional context as a power loss. This argument is only consistent if you felt the need to violate the CoC. No spurious arguments from final consequence, no slippery slope, no absurd category errors or examples of rules being abused can shake this single, simple fact.
> I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you.
I didn't say they were terrorizing me. I'm fortunate that I'm not on the top of the list. But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist. We see similar reduction in legal protection of gay and lesbian people.
> P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand.
Please stop misrepresenting your actual intent, it's annoying and part of etc etc. Please stop using your refusal to fact-check nearly anything as a basis for discrediting me, it's annoying and goes against the spirit of a fair debate. Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, it's annoying and the stakes are much higher than this conversation... in many cases it's a violation of workplace law. But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.
Please be aware, I'm not going to reply anymore. I suspect the mods will lock this thread soon, so I'll not invite any further trouble on their doorstep.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 - I quote him, "I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law", a position soundly refuted in basis of history and fact via "dragonwriter" here. I confess I was so taken aback by the audacity of the claim I did a poor job responding to it.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migr...
[2]: http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analy... and I quote, "Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;" Nevermind that under Article 6 of the constitution and our participation in the UN Genocide Convention (counting as an international treaty) the president is in direct violation of a constitutional law that supercedes his authority in all cases its been examined.
We've been on this stage from the very beginning. From they very start you accused me (and, I have no doubt, others) in saying things that I demonstrably did not say, and imputed to me beliefs that I never expressed or held.
> Not only did I not say that
You did say: "In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them." You say that people who voted for Trump are "uniquely not penalized" - from which immediately follows that if things were normal, not "unique" for them, they would be. But maybe you meant something else by this, if so, please explain - if you didn't mean Trump voters should be penalized, what did you mean and why did you spend so much time proving to me how bad Trump voters are and what atrocities they have inflicted on you and the country? What was the purpose of this if not to illustrate why you think they should be penalized? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know there's no answer for this.
> because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie
I know, but I would like to remind you that the fact that you ignore something does not mean it's a lie. There are numerous examples of conservative speech being persecuted and suppressed, from Antifa riots to Eich case you are so richly familiar with.
> and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible
Responsible for what? For having an opinion? I don't see what is there to be "responsible" for - unless, as I just said before, you think having some opinions is a crime in itself (I propose to call it "thoughtcrime") and its holders should be penalized. Which is especially weird hearing from a person that apparently - from your own words - has some opinions that has been very recently and probably still are very unpopular among many, and suffered from it, and thinks this suffering was completely unjust (which btw, to remove all doubt, I agree). And yet you are so ready to inflict the suffering on others for holding opinions you don't like.
> But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist
There is no campaign to remove their rights to simply exist. There is no government policy to systematically exterminate trans people, there is no policy to harm them in any targeted way. On the contrary, discriminating against them is forbidden by the law (yes, I know laws are imperfect and not always followed), and in some places - like academia - you can be fired and professionally destroyed for merely using a wrong word in a conversation with or about a person.
Moreover, I've seen many cases where merely arguing about political issues - with regard to trans policies or otherwise - can make you a target for personal destruction campaign in a tech world, in your professional capacity.
I think you are overstating your case a bit. I am willing to admit there are people who do not accept trans people the way they would like to be accepted - and there is some actual discrimination, including recent order to not accept trans people into US Army service - but this is very, very far from "remove hard-won rights to simply exist". Nobody needs to join the US Army to "simply exist". And while you can - and should - argue that such policy is unjust, doing it this way just makes you sound profoundly unserious.
> False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.
You seem to be under impression that finding any link that has word "genocide" in it proves that Trump administration operates genocide camps. No, it doesn't, and no, there are still no genocide camps. Please remove your tinfoil hat, it does nothing except making your head sweaty.
The propaganda hystery about "family separation" (which is an old US admin policy way predating Trump) is one sore example of how modern Left has completely abandoned rationality and serious policy discourse for "hate Trump all the time, max intensity, facts be damned" - but even if their claims were 100% true (which is the exact opposite - pretty much everything that is commonly said on it is false), it would have nothing to do with "genocide". Even if the Trump administration would create a policy of abducting immigrant children (what for? I though they were supposed to hate immigrants and want them out, so why get more of them here for longer? But I guess you can't apply logic to some theories) and keeping them in prisons, because they are evil child haters - it would still not mean what "genocide" means. But since this is also false, we get a comic ladder of falsities stacked on each other.
> Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0].
Your link shows nothing of the sort of expression you claimed Eich said. And no, preferring "domestic partnership" to "registered marriage" is not the same as "LGBT people are not really people". If you claim Eich said the latter, you have to provide example of the latter, not the former. This confirms my suspicion that you routinely misunderstand things said to you, or at least present as if you misunderstood them, probably to make your ideological opponents look bad. This may work occasionally, but not when one can actually read what was originally said, and certainly not when it's my own words.
> But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC
If you gave yourself a second to think, you would realize how obviously false this claim is. Arguing here with you, I can do exactly nothing to discredit Linux CoC - I have zero weight in Linux community, I have zero power to change anything about CoC being accepted (I understand it's a done deal anyway), and the probability that anybody who has any power to change anything there would listen to me is also zero. Granted, the probability of me convincing you of anything is also pretty low, especially given the hardship you have with simply perceiving my statements undistorted, but I think providing an example of what people like me actually think - instead of relying on distorted accounts of people like you - and providing example of debate and refutaion of your claims, has some value, even if very small.
> I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?"
I had this temptation, but unfortunately my OCD nature got the better of me, as it proved to me a bit hard to leave a lie sitting in public unrefuted. Congratulation, you have found my weak point.
> If you had, I would have looked pretty bad,
I am glad you feel remorse for trying to derail a discussion. Recognizing the problem is the first step to fixing it.
> The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men,
No, that's way too broad (and btw this has nothing to do with gender). The true purpose of these - at least for some people pushing it, not for everybody - is gaining power. Now, why those people feel they need power, can differ. Some because being part of a minority and being attacked by trolls makes them feel vulnerable and in need of strong defense, some for purely ideological reasons ("white hetero men are evil and we need to have power to keep the evil in check"), and many for the best reasons like "we are good people, so if we have all the power we could do more good", there could be tons of reasons, everybody has their own. Once the power is captured, however, the pattern of its abuse so far has been pretty consistent - productive, non-troll people get hounded out because they rubbed someone with newly acquired power a wrong way. You seem to demonstrate that you think there's nothing wrong with this - as long as people hounded out are people you dislike. This is a fundamental difference between your position and mine - I think it's wrong to hound out people for thoughtcrimes, you think it's ok as long as your side gets to determine what thoughts are to be proscribed.
Of course, some people genuine want CoCs for genuine reasons of upholding civility, etc. And they would be fairly applying it and never abusing it. But those are not the people we should be concerned with, the ones that itch to abuse it are.
> Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace,
That's exactly the point - this policy, as it being applied in reality, penalizes not for being abusive and exclusionary, but for disagreeing with people in power. Which looks especially hypocritical because it comes from exactly the people that rhetorically rebel against the existing power structures that oppress them - but as soon as they get to be the part of the power structure, they behave in exactly the same exclusionary and abusive way as they just denounced!
> But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.
Your thinly-veiled attempt to insult my intelligence by suggesting it's a major achievement for me to learn to use a search engine has been noted. It does not offend me, but adds a shame point to your long list of rhetorical faults.
> in many cases it's a violation of workplace law
Did you just threaten to mess with my employment if I keep annoying you by arguing with you? I couldn't even hope for a better illustration of everything I have said and hoped to have said but couldn't find the means to, than this. A perfect final coda.