21–30 of 341 posts
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
Indeed, go on Stormfront and you'll find it a religious bastion of diversity and inclusion! Communities have always been free to choose their members and morals. If I can kick someone out for being verbally abusive, why can't I do it for whatever the community agrees on?
Most people laugh, but I'm a regular visitor of a forum where people share a lot of the same controversial views but the makeup of people (except for the fact that it's 99% male) is way more diverse than anywhere else I've been and I've lived in Toronto.
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
> We know that you have no desire for more press coverage, Dries. The last thing you want is to prolong the media parade that has drawn so much attention to the problems with Drupal governance. That must be why they chose to do this in public rather than in a private letter. As much as I agree with the contents of the letter I reject the way in which it was delivered, it is essentially blackmail. If you don't do 'x'…
Posting doxxed information across the internet, along with euphemistic insinuations that he is an irreparable pervert, attached to his real name, forever to show up as the first result when you Google him ... is "not a nice thing to do"
Trying to hold your community leaders up to a higher standard, and refusing to partake in the same backroom whisper campaigns that you're angry about? That's just not even on the same level of "not nice".
- Should a person have a right to privacy? Yes
- Should a person be discriminated based on their beliefs? No
- Should a person in leadership be forced to expose their private life? No
There are two questions, however, that is causing everyone to trip over themselves and table-flip:
- Does a person's private life affect their public views?
- If a person in leadership has their private life exposed (fairly or unfairly), does that affect their leadership role?
If you quickly come to a 'Yes' or 'No' in the last two questions, then that is why we don't have constructive dialogue between people with opposing views. Again, we're not talking about blatant discrimination. We're talking about a position of leadership and influence.
For example, if a person has religious views that women should not work, should they be part of the open source community? Of course. Should they be a leader of the community and have prominent speaking roles?
It's no different than the 1st amendment. No laws can be made to punish you for speaking, but you can't just say whatever you want without consequence.
I'd hope that people would take a breath and really think about that. Is it discrimination if you ask that person to relinquish their leadership role? Who is excluded because of that person being in leadership? Who has been silenced out of fear that the power of leadership trumps their voice?
I personally do not know the answers to the two questions, but I'm open to hearing both sides. I also understand how difficult it is to have an answer when you're responsibility is to put people in leadership. With open source, it's even more complicated because you could 'become a leader' simply by being great at contributing!
> We know that you have no desire for more press coverage, Dries. The last thing you want is to prolong the media parade that has drawn so much attention to the problems with Drupal governance. That must be why they chose to do this in public rather than in a private letter. As much as I agree with the contents of the letter I reject the way in which it was delivered, it is essentially blackmail. If you don't do 'x'…
Allowing or organising a witch-hunt and irreparably damaging a career because you disagree with someone's sex life is "not a nice thing to do". Posting doxxed information across the internet, along with euphemistic insinuations that he is an irreparable pervert, attached to his real name, forever to show up as the first result when you Google him ... is "not a nice thing to do" Trying to hold your community leaders u…
Buytaert is wrong, there is really no doubt about that. But if you want to make a point you simply send the letter to its intended recipient and follow up on the threat to leave if you are ignored or unhappy with the outcome.
If you want to increase the spectacle you do so publicly, with the direct result that Drupal gets hurt even further in the process no matter what the outcome will be.
* inclusion limited to like-minded individuals who share the same ideas about gender, religion, feminism, capitalism, politics, race, nationality, hair color and cut, health and body image, aesthetics, and any other category that they deem fit; and trust that they will look for and seize upon a point of disagreement. You'll be worse than a poverty-stricken cis white male born of unspeakable privilege.
^ diversity limited to like-minded individuals who share the same ideas about gender, religion, feminism, capitalism, politics, race, nationality, hair color and cut, health and body image, aesthetics, and any other category that they deem fit; and trust that they will look for and seize upon a point of disagreement. Cis white males not allowed to pursue life, liberty, or happiness due to aforementioned unspeakable privilege.
It convinces me Code Of Conduct are basically sticks that will not harm you when you are on the right side of them. Do communities needs sticks to be driven one sided way like cows? At this point it feels like they kind of defy their reason to be and are pretty misused.
I've talked to many people about the matter and some of them say that open source is supposed to be left-leaning, and that those are its principles. That ignores that right-leaning users should also be able to benefit from open source values (privacy, for example) and contribute code, and that not everybody who uses open source has to be a supporter of the open source principles (for example, I use an open source browser because it's the best, not because I like open source better than closed source).