Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#431

Post by infamia »

deanCommie wrote: post #374
jrandm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to dispute that ESR may be a jerk, but I'd ask you to consider what his position is: > It's less bad that people sometimes got their feelings hurt than it is to institutionalize a means by which dissenting opinions are crushed under the rubric of “not nice”. His point, as I take it, is that a "cancel culture" is antithetical to an open culture. I agree. Excluding someone due to tone, without warning or c…

> a "cancel culture" is antithetical to an open culture. I agree. Excluding someone due to tone, without warning or clear explanation of the violation, especially when it appears the content is a contested opinion, is bigoted censorship. Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" In order to express ideas openly, even firmly and directly, one does not need to be explicitly RUDE…

> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?"

Equating physical violence with someone who called another a "looneytune" is completely unreasonable as they are NOT the same thing. The uncomfortable truth is, the freedom of expression guarantees the right of someone else to say something people disagree with, hurt your feelings, offend, or even make others angry.

Also, who gets to decide when someone is being a jerk? In this case, it's a group of people who are comfortable deleting almost all evidence of Eric's supposedly offensive remarks, thereby ensuring that no one can even debate the subject reasonably. That alone, would keep me from jumping to their defense even if I agreed with their actions.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#432

Post by VectorLock »

kragen wrote: post #429
VectorLock wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the pedantic definitions of the words, the point the commenter was trying to make wasn't about class distinctions, it was that they were perceiving it to be offensive.

The reason they perceive it to be offensive is that they are unconsciously enacting a dynamic of class domination that they cannot even question due to their lack of awareness, as further explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881

Yes aversion to coarse language is internalized class warfare, you nailed it.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#433

Post by fancyfredbot »

kragen wrote: post #412
threatofrain wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does one’s intuition bring up classiness of all values at play....

Well, this is precisely a class conflict: the lower-class values of liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty on Raymond's side, and the upper-class values of purity, etiquette, exclusion of the wrong sort of people†, and getting along well with the right sort of people, on Ehmke's side — although you might say that her etiquette is "more honored in the breach than in the observance", in our modern mangling of the p…

Out of interest, do you say that liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty are lower class values because you believe the upper classes do not value these things?

I'd agree that ESR might have received a better reception for his point of view if he'd expressed himself differently though.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#434

Post by deanCommie »

infamia wrote: post #431
deanCommie wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a "cancel culture" is antithetical to an open culture. I agree. Excluding someone due to tone, without warning or clear explanation of the violation, especially when it appears the content is a contested opinion, is bigoted censorship. Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" In order to express ideas openly, even firmly and directly, one does not need to be explicitly RUDE…

> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" Equating physical violence with someone who called another a "looneytune" is completely unreasonable as they are NOT the same thing. The uncomfortable truth is, the freedom of expression guarantees the right of someone else to say something people disagree with, hurt your feelings, offend, or even make others angry. Also, who gets to…

And drawing an impassable wall between physical violence and verbal abuse is also completely unreasonable.

The world is full of roided up assholes who would scream at someone in the face, have their victim "push them away", only to proceed to punch them back because once you cross the line into physicality a shove is the same as a punch in the face.

It's bullshit.

Obviously being "a jerk" to someone is not the same as physically hitting someone.

But in the context of a workplace, an online forum, or a community contributing to an open source project, the choice isn't between punching someone or yelling at them.

The choice is between civility and not. Between being an asshole for no reason and not. People like Linus Torvalds and ESR have significant trust in their technical leadership. If they don't like an idea they can just say "that is a bad idea. here is why". Their position is not strengthened by screaming insults at the other side. All it does is make them look childish and make people not want to contribute their time and energy to the cause.

Linus figured this out eventually. ESR hasn't.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#435

Post by kragen »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #433
kragen wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is precisely a class conflict: the lower-class values of liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty on Raymond's side, and the upper-class values of purity, etiquette, exclusion of the wrong sort of people†, and getting along well with the right sort of people, on Ehmke's side — although you might say that her etiquette is "more honored in the breach than in the observance", in our modern mangling of the p…

Out of interest, do you say that liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty are lower class values because you believe the upper classes do not value these things? I'd agree that ESR might have received a better reception for his point of view if he'd expressed himself differently though.

No, generally speaking, people agree in abstract terms on what virtuous principles are, such as honesty and courtesy; they disagree about what virtuous acts are, because in every act we resolve a conflict between conflicting virtuous principles, necessarily subordinating lower values to higher ones.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#436

Post by fancyfredbot »

kragen wrote: post #435
fancyfredbot wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, do you say that liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty are lower class values because you believe the upper classes do not value these things? I'd agree that ESR might have received a better reception for his point of view if he'd expressed himself differently though.

No, generally speaking, people agree in abstract terms on what virtuous principles are, such as honesty and courtesy; they disagree about what virtuous acts are, because in every act we resolve a conflict between conflicting virtuous principles, necessarily subordinating lower values to higher ones.

So you are saying ESR has a conflict between a virtuous principle which led him to use obscene language (is that autonomy?) and the upper class virtuous principle of courtesy, and he's subordinated courtesy because he's working class?

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#437

Post by antepodius »

deanCommie wrote: post #434
infamia wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?" Equating physical violence with someone who called another a "looneytune" is completely unreasonable as they are NOT the same thing. The uncomfortable truth is, the freedom of expression guarantees the right of someone else to say something people disagree with, hurt your feelings, offend, or even make others angry. Also, who gets to…

And drawing an impassable wall between physical violence and verbal abuse is also completely unreasonable. The world is full of roided up assholes who would scream at someone in the face, have their victim "push them away", only to proceed to punch them back because once you cross the line into physicality a shove is the same as a punch in the face. It's bullshit. Obviously being "a jerk" to someone is not the same a…

The roided up monster antagonises, waiting for the slightest excuse to explode in violence.

A slightly sneakier version of the same monster would antagonise more non-physically and perpetually.

There's slippery slopes and giving inches; there are deleterious attractors all human interaction ecosystems can fall into through a tragedy of the commons (see meditations on moloch by slatestarcodex). How do you prevent this, or even start to stand against it? Schelling points.

The guy shouting on the corner is reliable. He's obvious and slightly unpleasant. But he's a lesser evil than the creeping decay that girdles you and smothers you while whispering honey into your ear.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#438

Post by antepodius »

root_axis wrote: post #297
derefr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the whole point of the Abilene paradox is that it's something that happens when everyone's level of regret they'd have from doing the thing doesn't exceed their level of regret from social approbation if it turns out everyone else did want to do the thing and they had to be the one to argue against it. So in the end everyone loses a little utility—rather than everyone expecting to lose a lot of utility (in th…

People will have opinions about things, it's not feasible to eliminate the possibility of exposure to ideas you disagree with. If the Abilene paradox is so crippling that it precludes the possibility of expressing your own opinions within your own community then what hope is there to "change societal expectations"?

Divine grace.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#439

Post by antepodius »

gonehome wrote: post #282
kazinator wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ideas rather than the person The CoC people will not like that any better. Suppose you write a mailing list post which absolutely names no names, but only presents expressions of specific ideas, and then calls those ideas "toxic" and "loony", with justifications and all. That will still be equally offensive. It will be still be interpreted as an attack on the identifiable person or group behind those ideas, even th…

> and you do it with less colorful language Focusing on ideas is better, but breaking down why you think something is wrong without being an ass is really the goal.

Is it?

I've loosely followed this stuff for a few years, and I just don't see it. I just see people trying to punish the people they hate.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#440

Post by antepodius »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #436
kragen wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, generally speaking, people agree in abstract terms on what virtuous principles are, such as honesty and courtesy; they disagree about what virtuous acts are, because in every act we resolve a conflict between conflicting virtuous principles, necessarily subordinating lower values to higher ones.

So you are saying ESR has a conflict between a virtuous principle which led him to use obscene language (is that autonomy?) and the upper class virtuous principle of courtesy, and he's subordinated courtesy because he's working class?

The GP said it already. The example virtues are honesty and propriety. If you value honesty over propriety, you'll speak honestly at the cost of speaking politely. If you value propriety over honesty, you'll either not speak or speak in a more polite/roundabout way to avoid conflict, even at the cost of honesty.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. God help us.

Post reply on HN