'Codes of Conduct: Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy' 256
Christine Peterson, a long-time futurist who co-founded the nanotech advocacy group the Foresight Institute in 1986 and coined the term "Open Source software" among other things writes: I am currently cited on the home page of the Ethical Source Movement, home of the Ethical Source Definition: "In the twenty years since Christine Peterson first coined the term 'open source', our community has grown astronomically, all the while learning from its successes and failures." While it is pleasant to be cited, some might interpret this as my 100% endorsement, and this would be incorrect. The Definition calls for a code of conduct, which by itself is not a problem. And a sample of such a code that I examined uses plain, seemingly-clear English words such as reasonable, inappropriate, harassment, etc. As always, the devil is in the details, or in this case, the interpretation. Although I am not a coder, and am only peripherally involved with the Open Source community these days, it has come to my attention that guidelines such as these are being used to, for example, suppress discussion of male/female differences. This would be problematic for me to endorse, since as part of my never-ending quest to help people find their life partner, I routinely discuss such topics at length myself (video online now).
This raises the broader question of whether speech bans in general are a good idea and serve effectively to advance positive goals, or not. To explore this issue with less emotion, let's make up a fantasy example. Let's say that a rumor arises that people who are genetically able to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) are better at coding. The rumor goes viral. Job seekers with the supposedly favorable status put it on their LinkedIn page and try to send genetic test results to prospective employers, along with their resumes.
Those unable to taste PTC try to suppress the rumor, fail, organize protests, and finally resort to speech bans regarding PTC status. People who brag about their tasting status, point out that someone else is a non-taster, or even just try to discuss the topic itself more generally, lose their positions on open source projects and even in some cases their jobs.
Do these punished individuals then realize the error of their ways? By no means: they are now martyrs, drift in a more radical direction, and become leaders of PTC taster groups who feel they are victims of reverse discrimination. They form secret online groups in which genetic data must be submitted to join, and they quietly meet in person to show off tasting abilities in blind tests. They bond and form communities which reinforce their superior identity as tasters. Believing that 'tasters are better coders' is now regarded as Secret Banned Knowledge.
Statisticians try to point out that even if the claim is true, such a correlation is not usefully predictive since great coders are found among both tasters and non-tasters. They further point out that this means finding good coders requires testing for those skills regardless of PTC status, so what difference does it really make? Meanwhile the general public looks on, notices the speech ban, and decides that if such extreme action must be taken against the Secret Banned Knowledge, that knowledge must be powerful indeed, and true.
Perhaps speech bans worked better in the old days, before the internet enabled outcasts to find each other, but in any case they don't seem to work well now, as we see with racist speech bans in Europe. One can even make the case that this heavy-handed way of trying to solve social problems was one factor (among many) that helped elect Trump president.
So if speech bans aren't the answer, what is? How do we persuade people to step away from incorrect biased views and treat others better? Sadly, there are no easy answers, just difficult work. We can divide the world needing persuading into two groups: (A) those who can be persuaded with rational discussion, and (B) the others. For group A, we use rational discussion. For group B, we need to look at why they are in such desperate need of identity and community that they latch onto false stories of their superiority. For those with the stomach for it, we can try to copy the success of Daryl Davis, the African-American musician who has converted over two dozen white supremacists away from their old beliefs -- by befriending them. This is how hearts and minds are changed, one by one.
This raises the broader question of whether speech bans in general are a good idea and serve effectively to advance positive goals, or not. To explore this issue with less emotion, let's make up a fantasy example. Let's say that a rumor arises that people who are genetically able to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) are better at coding. The rumor goes viral. Job seekers with the supposedly favorable status put it on their LinkedIn page and try to send genetic test results to prospective employers, along with their resumes.
Those unable to taste PTC try to suppress the rumor, fail, organize protests, and finally resort to speech bans regarding PTC status. People who brag about their tasting status, point out that someone else is a non-taster, or even just try to discuss the topic itself more generally, lose their positions on open source projects and even in some cases their jobs.
Do these punished individuals then realize the error of their ways? By no means: they are now martyrs, drift in a more radical direction, and become leaders of PTC taster groups who feel they are victims of reverse discrimination. They form secret online groups in which genetic data must be submitted to join, and they quietly meet in person to show off tasting abilities in blind tests. They bond and form communities which reinforce their superior identity as tasters. Believing that 'tasters are better coders' is now regarded as Secret Banned Knowledge.
Statisticians try to point out that even if the claim is true, such a correlation is not usefully predictive since great coders are found among both tasters and non-tasters. They further point out that this means finding good coders requires testing for those skills regardless of PTC status, so what difference does it really make? Meanwhile the general public looks on, notices the speech ban, and decides that if such extreme action must be taken against the Secret Banned Knowledge, that knowledge must be powerful indeed, and true.
Perhaps speech bans worked better in the old days, before the internet enabled outcasts to find each other, but in any case they don't seem to work well now, as we see with racist speech bans in Europe. One can even make the case that this heavy-handed way of trying to solve social problems was one factor (among many) that helped elect Trump president.
So if speech bans aren't the answer, what is? How do we persuade people to step away from incorrect biased views and treat others better? Sadly, there are no easy answers, just difficult work. We can divide the world needing persuading into two groups: (A) those who can be persuaded with rational discussion, and (B) the others. For group A, we use rational discussion. For group B, we need to look at why they are in such desperate need of identity and community that they latch onto false stories of their superiority. For those with the stomach for it, we can try to copy the success of Daryl Davis, the African-American musician who has converted over two dozen white supremacists away from their old beliefs -- by befriending them. This is how hearts and minds are changed, one by one.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Women wouldn't be voting, gays would still be in the closet or in prison, and slavery would still exist in America.
If you believe that, it is sadly evident that you have never looked beyond the confines of your own country.
These things appeared in all over, including countries with little freedom of speech, sometimes long before in the US.
And even without that perspective, given that slavery was practised in the US until 1865, (hard to believe so recent!) I'm not sure how you credit the 1791 US constitutional amendment. Didn't the authors own slaves?
Misogynist (Score:2)
Don't go appropriating the wammen's accomplishment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't be sure of the mods, but it might be down-mod'd because it's an argument that distracts from the intent of the post. Whether or not she coined the phrase is probably irrelevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeeahhhhhhhhhhhh
Not likely.
Far more probable: Some people are just incapable of dealing with anything that runs counter to their world view.or even more importantly there attempts to rewrite history
Re: (Score:3)
There are a few claimants to "open source" that go back very far, but that's not what's at issue here. The ostensible inventor of email gets all in a huff about other claimants, too. I don't care.
My guess is that seeming to attack one claim might be seen as dodging the thesis of the original argument. To be honest, I've been in this industry a very long time and also watch the open source folks. I've never heard of her. But I'll listen to what she has to say and the gist is interesting. Some speak to privil
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like I hit a nerve.
Also, since when was Slashdot ever known for being on point?
Calling out a factual error isn't an attack on anything else. Portraying it as such is disingenuous. Another commenter here summed it up well:
The problem is there's a large contingent of people who think disagreement is hostility.
Take it at face value; don't try to invent a way to be offended.
Re: Without the freedom of speech.. (Score:3)
Seems to me that she is pissed about her name being used to support views she doesn't hold, and she's trying to get her real views out there. No more and no less. She's not trying to claim a celebrity status. She's trying to get people to stop putting words in her mouth.
Re:Without the freedom of speech.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For centuries, The Church was required for success. In small towns across America, and in most Western Nations, if you didn't attend -- you weren't "one of us". People didn't want to do business with you, were concerned for their own success if they did, and it definitely put a damper on your life.
There have been elite clubs and groups forever. The same holds true of them. Put up, shut up, or get out. Don't like the rules? Tough. Yet these sorts of groups (free masons, for one), had very specific rules, so if you decided to be 'different', not only were you out of the group, you could literally get fired, you could certainly lose standing in the community, you could have a hard time succeeding.
You may think everything is all restricted and mandated to utter and complete fairness now, but if that is so -- then why are people of colour, people of differing gender identities, and women still going on about inequality? One can't have it both ways. One can't say that "the world is perfectly fair", then at the same time say "but it's not!".
And if the world isn't fair, and the world isn't just, then what jcr said is true for organizations as well. Because organizations in a society where government is, at least mostly just, have FAR more influence, control, and impact on one's life.
This whole 'code of conduct' thing isn't the problem. What the problem is, is that most are being implemented on purpose, for a pre-set political gain. Many codes of conduct are not about fairness and inclusivity, they're instead about punishment, retribution, and "getting even" for some people.
Lastly, if you want to talk about an utterly bizarre bit of text, OrangeTide -- what insanity!
Here you are, going on about how 'codes of conduct' are OK, because it's OK to have a 'code of conduct' in a private org.
Meanwhile, most codes of conduct are because "It's NOT NOT NOT OK!!! to have conduct we don't like, so we need a CODE OF CONDUCT!!!"
What a mad, insane reversal of logic.
You claim that it's different when you join of your own free will. Well, many of these groups are having Codes of Conducts foisted upon them by societal pressure from *outside* the group, by media pressure, by people catcalling and wailing which have no interest or direct involvement in the group. By your second paragraph, it should be *ok* for a private ORG to have 'rough edges', after all? You *joined of your own free will*, so *put up with it, or leave*.
But no! Instead, codes of conduct are being ramrodded through.. and by people that even join for the mere point of changing things.
The logic you employ is a sickness. Codes of conduct are a sickness. We operated for decades before this age of supposed 'woke', online, without issue. Shit Got Done.
Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee! Ya think? All it breeds is resentment, and for good reason!
Re: (Score:2)
But the alternatives are bad too, and they too breed resentment.
You could have a panel of users who adjudicate user issues, but they then become the power-hungry deciders of what's right.
You could set up a full court system on your website with jury duty, but who the hell wants to do that?
You could have moderation and metamoderation, and you will still run into sockpuppets and trolls, snowflakes and assholes.
The best community guidelines I've seen for a smaller community was, "Don't be a dick." and the bene
Re:Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, because there isn't one. That's why speech bans DON'T work. The response to speech you don't like is more speech, because if you ban speech you don't like then someone WILL inevitably ban your speech because they don't like it.
Re:Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, it's funny how "progressives" are all of a sudden pro-giant international corporations when it comes to speech. However, I'm curious if they'd sing the same tune if those same organizations decide to start drug testing their employees. By the "muh private organization" logic, they could demand DNA tests and supposedly it's just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, it's funny how "progressives" are all of a sudden pro-giant international corporations when it comes to speech.
Which corporations? And their PR, or their actions? I support Zuckerfuck's statement that you won't like what happens if you put corporations in charge of censorship. Only, I'm against Zuckerfuck's corporation's actions of censorship. Whether they're putting users in Fb jail for depictions of nipples, or taking down posts for sharing scientifically supported statements about herbalism (no joke!) they are already making themselves the arbiters of what we are permitted to say.
However, I'm curious if they'd sing the same tune if those same organizations decide to start drug testing their employees.
I think drug tests are shit. Keep
Re:Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:4, Informative)
Unless of course you think it's OK to deny people their fundamental right of freedom of association.
LOL are you now acting like the right of freedom of association should trump other rights? Have you heard of the Civil Rights Act [wikipedia.org]? "Freedom of association" has long been used as a challenge to anti-discrimination laws [cornell.edu]. Strange that a "progressive" is all of a sudden championing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people believe that a contract with illegal provisions is a valid and binding document with the ability to supersede the law.
Many people also believe that various lower laws trump the Constitution.
This is not the rule of law; this is the rule of guns and gold.
Re:Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Human rights are imaginary, and if you want them anyway (which is reasonable) they have to be protected by governments because nobody else can do it, but corporations not permitting people to use their soapbox isn't an infringement of free speech regardless. Failbook is not a utility. Now, AT&T is, and NSI is, so if you can't get internet hosting (and domain registration) because of the character of your speech, then your "right" to free expression is being infringed.
Freedom of association and freedom of speech are both important rights that we should protect if we want to call ourselves free. If you do the job of a utility, you may have to give up some of your freedom of association in order to protect freedom of speech. But most of the corporations people think should have to carry their speech aren't utilities. Utilities are regulated differently because they are in fundamentally different positions.
No ISP should be able to ban you for unpopular speech, even though that interferes with their freedom of association, just like I have to give up my right to swing my fist so that other people can have the right to not be punched in the nuts. That's why rights are such a squishy concept.
Platforms so big they're antitrustworthy (Score:2)
These companies are not silencing people, they are declining to broadcast them.
Which is freedom of association up until the point that a company or group of companies gains market power (monopoly or cartel) on a particular relevant market for broadcast services. Or does freedom of association trump competition law?
Re:Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There also needs to be a certain amount of "don't accuse people of being thin skinned every time they criticize you". These days the immediate reaction to any criticism of often to accuse the speaker of being an SJW for disagreeing or not liking your joke. Maybe nobody laughed because it wasn't funny.
Re: (Score:2)
White bread? Whole wheat bread? Cornbread? Italian bread?
Oddly enough, seeing your spelling of "bred" (past tense of breed), I expected that I'd see you support speech bans....
Re: (Score:2)
White bread? Whole wheat bread? Cornbread? Italian bread?
Oddly enough, seeing your spelling of "bred" (past tense of breed), I expected that I'd see you support speech bans....
No, he supports speech buns.
Re: (Score:2)
Benevolent overlords are a myth. Especially on internet forums.
Oh spare me your sanctimonious BS (Score:3, Insightful)
One can even make the case that this heavy-handed way of trying to solve social problems was one factor (among many) that helped elect Trump president.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Why even throw that into your fantasy land scenario to defuse the hot button topic into something more rational?
Trump didn't get elected because of bad code's of conduct or because of Russian Collusion. Trump got elected because the alternative was Hillary Clinton who just accused her own party members of being Russian spies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Russian assets do not need to know they are being used or what they are being used for. They could be total traitors as well.
Just a reminder, the Clinton Foundation received in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from Russia while Clinton was Secretary of State. [wiki] [wikipedia.org] [politico article] [politico.com]
But yeah, a surfing Iraq War veteran is much more likely the pawn of Russia.
Perhaps a poor stradigy. (Score:2, Informative)
But the fact that current speech has became so hateful, and divisive. There seems to be a confusion with free speech and saying whatever you want without consequences. Thus creates a lot of just non-productive speech going on.
If I am talking about software, I don't care what gender, race, political persuasion or sexual orientation you are, I want you to focus on the discussion of the software. If my speech is meant to offend any particular group of people then I have immediately shut off a group of people
Re: (Score:2)
Well - promotion of open hatred a functional strategy.
It's a successful enough strategy, that it's taken over the previous notions of 'conservatism' in large parts of the world, where hatred used to be something to be minimized as non-productive.
Now, hatred is basically the strategy - and it kind of has been for around 30 years now. It's both a rallying cry, a default debate position, an odd sort of comforting posture and a replacement for huge swaths of philosophy, reason and even basic knowledge.
Those th
Re:Perhaps a poor stradigy. (Score:5, Insightful)
If my speech is meant to offend any particular group of people then I have immediately shut off a group of people from listening to my view on software. If I happen to slip up and use a phrase that is insulting, I should be let known that so I could apologize, as I am talking about software and my be ignorant on the hurtful root of such a phrase.
It basically comes down to: always be afraid, always cower in fear of certain groups, lest they be offended.
People actively choose to get offended because it gives them power over others. Guilt has become a tool to get into positions of power, get a good job or get rid of someone you don't like.
If you're stuck all day apologizing to the perpetually offended nothing ever gets done. All you get is everyone dancing on eggshells because they don't want to provide ammunition to professional social justice grifters who move the goal posts faster than you can apologize for your mere existence.
Perhaps but recent history is showing, how such offensive speech is changing behaviors towards the offended groups.
I'd argue that affirmative action is largely to blame for that. If certain groups are given special privileges purely based on gender or race instead of merit THAT is what makes them seem weak or foolish, because you chose the weak and foolish and not the ones best suited for the task.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You know, where there's scholarships that I don't qualify for because of my skin color, in the name of affirmative action, and stuff like that.
Your definition spouted flies in the face of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Perhaps a poor stradigy. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I don't believe it's ok to discriminate based on what someone has between their legs, or what their skin colour happens to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in reality, this is what "affirmative action" actually is:
https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/... [nypost.com]
"He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600....
Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men."
That's actual reality, not your fantasy of how AA works. Less qualified people ar
Re: (Score:3)
One could also argue that Standardized Tests are often culturally bias. Which often will but particular minority groups in the disadvantage. So like many of your college classes. there is a curve applied to the scores.
Yes, they could argue that, but they would be wrong.
If they're "culturally biased", then why do Asians do so well?
Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
It basically comes down to: always be afraid, always cower in fear of certain groups, lest they be offended.
Bah, you're being ridiculous.
There's no need to "be afraid" of anything... just have a little sensitivity, and when people tell you that they don't like to be called something, or want to be called something else, go along. It costs you next to nothing, and gives you the right to expect equal consideration in return.
Re: Perhaps a poor stradigy. (Score:3)
Right. You have all the free speech you want, as long as you only say the things which make others happy.
Doubling down does not often win (Score:4, Insightful)
But the fact that current speech has became so hateful, and divisive
You have not seen anything yet compared to the hateful speech, and actions, when restrictions are added to the mix.
The andante for speech being divisive is for more people to listen to each other, not attempt to silence people on one half of the division or the other. Amazingly that also curtails and defuses hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Bans often work on favour of the hate speech.
For example a common ban is on politics. No politics, too divisive and always leads to drama.
But edgy jokes are fine, they are just jokes. So the people who want to push hateful language can by just framing it as an off colour joke, and no one else can call them out because then it's politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I listen to people who think I should be murdered because of my background?
Being a little hyperbolic, no? This discussion is in the context of codes of conduct banning discussions of things like sex or gender differences.
Most people would agree advocating a new holocaust would fall under the "don't be a dick" rule. We don't need layers and layers of rules, advisory committees, and "trust and safety" commissions for that.
Or are you one of those that thinks a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for mega-Hitler?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can persuade people that their views are wrong... but even if if you can't, who says you need to listen? Walk away. Turn off the TV. Don't go to that website. Block that user.
But CoCs aren't saying that you shouldn't be required to listen (an argument no one is making) - they're saying no one else should be allowed to listen because you don't like the speech.
Re: (Score:2)
> If I happen to slip up and use a phrase that is insulting, I should be let known that so I could apologize
I agree. And in most places I've seen, regardless of CoC, that's how it works. *If* you apologize.
Now, what should do we do if you double-down on your insult instead, or more hypocritically "apologize for any offense" while continuing to say the same things? That's where problems arise.
Re:Perhaps a poor stradigy. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm over 60. I've seen the same thing said about every decade of my life (except the first one - who pays attention to this sort of thing at age 8?).
And, reading a lot of history as I do, I've seen the same thing written pretty much every generation, throughout history.
And it still reduces to "you kids get off my lawn!"....
Re: (Score:2)
This has more to do that most people think "discussing" is what they hear in afternoon talkshow or, worse, political debates, and don't realize that this has nothing to do with a debate that should lead to a consensus but is rather just two idiots yelling at each other trying to convince bystandards to take their sides.
As long as we don't address that problem you can forbid whatever you want without changing jack shit.
If there are consequences, it's not free (Score:2)
Free speech literally means without consequence.
Tyrants like to pretend they aren't tyrants if they just deplatform "mean" speech. Because "it's just consequences, you can say what you want."
You either believe in free speech or you don't. If you want to reject free speech on your platform that's your business. If you want to say whatever you want, anyone can print and distribute flyers or throw up a web-server.
If we believed in free speech then your options are to speak freely in return or ignore what is
Re: (Score:2)
Basic Error (Score:2)
"Those unable to taste PTC try to suppress the rumor, fail, organize protests, and finally resort to speech bans regarding PTC status. People who brag about their tasting status, point out that someone else is a non-taster, or even just try to discuss the topic itself more generally, lose their positions on open source projects and even in some cases their jobs.
Do these punished individuals then realize the error of their ways?"
Why on earth would one think that what happened was not a REWARD? That it serve
Re: (Score:2)
Unrelated: I love your sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>White identity politics are about protecting the interests of white people the same way identity politics work for any other group
With one slight difference - white people already benefit from institutionalized power. So while other groups "protecting their interests" means fighting for racial equality, white people "protecting their interests" means continuing the ongoing historical subjugation of other races.
In principle I've got no problem with "white pride". In practice I've never seen a white prid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> With one slight difference - white people already benefit from institutionalized power.
While I don't disagree with your points about "white pride", how does your statement jive with successful minority groups who also have institutional power? For example, Jews and Asians in the USA are quite successful. Jews have 300% representation in congress vs population size. [jpost.com] Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to have advocacy groups or practice identity politics?
Screwed up my formatting.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly - if you have a culture you wish to express and affirm in the face of the Great American Melting Pot, by all means do so. I've seen Scottish groups, and Irish groups. Swedes. Germans. You name it. Not so much British for some reason I could guess at... Even regional and lifestyle affiliations - city-living farm kids that congregate together over shared understanding and values.
The problem is there's not really any sort of generic "white culture" separate from the melting pot to celebrate. You c
Re:There is no "white supremacy" push (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have hard data on this "institutionalized power", or are you just going "if most rich people are white, this means all white people have privileges", just like most internet racist do stupid stuffs like "if most criminals are black, this means all black people are prone to crime"?
Because this kind of rationale is quite horrid and misrepresent the part where the crushing majority of both populations are not rich/criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
No - though not having representation in the halls of power *is* a problem, it's a poor measure of the situation faced by everyday people.
And I should say that I do suspect a whole lot of the problem also has it roots in economic disadvantage: being born poor hobbles people, regardless of their race, and a dirt-poor white man isn't a much better off than a dirt-poor black man. And I do generally much prefer reformation programs that help the economically disadvantaged regardless of race.
That said, there is
Re: (Score:2)
Representation in the media -- like Al Sharpton? like Jayson Blair?
OK, I'll admit to selecting repulsive examples and there are a great number of foul whites in the media. My point is that more is needed than just minorities reporting the news, all news reporters need to be competent and honorable.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the white farmers in Zimbabwe -- oops, you can't: they've been driven from their farms or killed.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole idea that there is a drive for "white supremacy" in any part of society with any pull is a complete fabrication of the fever dreams of the left.
Trump has consistently supported white supremacy. In fact, it's the only thing he's been consistent about.
White supremacy is about racial imperialism and hatred. White identity politics are about protecting the interests of white people the same way identity politics work for any other group.
The two are inseparable because white identity has been tied to supremacy throughout history. Even in Athens, the vote was restricted to white male landowners.
Re:There is no "white supremacy" push (Score:4, Interesting)
White supremacy is about racial imperialism and hatred.
Make America white again! [newschannel9.com] Paid for by Rick Tyler for Congress, Friends of Rick Tyler.
The Traditionalist Worker Party dissolved in 2018 after its leader beat the shit out of his wife. Their goal was to create a national socialist white ethnostate.
Republic of Florida is still active--a militia group whose goal is to make Florida a white ethnostate. It has little traction itself, but is known among a dozen other groups.
Vanguard America believes the entire United States should be a white-only nation.
League of the South. The NSM. The National Front.
These people form a disconnected network of cells, each appearing as a small, weak, and barely-functional organization. They turn out in the hundreds at rallies all over the continental US. It would be interesting if a group had all those who shared its ideals as active members, and all of its members turning out at rallies anywhere in the US; such turn-out tends to be a core inner circle, which is a small fraction of the following. We've seen immigrants and teenage muslim girls beaten to death by random passers-by, for seemingly no reason--the attackers not affiliated with any of these groups, yet they act in the same mind.
Then you have the continuous, powerful media heads like Richard Spencer [youtube.com].
We thought the Nazis were crazy people, stupid fanatics. Alas, it was not so.
Tell it to the schools, Christine..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lady, the reason we're in this shit sandwich is our schools for 40+ years now have been constantly spouting anti-free-speech sentiments hand over fist.
I don't agree with the speaker! Deplatform!
I don't agree with the movie! Ban! Prohibit! Censor!
Reality offends me! Safe spaces! Plushies! Cwayons! Cry rooms! Puppydawgs and rainbows!
Waah waah *plugs ears with fingers* I can't hear your opposite view!
That's people today. Enjoy the next 80 or so years, this crowd will utterly ruin us. Unless something drastic happens in the next couple of years, we will spend the next century being some other country's bitch -- because we have two full generations of cowards, unwilling to hear the other side, unwilling to say what must be said, unwilling to do what must be done.
And it all started with PC, about 40 years ago. Congrats!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But yeah.. you have it completely backwards. People became less cowardly and started speaking, so now your side is pissed off that they have to listen to anyone other than themselves
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see right-wingers trying to shut you up, snowflake. That's your schtick.
So....do you have a genetic inability to detect irony? Or just don't think about what you write?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, I love to hear them.
But I also want to be allowed to tell them if they talk bullshit without fearing that a witch hunt is called.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This. It's also called a 'slow news day'.
24 hours news was the worst thing ever, until of course internet news came along.
Profit is mandatory, and requires 'interesting stories' relative to whatever the cost of pushing the message out there. In the old, old days.. that was often difficult with the 'nightly news' at 6pm! Yet, even with nightly news, a mere hour packing sports, national news, local news, the weather and other stuff in.. there were still slow news days! Days they had to find fluff and padd
Re:Tell it to the schools, Christine..... (Score:4)
Re:Tell it to the schools, Christine..... (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I've gathered from discussions with friends, urban is another thing entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Communists in Congress... (Score:2)
Members of Congress that declare that they are enemies of the constitution, considering their oath of office... shouldn't they arrested?
Isn't it a lot like a cop admitting that he is into killing people for kicks?
Not really a solution either. (Score:2)
Re:Not really a solution either. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was brought up to treat people as individuals, to try not to make assumptions about them, and to always start off assuming good faith if there's room to believe it. I think that's another way of saying "be nice" and I think it's a perfectly good starting point for any conversation with anyone no matter what you may suspect about them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was brought up to treat people as individuals,
Good for you.
Weird thing is there's a lot of people arguing "I'm prefect so there's no problem". You do realise that a lot of other, imperfect people exist, right? And their behaviour is unaffected by how good you are.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that a lot of other, imperfect people exist, right? And their behaviour is unaffected by how good you are.
The problem is there's a large contingent of people who think disagreement is hostility. They think resistance to change is somehow akin to "advocating people like me get murdered". When someone descends into that level of hyperbolism, it's kind of hard to take them at their word about the severity of the problems they face.
Let people say what they want. (Score:2)
Seriously, sticks and stones people. But that aside, I'd rather know what a person is really thinking. What they are really like.
Then I can make a decision as to whether or not i want to associate with them. As it increasingly stands now you have a more difficult time figuring out if someone is an objectionable piece of shit.
If those people notice their views are affecting them negatively the ones that might change just might. The ones who are never going to change are never going to change.
As for 'How
Re: (Score:2)
Then I can make a decision as to whether or not i want to associate with them
That works when you all have equal power.
That doesn't work when you don't have equal power. When the asshole is the boss, or the leader of the project, or even just a "star" with a huge herd of fans, then you do not have the option to "just not associate". You have to do far more.
This is a bit like saying "well, if you're getting punched in the face, you just need to not associate with that face-puncher" - the effort should not forced upon the one receiving harm.
If they do that enough their business will suffer or their competitors will benefit.
How can you exist in the 21st century and n
Let the market decide (Score:3)
So what do you do instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some people out there with serious social issues...and they're over-represented in our chosen world. For some people, it's just irresistible to walk into a public forum and perform the speech equivalent of dropping a huge crap in the center of the room and walking out. Or in the case of a combative someone, picking up the crap and smearing it all over the other people in the room who have no desire to participate. I'm in systems engineering but work at a tech company...some people I work with (especially developers) are these folks. They just can not have normal, non-combative social interactions with others and will defend their actions by saying they have the right to say whatever they want, how dare you censor me, what is this PC nanny state I'm in, etc. etc.
This isn't everyone, but if code of conduct rules aren't the answer, what is? Google recently discouraged their employees from discussing politics at work, and I'm 100% sure it wasn't because they're in favor of censorship, etc...it's because they have half the autism spectrum working for them combined with various groups of people who don't want to spend their 90 hour weeks listening to their various opinions.
What do you do with the people who deliberately insult people in a group, then claim their rights are violated when you kick them out, and find those sympathetic to their cause to bring down a mess on you?
Free speech is how a society heals itself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why must the onus be entirely on those without "misguided views"? We don't argue that thieves just need to be taught that stealing is wrong by their victims.
The point of "codes of conduct" or other ostracizing mechanisms is to put some of the effort back on the offender. "This crap you're doing/saying is not acceptable" makes the offender either have to make the effort to learn why, or they get to live in a smaller world where they hurt fewer people.
Simple, really. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm running a project, you're working on it is a privilege not a right. If you disrupt the project, you're out. That might mean spouting racial slurs, but it might also mean that you're continuously advocating for a "code of conduct" that seeks to take the judgement factor out of all this. Neither thing has any place on a technical project, and both should be grounds for revoking check-in privilege, firing, etc.
Some will argue that the code of conduct makes sure the bases are covered so that you're less likely to be sued. However, when you consider all the wind that gets blown over these codes, it's like you're already putting yourself through an expensive legal process. It's like you're preemptively suing yourself. Don't sue yourself.
Just let everybody know that we're here to do business. We'll follow the laws, and that's it. We don't need anything more than that. Quit wasting our time.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm running a project, you're working on it is a privilege not a right. If you disrupt the project, you're out
And what should happen when you're the one disrupting it?
The point of a code of conduct in an open-source project is it gives everyone something they can point to for 'this is not acceptable'. Including the minions you really want to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
And what should happen when you're the one disrupting it?
You take your ball and fork it. You would rather crucify the founder of a project than just do your own version if you disagree? It's their speech, and you have no right to dictate it (if they really hold the license).
People like you are just out for blood, and they call it justice. It leads to witchhunts. Be the better person: success is the best form of revenge.
Re: (Score:2)
I never really understood this sentiment. "This is a technical project, therefore, we should only be discussing technology".
You are part of society whether you want to be or not. If, you think, technically this is the best solution, but someone else owns the patent, you have to discuss legal issues. If, you think, technically, this person is very gifted, but they annoy the hell out of everyone else, then you have social issues. And, if you have someone who is continually uses racial or sexual abusive langua
Re: (Score:2)
A code of conduct should discourage activity that promotes an agenda that has nothing to do with the project's purpose.
It should not be and activity that promotes an agenda that has nothing to do with the project's purpose.
The last few years, we've seen an increasing number of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Don't be a dick - Wheaton's Law (Score:2)
http://dontbeadickday.com/ [dontbeadickday.com]
Any decent code of conduct should just say "Don't be a dick"
However dicks generally don't realize when they are being dicks, hence more detail is usually required.
Its about control (Score:2)
"Codes of Conduct", like any other laws/regulations governing speech (blasphemy laws, etc.) are all about power and control. Always have been. Always will be.
It really depends what the issue is (Score:2)
We've adopted a very dangerous attitude that the person who takes the offense is right, regardless of the intention of the author, which is frankly insane. If seeing a swear word in someone codes offends you, then grow a thicker skin and deal with it, providing it's not pure hate, because people shouldn't change t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I would prefer my comments less colorful and more terse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let social justice warriors dictate how you write your code, code should be written in your own style, providing you don't violate the basic conditions of common sense already mentioned. If anyone disagrees, they're free to write code the way they want, and that's all there is to it.
...as long as you do/don't put open-braces on the same line as 'if' statements, write functions longer than 32 lines, use camel case in variable names do/don't capitalise preprocessor symbols, use trailing "//" comments and know exactly where I think yous should put the spaces in 'typedef char** stringarray'... or preferably switch to Haskell/Lisp/Rust because everything else is "considered harmful"... Hmmm... I wonder why SJWs are so at home in the tech sector... :-)
But, really, I don't think the right
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is never the solution (Score:2)
> This raises the broader question of whether speech bans in general are a good idea and serve effectively to advance positive goals, or not.
Censorship is NEVER the solution. Censorship is precisely the problem.
The problem with bullshit "hate speech" is that without the ability to discuss a topic from all angles then there is no opportunity for learning WHY some views are problematic. Without education nothing will change.
The other problem with censorship is that it can degenerate into banning anything "
Poster:1 Straw Man: 0 (Score:3)
Great victory over a straw man argument.
The kinds of things you need to discuss with a person when determining if they are a potential life partner are very different than reasonable topics when trying to build a software system among diverse engineers.
The first amendment doesn't protect all speech and individual rights are not infringed by an organization insisting that people keep civil tongues in their business communication. Many businesses believe that getting rid of toxic people (even if they are a "rock star") is worth it to keep the many great developers who would otherwise leave or never join.
You know what's great about freedom? Some organizations can try out policies like this and if they thrive and attract the people they need then this could be seen as a success. If it fails, we'll know the people who like diminishing others were right. I look forward to the free market of ideas driving more of these kind of codes of conduct into use and further refinements to them.
The flaw: History didn't start today (Score:2)
Yes, TFS is trying to use a proxy for things like "women are bad coders". But that's a mistake, because it ignores all the history behind the current environment.
You have to actually talk about women, or LGBT people or any other group being disparaged, because the history of the repression of that group is an enormous factor in the discussion. Inventing a metaphor to avoid talking about that history obfuscates the actual problems.
We need to ban this guy (Score:2)
Obviously we need to ban this guy from speaking because he's trying to re-marginalize the marginalized.
Not that fucking lie again (Score:3)
False [hyperlogos.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There is still hope that people can be respectful, stop being hateful and condescending and try to be friendly and have friendly arguments rather than disingenuous or unfair arguments.
Only a fucking moron like yourself would think that. You're not the dumbest person in the world, but you'd better hope he doesn't die soon.
Of course I don't hope that you die. (that was meant just as humor - stay calm) (or anyone else for that matter.)
Cautious optimism? Cautious skepticism?
Absolute skepticism from me buddy.
Wow, just wow! That's a sad way to be. Turn over a new leaf and try Jesus to free you of your burdens. Forgiveness helps you as much as them.
Re:If you can't beat em join em then beat them? (Score:5, Funny)
stop being hateful and condescending and try to be friendly and have friendly arguments rather than disingenuous or unfair arguments.
Only a fucking moron like yourself would think that. You're not the dumbest person in the world, but you'd better hope he doesn't die soon.
*WHOOSH*
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like a death threat to me.