Utopia Talk / Politics / Linuxgate

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Sep 28 18:48:34 SJWs have infiltrated and attempting a coup, developers are hitting back threatening to take down the internet by retracting their codes. The new code of conduct for Linux kernel development Linux kernel developers have a code of conduct. It’s not like they didn’t have a code before, but the previous code of conflict is now replaced by this new code of conduct to “help make the kernel community a welcoming environment to participate in.” “In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.” The code of conduct was signed off by Linus Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman (kind of second-in-command after Torvalds). Dan Williams of Intel and Chris Mason from Facebook were some of the other signees. If I have read through the timeline correctly, half an hour after signing this code of conduct, Torvalds sent a mail apologizing for his past behavior. He also announced taking a temporary break to improve upon his behavior. But at this point some people started reading between the lines, with a special attention to this line from his mail: This week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions. My flippant attacks in emails have been both unprofessional and uncalled for. Especially at times when I made it personal. In my quest for a better patch, this made sense to me. I know now this was not OK and I am truly sorry. This particular line could be read as if he was coerced into apologizing and taking a break because of the new code of conduct. Though it could also be a precautionary measure to prevent Torvalds from violating the newly created code of conduct. The controversy around Contributor Covenant creator Coraline Ada Ehmke The Linux code of conduct is based on the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4. Contributor Covenant has been adopted by hundreds of open source projects. Eclipse, Angular, Ruby, Kubernetes are some of the many adopters of Contributor Covenant. Contributor Covenant has been created by Coraline Ada Ehmke, a software developer, an open-source advocate, and an LGBT activist. She has been instrumental in promoting diversity in the open source world. Coraline has also been vocal about her stance against meritocracy. The Latin word meritocracy originally refers to a “system under which advancement within the system turns on “merits”, like intelligence, credentials, and education.” But activists like Coraline believe that meritocracy is a negative system where the worth of an individual is measured not by their humanity, but solely by their intellectual output. Coraline Ada Ehmke ✔ @CoralineAda I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs. Hahahah ------- Seb will defend this.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Sep 28 18:49:17 http://itsfoss.com/linux-code-of-conduct/
Aeros Member	Fri Sep 28 18:51:10 How does a community based around online user names and using code that works need programs to.create racial dversity? What is stopping a gay black transsexual from doing linux code?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Sep 28 19:07:36 Aeros “system under which advancement within the system turns on “merits”, like intelligence, credentials, and education.” But activists like Coraline believe that meritocracy is a negative system where the worth of an individual is measured not by their humanity, but solely by their intellectual output.
hood Member	Fri Sep 28 19:43:50 So, I can understand a hint of a tiny fraction of this "booo meritocracy" line of thinking. Simply, not every member of a team must be a top-of-the-line-based-on-measurables contributor. Sometimes people without "merits" still work well in a team and improve the team. But you still need to, as a team, function on merit. And you will still need people with measurable merits to make things go. But humanity? Fuck off, lady. Merit, teamwork, intangibles. Not "humanity."
Pillz Member	Fri Sep 28 19:44:03 I have waited years to switch to BSD. I guess now is the time.
Aeros Member	Fri Sep 28 21:09:33 When I go over a bridge, my concern is whether or not the persons who designed and built it knew what the fuck they were doing, not what their humanity is.
Pillz Member	Fri Sep 28 21:24:53 Which is why you should use BSD.
Pillz Member	Fri Sep 28 21:26:10 NetBSD or OpenBSD are the way to go, I'm told. Although FreeBSD has the widest support. Will probably install OpenBSD soon.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 28 22:40:18 Pillz Bridges collapse for lack of humanity. Design is almost always fine and implementation often inevitably sucks.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 28 22:42:36 http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/bridges/ For lack of humanity.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Sep 29 00:41:25 "Coraline has also been vocal about her stance against meritocracy." Someone kick that vapid cunt in her vapid cunt. Do not fuck with linux. Line in the fucking sand!
Sam Adams Member	Sat Sep 29 00:55:48 Ok after actually looking this up it all looks rather unimportant as the sjw cunt isnt involved much, or at all.
Paramount Member	Sat Sep 29 01:27:23 ”When I go over a bridge, my concern is whether or not the persons who designed and built it knew what the fuck they were doing, not what their humanity is.” Exactly. That is why Germans has no problems driving on the Autobahn today despite that they know it was Adolf Hitler who designed it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 29 03:59:52 Hood I am willing to bet, this is the aspie vs the neurotic band of the human condition. I also assume that merits can be (must be) proven in practice and not waving a fancy degree from a fancy school ;-)
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 08:39:42 Having just read two of this woman's essays on the bus, this is a really shitty summary of her position which is perfectly sound position based around business outcomes, not simply equality. It also misses the point that "meritocracy" as practiced doesn't really result in beneficial outcomes because what is assigned as below Ng of "merit" tends to be an absurdly narrow set of characteristics which don't correspond to high quality outcomes for projects as a whole. I'm not going to bother commenting beyond this, there's no point continuing a discussion built on wilful misrepresentation with people who have already reached the conclusions they want.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 29 09:06:35 So there is variation in the quality of systems of merit. Which is different than saying meritocracy is inhumane because it requires actual merits in the form of intelligence and knowledge. See, I can rescue whatever good points you make from the smoldering ruin that is your way of thinking, I don’t drink from the cool aid and not part of the counter jihad to your crusade. As a matter of principle, all systems must be reviewed, remember I was the quality systems guy, they have be made both internally and externally. There is always a non retarded way of expressing an idea.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 29 09:09:20 Feel free to post link to the source text you are talking about. Apart from this article I have not bothered reading anything about this.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 09:16:16 Nim: "Which is different than saying meritocracy is inhumane because it requires actual merits in the form of intelligence and knowledge." Ok take this by parts from your op. " But activists like Coraline believe that meritocracy is a negative system where the worth of an individual is measured not by their humanity, but solely by their intellectual output. " This wasn't written by Coraline. It's not quoting Coraline. It's not even unambiguously saying this is what the author believes Coraline's position to be. Having read a couple of her essays on meritocracy, all I can say is engaging with the OP is boxing a shadow of a man made of straw. I shall leave you to rage against your imagined foe. No. I won't do your work for you. You have Google, you have a name and a keyword. If you are going to bother having strident opinions on someone you should read tgeir position in their own words fucktard.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 09:36:41 Btw, you will definitely find criticisms of meritocracy as inhumane, but that doesn't have the same meaning you are ascribing to it as: "saying meritocracy is inhumane because it requires actual merits in the form of intelligence and knowledge." and the way the attribution was worded in the article should tell you that the author wasn't even pretending to offer a summary of her position.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Sep 29 10:22:07 Of course seb thinks its ok to bash meritocracy.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 10:26:27 Sam: Define what merit, in this context, actually means.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 11:01:40 Codes of conduct are about how contributors to a project behave towards each other. It's not about whose suggestions and work should get incorporated into the design. The criticism of meritocracy is of the idea that someone should be entitled to behave poorly towards someone because they are considered to contribute better code. To put it a way geeks might understand: is it ok for the jocks to bully the nerdy computer geek because he's not as good a football player? No. Put it another way, how many people would want to be treated by a hospital who hired and licensed someone with the behaviours of Dr. House, despite their intelligence and ability, if they existed? It would be as catastrophic as it eventually panned out in the show. The invocation of 'meritocracy' as a defence for how OS projects behave as a *community* is analogous to that. Objective measures of what is "merit" in this context are also fairly subjective in any case, so what you tend to do is end up indulging a very specific type of contributor who instills group think about what "good" looks like. The result of permitting abusive behaviour in an OS project from a "rock star" is that it drives out others. Which has consequences to OS as a system and doesn't necessarily result in a better product either. I am drawn back to the whole "advice given to a young PhD" story: "Everyone here is smart. Don't try and distinguishing yourself being smarter, try and build a reputation of being kinder".
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 11:04:11 It's frankly amazing how "Let's try and be reasonable and polite to each other" is interpreted to become "Oh my god, the quality of the code will be shit if Mike isn't allowed to verbally abuse people he thinks aren't as smart as him".
Aeros Member	Sat Sep 29 11:12:40 Linux is something that definitely does not need gender and racial equity programs. FFS, its an open source coding project that anyone on earth can contribute too. Sometimes even anonymously if they wish. The only requirement is that the code that is submitted to the Kernel developers is good code and useful. There is no barrier to entry for anyone. None.
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 11:14:33 B S D S D
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 11:52:00 Says Aeros, confidently, having never contributed to an OS project, as he argues strenuously against a thing that nobody else is discussing.
McKobb Member	Sat Sep 29 12:59:03 QQ
Forwyn Member	Sat Sep 29 13:06:29 "Let's try and be reasonable and polite to each other" And what the fuck does this have to do with racial and sexual representation in the community? Speaking of straw...
McKobb Member	Sat Sep 29 13:19:30 This whole thing sounds like saying its ok for girls to say they are part of the band when the are just fucking a band member. Let those with talent have their head and the rest should stay below the noise.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 13:29:18 Forwyn: We are talking about a code of conduct, not a recruitment quota. You do understand that right? The link, tangential, is that shitty behaviour on OS projects is strongly cited by people as cause for them leaving projects. It does not follow that having a code of conduct means that suddenly, there are enforced quotas for representation of minorities and forced acceptance of their pull requests. I'd love to hear how you think having an enforcible code of conduct leads to anything like that. McKobb: Yes. Obviously if there is a woman involved in a project they cannot meaningfully be contributing.
McKobb Member	Sat Sep 29 13:46:31 Maybe I should have put girls in quotes for you, seb. It's a simple allegory for those that ride coat-tails not specifically sex related.
Forwyn Member	Sat Sep 29 15:04:46 "We are talking about a code of conduct, not a recruitment quota. You do understand that right?" Who's we? The author of the Contributor Covenant makes her goals pretty clear: "But free, libre, and open source projects suffer from a startling lack of diversity, with dramatically low representation by women, people of color, and other marginalized populations. Part of this problem lies with the very structure of some projects: the use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names. Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance."
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 15:46:39 Idk if anyone here actually follows kernel drama, but Linus is the sort of guy who would fit in well on UP. Only even more heavy on expletives and personal insults. When I read he'd be taking a break, I figured it was related to his behavior. But Linus isn't going to change. I've no idea what convinced a man who goes on week long triades on the mailing list to enact a code of conduct, but I get the impression he's going to he kicked out of his own project. Anyways, BSD BSD BSD And also, why does fucking kernel development need equal representation??
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 16:01:56 "This whole thing sounds like saying its ok for girls to say they are part of the band when the are just fucking a band member." It kinda worked for Yoko.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 29 17:20:42 Forwyn: Yes, basically, let's stop behaving shitiliy. It's perfectly possible to discus the pros and cons of code contribution and feature prioritisation without any of those issues comming up if you are being remotely professional. To the extent these kinds of comments and discourse are occuring, they are clearly negative. As I said: "Let's try and be reasonable and polite to each other" Which you seem to now be mad about as a concept because it might mean fewer girls leave the OS community. You appear to be explicitly arguing that we should be rude, aggressive and insulting and drive such people away ... which is the opposite of "meritocratic". How is this even a subject of contention?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Sep 29 21:22:50 "Let's try and be reasonable and polite to each other" That is not what sjws want. They want special status.
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 21:51:57 But we also shouldn't have to be reasonable and polite to each other
jergul large member	Sun Sep 30 01:02:11 Pillz You should always be reasonable and polite if there is a power differential in your favour.
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 30 01:07:20 I hope you die in a whaling accident
Seb Member	Sun Sep 30 05:49:39 Sam: That's your claim. Let's stick to the facts of this case. The thing in question is a code of conduct that regulates how people contributing to the project interact. That's all. Pillz: Ok. Well who gives a fuck what you think dipshit.
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 30 06:22:22 Obviously you do, else you wouldn't be enforcing Nazi policies on speech and hiring
Seb Member	Sun Sep 30 06:25:54 Or maybe I'm.just being unreasonable and impolite to you. It's my right apparently.
Pillz Member	Sun Sep 30 06:29:55 Is this 2nd grade?
Seb Member	Sun Sep 30 06:38:26 More the in the playground, behind the bikesheds.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 01 10:20:15 Seb Are her real opinions about the topic, not summarized correctly in her tweet: ”I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs. Hahahah” Stop projecting bro, the Jessica Price thing showed I (and several other posters) will treat fairly even SJWs I detest from an ideological POV, she would still have a job if it was up to me. Your waaaa I won’t play because you guys are unfair and have made up your minds, don’t fly here. Clearly several posters here do a better job than you at being less subjective and biased.
hood Member	Mon Oct 01 10:39:04 But Nim, Price was just defending herself against an extremely aggressive fan.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 01 10:44:06 Nim: I think she's what we call "taking the piss". There is not going to be a mass exodus, unless people were spending there time on the project channels exchanging racist banter or something. If you are taking that as serious statement of intent you might want to talk to your doctor about ASD.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 01 10:45:13 Not really clear how you think this is connected to price. Sounds like conspiracy theory thinking to me.
Average European Member	Mon Oct 01 11:07:11 "BSD" I'm running BSoD.
McKobb Member	Mon Oct 01 14:00:30 Got minix?
Asgard Member	Mon Oct 01 14:26:05 Let's say a beautiful line of code is uploaded for review to get into Ubuntu. It will be rejected because the developer is white? or supposedly because he wasn't helped by a female? or his team is just made up of other white guys?
Seb Member	Mon Oct 01 15:23:21 Asgard: No.
Pillz Member	Mon Oct 01 16:18:13 But bad code will be admitted because it's by a transexual poc
Seb Member	Mon Oct 01 16:29:50 Pillz: No.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 03 06:26:59 >>I think she's what we call "taking the piss".<< Of course, of course, the issue is that you would have refered to as ”creating a hostile (work/collaborative) environment”, had the genders been the reverse. Say a google engineer posted scientific research and commented on it. On standard based on principles. The connection to Price is to your whinging that we (me) have decided before hand and will judge her based on ideological differences and not principles. I and Jessica Price have ideological differences, I judged her by the same principle I would afford everyone else. So you prediction about my behavior is false as evident from the Jessica Price threads. Taking the piss and how appropriate it is, with you, comes down to gender. If women do it, say celebrate the death of people on their twitter tagged with their company name, it is ok. Or blasting a customer/partner on twitter, that is also Ok. Jessica pric did both those things. I forgave her and her employeer should have warned her, not fire. But if a man posts an internal memo (that someone else leaks) commenting on behavioral research in relation to the companies equality policies, that is not OK, because scientifically illiterate people may make the wrong conclusions and inferences. You have different standards for men and women and the douchebaggery they may engage in. Taking the piss vs creating a hostile environment. Maybe interacting with an ideolog like you on these topics has kept me more honest, like in the case of Jessica Price, maybe it served to temper my reaction, but atleast I have that quality. Anyway thanks I guess, your failure made me a better person most likely.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 03 09:31:28 >>But Nim, Price was just defending herself against an extremely aggressive fan.<< He was ”out of control” even in agreeing with her it was a passive aggressive way to dismiss her ”very interesting and enlightening, but I slightly disagree” (you stupid cunt)-is what some people heard. And to them it was very obvious, despite him adoring her in other videos. This is all very important for communication. Consider what Ezra Klein the chief editor of vox said ”kill all men” means defending Sarah Jeong of NY Times. Apparently in some circles all this means is ”it would be nice if the world sucked less for women”. Cool. But this doesn’t just ”work” one way, presumably the title ”possible non bias reasons for gender differences”, which was the heading of that section in the google memo, means that ”women are stupid and not fit for tech”, in the same circles. This butchering of the english language for the sake of click bait, it is an obstacle for communicating with precision and clarity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 03 09:47:24 Kill all jews. All that means is, wouldn’t it be nice of Palestinians had their own country. Kill all niggers means, wouldn’t it be great if black people commited less crime. Let’s do it again! This is taking the piss: ”I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs. Hahahah” This is creating a hostile environment: Possible non bias reasons for gender differences -Research paper -Research paper -Research paper
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 03 10:00:09 But I decided to NOT figure linuxgate out, at all. Sadly, seb is my barometer for equality issues. If he supports it, then only 10% max. is likely something I will agree with. Which Hood pointed out early and I can only agree with. Generically all systems must be questioned and reviewed constantly. This work is best done without people interested in taking the piss out of others. It is not professional, nor good for business or the working climate.
Asgard Member	Wed Oct 03 15:40:23 Listening to Sam Harris about the origins and causes of SJW-ism is amazing. What a fucked up generation...
Seb Member	Wed Oct 03 16:22:55 Nim: Which individual or group of individuals are being singled out in her tweet? Hostile environment is a long established piece of employment law. What she tweeted does not fall into that at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_work_environment Didn't read beyond that part as the proposition started off as so fundamentally silly, or so obviously an accusation of personal bad faith without foundation, as to convince me I would be wasting my time to read further.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 04 03:01:59 ”which...group” Everyone that isn’t on her boat. My proposition has nothing to do with the law, but for the record you are saying commenting certain science results relevant to the workplace issue, is against the law, even that it should be. Ok then.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 10:40:52 If we aren't accepting that open source projects are similar to a (casually defined) work environment, why the fuck would we entertain the idea of a code of conduct? Creating a hostile work environment isn't just a fucking law and boiling your argument down to "well this one thing is a law for companies and this other thing is just a set of guidelines for rando fucks" is incredibly fucking disingenuous. You're literally arguing that one group of people shouldn't be bothered by the fact that there's now documentation saying that you should play nice, but simultaneously dismissing another group that actively isn't playing nice, as demonstrated by the tweet. Please reconcile this hypocrisy. Should we be playing nice together (accepting codes of conduct, not "taking the piss" at others' expense), or does playing nice not matter (take all the piss you want, don't bother with a code of conduct)?
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 12:15:47 Nim: Where exactly does she say that? And could it not be the reverse: a sarcastic comment (there will be no such exodus, proving it's a storm in a teacup). No, in short, this falls way below the threshold for hostile working environment. Re Damore, it wasnt the "results" (though he largely quoted in accurate second hand sources). It was the conclusions he drew and policies he proposed. As you know as we discussed it at the time. I don't know why you still go around conflating these. It makes you look stupid and dishonest. Hood: Your post is incoherent. Your first question and subsequent paragraph seem to me that you are under the impression my point rests on whether open source projects constitute a workplace. This is not the case. Indeed in many jurisdictions that wouldn't necesarily work legally anyway. I never suggested the reason that the post doesn't constitute "hostile working environment" because open source isn't employment. You imagined that. I'm saying even if she wrote this in an employment context, it still wouldn't leave the employer open to hostile working environment claims, because it's not singling out a specific individual or a protected class. Nim seems to think there's an identifiable group "people who are strenuously opposed to those who promote equality", but such peoole themselves, were they easily identifiable would only be so by, well, strenuously opposing equality and quite likely be themselves specifically doing things like arguing minorities were generally less capable (as Damore did) or some such and themselves creating a hostile working environment. Such is the problem of being an identity that self defines entirely in terms of what it is opposed to.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Thu Oct 04 12:24:12 I've never understood why someone is allowed to be abusive to their coworkers. Sure, the guy might be one hell of a coder, but how many people where driven away by his antics that might have been as good or better?
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 12:25:46 You're fucking stupid. Just about every stupid fuck on the planet can understand the concept between colloquial "hostile work environment" and legal "hostile work environment." Every stupid fuck except you. Once you're able to get that crutch out of your argumentative asshole, loosen up a bit, and figure out what Nim is saying... oh who am I kidding? It won't happen. You're retarded. English isn't as hard as you make it. Nobody is talking about law except you. Fuck off and die. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 12:41:05 Cthulhu: That's what the activists mean by meritocracy: cobfusing the *worth* of individuals with their utility. If you think of coding productivity (I.e. Utility) as merit, then you can slip into thinking things like: well Bob is really being quite abusive to bill, but Bob is a better coder, and Bobs solution is better, so we will overlook/tolerate Bob's behaviour because he's better and so more important. As you say, there's an opportunity cost to that too.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 12:45:51 Hood: What on earth are you on about? Nim is saying I'm being hypocritical because I described Damore as creating a hostile working environment forcing his employer to fire him. That *is* legal hostile working place. This tweet isn't that. Not because it's not formally a working place, but literally because it doesn't meet the legal definition, like Damore's. And if you are arguing in this case it's "not legally but colloquially creating a hostile working place", great, but I wasn't being colloquial with Damore, so there's no hypocrisy. Now kindly fuck off you confused, belligerent pillock.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 13:05:24 So it turns out the only person that can't separately coloquial expressions from legal definition is hood who, erroneously, thought we were referring to the former at any point. Who is clearly thinker than "UST about any stupid fuck on the planet" by his own definition.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 14:26:27 "I wasn't being colloquial with Damore, so there's no hypocrisy." Nim brought it up. It's pretty clear he's using the term colloquially, not legally. You are not able to understand this. You are retarded. Die already.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 15:27:22 Hood: Yes. Nim brought "hostile workplace" up. Let's look at how Nim brought it up you fool: "Of course, of course, the issue is that you would have refered to as ”creating a hostile (work/collaborative) environment”, had the genders been the reverse. Say a google engineer posted scientific research and commented on it." He brought it up by directly referencing *my* use of the term in the case of Damore. The fact you didn't recognize it as such is just another example of why you should stop trolling around and commenting on things you don't understand. Pillock.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 15:32:15 You are so egotistically thick. Absolutely useless human.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 15:58:46 Hood: Do us all a favour and save your mouth for breathing.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 16:16:04 Wow. Seb actually had a slightly clever retort. I didn't think britains had it in them to be anything but drab and hypnotically monotone. Sadly, this Brit is still enormously retarded.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 16:46:26 Britons. You should know. Knowing. Words. And. All. Christ Hood, every single post has an error.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 16:58:32 Aside from being historically right and easily understandable, I'll just leave this here: "Who is clearly thinker than "UST about any stupid fuck on the planet" by his own definition." ^ unintelligible nonsense.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 17:11:21 "Thicker than just about". Yes, though Hood, I'm not the one that goes around picking up on every autocorrect fail and making it a lynch pin of my argument that "I. Know. Word.s" and then fucks up myself with a howler like that. It makes you look a fundamentally ridiculous figure. Well, it's one of the many facets that make you look a fundamentally ridiculous figure.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 17:16:19 Your typos and "autocorrect fail"s have nothing to do with my argument that you don't know what words mean. That you believe this is exactly my point about how you fundamentally do not understand what other people say to you. It's also pretty funny that a brit doesn't recognize that britain is an accurate (albeit antiquated) noun describing inhabitants of the UK. Also, autocorrect fail? It's gonna take more than autocorrect to explain that nonsensical fucknuttery you call a sentence.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 17:58:12 Hood: Really? Cite a source? It would be odd given Briton derives from Latin Britton and French Bretton - both referring to the people, and the name of the island is from old French Bretaigne - and the word endings have different grammatical meanings so are unlikely to be used in the way you suggest. As for "knows words", you just engaged in an entirely sterile argument entirely based on your inability to parse a simple paragraph of Nims. Which is entirely par the course for you. Your reading comprehension is attrocious.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 04 18:02:46 Latin > old French > English Britton / Britanni (A Britton, the Brittons) > Bretton(S) > Briton(s) Britannia (the land of the Brittons) > Bretaigne > Britain But do give some examples of this archaic use... love a good bit of etymology.
hood Member	Thu Oct 04 19:58:47 "your inability to parse a simple paragraph of Nims." When nim comes in here and tells you that you're wrong, will you promise to end your miserable life?
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 02:22:17 Hood: Nim may well do that anyway because he's Nim, admits he's motivated by personal animosity, and has a track record of dishonesty. His para was unambiguous. Hes referring to what I would do, based on a specific time I did it, and the only times I have used that term is in the legal sense. And you are a fool.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 03:01:55 Hood is correct and it was abundatly clear to anyone that read all my posts to the end, even so after seb explained he didn’t read most of it I clarified explicitly. Nimatzo iChihuaha Thu Oct 04 03:01:59 ”which...group” Everyone that isn’t on her boat. My proposition has nothing to do with the law, but for the record you are saying commenting certain science results relevant to the workplace issue, is against the law, even that it should be. Which seb responded to, so stupid or charlatan.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 03:17:38 Imagine that such a simple thing, explained twice can derail a mind schooled at one of the best institutes of higher learning in the world. Weasel seb, a year ago your problem with the memo was the ”controvertial science”, now it is the the policies he proposed. We can digg up the threads to show your shift of the goal posts. But I can do with it, so you are saying it should be illegal to propose changes and internally discuss company policy? You are a fucking retard.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 03:58:40 So this tangential discussion is irrelevant, because the claim is not contingent on any specific law. It is the behavior of, in this case seb. The legal angel may come as a consequence, but the end result is to remove that person from their job or position, deplatform/cancel their talks etc. because you dislike their opinion or specific behavior. The claim is that seb predictably will favor women in most if not all cases of public "she versus he" situations . You will predictably excuse and mitigate bad behavior when women do it, you will predictably bend over backwards to find/defend an angle be it legal or not to punish the man. This is genetic. We are "programmed" to care for women over men, it also makes sense mechanically, we know they are the physically weaker sex and more easily victimized (not more often). Unfortunately this instinct, does not scale with the modern social network and #shitstorms or with verbal aggression on the internet. Some of us understand that and can control our instincts better. This is also genetic. Seb You were made genetically unreliable on certain issues. The good news is, this isn't your fault and you can become better.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 07:06:16 Nim: Oh. So you weren't suggesting I would accuse a man who said the same thing of being "legally" creating a hostile environment but instead mean it "colloquially". In that case the answer is simple. You are wrong. I have only used that term to precisely mean the legal concept. I have never used it in any colloquiall sense and it is absurd to suggest otherwise.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 07:09:43 And Nim, yes, my challenge to you "which group" is because I do not believe the tweet in question could possibly constitute a hostile workplace scenario in a legal sense, and if not in a legal sense I wouldn't overload the terminology by watering it down with some loose colloquial definition (as hood terms it) which your now claim to assert (without any basis to think so whatsoever) that I would.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 07:13:40 Do dig up the threads Nim. You will see my issues with Damore covered a number of points. Not only is his use of science flawed, selective and often misinterpreted; the moment he started talking about current and future Google employees he created a situation where Google would be potentially liable for hostile workplace claims, and his sacking was inevitable. But hey, go dig up those threads and we can discuss them again until you either run away or sit there openly spouting nonsense and engaging in transparent straw man arguments which you will admit to - as was the case with the git hub thread.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 07:15:48 (Also totally called it - as predicted you popped up and endorsed hoods bizarre claim that this: "Of course, of course, the issue is that you would have refered to as ”creating a hostile (work/collaborative) environment”, had the genders been the reverse. Say a google engineer posted scientific research and commented on it." Wasn't a reference to my comments on Damore. What a joke you are.
hood Member	Fri Oct 05 07:52:49 Seb is so depressing ridiculous. Apparently he cannot imagine someone having the effect of creating a situation, between people who are in proximity and have to regularly interact in the effort of achieving a common goal, wherein one or more parties become uncomfortable -without that situation being legally prohibited-? Or, more importantly, he cannot fathom the concept of creating an uncomfortable situation between people who are in proximity and regularly interact in the effort of achieving a common goal being colloquially shortened to an easily understood phrase like "creating a hostile work environment" without it specifically relating to law. Furthermore, he apparently cannot fathom someone citing an opinion on one instance of something happening without necessarily including every single detail pertinent to that previous case, even if parts of that previous case are unrelated. Yes, apparently one cannot talk about Damore without invoking the legal (not colloquial) concept of creating a hostile work environment. Yes, Seb, it was clearly a reference to your comments on Damore. Nims point is that you would have been opposed to Damore's actions regardless of legality or his employment status. You would have been against Damore's comments even if he were just a random non-employee fucknut commenting on Google's policies. You recognize that Damore's comments indeed incited discord within a group of "people who are in proximity and have to regularly interact in the effort of achieving a common goal" (see how much easier it is to just say "hostile work environment"?). Yet in this instance, you deny any attempt to incite discord within a group of "people who are in proximity and have to regularly interact in the effort of achieving a common goal" simply because "oh it must be a joke." Cause jokes never cause harm, right? "Also totally called it" I will accept this as you admitting that you are wrong and cannot understand the communication you receive from other people, despite your dishonest attempt to spin it as some sort of conspiracy against you. Just nut up, buttercup. You were wrong. You have a concerning and consistent difficulty interpreting the communication of others. Normal people would recognize and rectify this. Egotistical britards, though? They just can't seem to recognize that the world has changed and they no longer stand above others. Your empire had crumbled long ago. It's about time y'all let go of the haughty ego that came with it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 09:54:51 >>Oh. So you weren't suggesting I would accuse a man who said the same thing of being "legally" creating a hostile environment but instead mean it "colloquially".<< I have noted that civilized behavior in a collaborative environment is not obvious for everyone unless mandated by law specifically. The question is, how will a code of conduct solve the issue that people like you and the crazy SJW have? So there is the concept of someone creating a "hostile work environment" that the law is built on top of. At some future date this may include what we are talking about, or not. We are examining the concept and core principle. >>And Nim, yes, my challenge to you "which group" is because I do not believe the tweet in question could possibly constitute a hostile workplace scenario in a legal sense<< Right, but I and anyone with a brain can see that this proposal for a code of conduct has likely been met with resistance and internal discussions. Some people are against and have voiced their concerns, many of them likely in a civil and professional manner. Those people, they are not an ethnic group, they have no group specific gender or skin color, but in this situation that are a specific and distinct group. You may have issues here as well, since this "group" have no legal status. Again the Jessica Price thing, there were no judicial questions there I think everyone agreed, it was professional behavior towards clients and partners. The line of arguments is not based on specific laws, as explained. >>Do dig up the threads Nim.<< Do read entire posts, before answering, I told we don't need to. You can disagree with everything he wrote in the memo I don't really care, it is when you say, discussing research and drawing conclusions is something one should get fired for, that you turn out to be an idiot. You are welcome to point out the specific solutions he mentioned you find problematic. I will post them below and you point out which one made you go ballistic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 10:06:51 http://web...s-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them: -Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). -Women on average are more cooperative Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. -Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. -Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech. -The male gender role is currently inflexible Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles. Or if I missed some atrocious proposal he makes, please point them out, but all his proposals are in this section. My personal favorite? Is this, "If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles." It made me go ballistic, but I am a tolerant person and accept differing views.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 10:21:44 Reduce stress, make work more collaborative, allow for more part time work, society should accept "feminine" men and broaden the criteria for what is "manly". He read all those science reports from Evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and as expected his solutions the problems were indistinguishable from the Nazis. You are not going to digg yourself out of the google memo hole. I have told you several times, your opinion or anyone else on the research, is irrelevant to my point, my point assumes we live in a world where discussing research in relationship to work, is legal, regardless of how it makes other feel or the conclusions scientifically illiterate people may draw. This is the reason Google gave: "advancing harmful gender stereotypes" which was done, by citing research about average group level differences. You would excuse scientific illiterates, but not Sundar Pichai or Seb, who on paper at least should know better. You can't point to group level differences (gender gap in tech) and then get angry when people provide answers in the form of studies about group level differences.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 10:47:30 You have put a lot of hope in the court case. The fact of the matter is, google cited their code of conduct. You can be fired from a Nazi company for expressing views about Jews not reconcilable with their code of conduct. Companies in the US have leeway to dismiss people, they do in Sweden as well. The legality of his firing, is again not an issue I am interested in, since the reasons (as per google "advancing harmful gender stereotypes") are beyond what the law prohibits yet within Googles right, hopefully for Google. Jessica Price was also fired for breaking company policy (CoC). You disagreed with that vehemently, fuck the guy you said. Companies should be able to fire you for breaking their code of conduct. The question here is, is citing and discussing research "the advancement of harmful gender stereotypes"? Seb thinks so, but only if the research goes against his ideological bias. Because no one would have batted an eye if the research cited was about women going better at written and verbal tests. The fact that google (and every company) have a "way out" and can fire people who for whatever reason and that you support it because of your bias and then not supporting it in the case of JP because you are biased, doesn't deal with the fact that you are biased!
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 11:15:06 Hood: ". Apparently he cannot imagine someone having the effect of creating a situation, between people who are in proximity and have to regularly interact in the effort of achieving a common goal, wherein one or more parties become uncomfortable -without that situation being legally prohibited-" I can imagine it, and nothing I have said should suggest to you otherwise if you have a firm grasp of the English language - which you clearly do not. What I dispute is, contrary to Nims suggestion, that I would think that the Tweet in question creates this situation. Generally, the threshold I would apply would be about the same as a court or employment tribunal would apply irrespective of whether a claim could be brought before them or not. Given Nim is specifically talking about the thresholds he think *I* would apply if the tweeter was a man, it's not really a matter of opinion as to whether and what thresholds others would apply. This isn't a difficult concept.
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 11:17:16 Nim: "I have noted that civilized behavior in a collaborative environment is not obvious for everyone unless mandated by law specifically. The question is, how will a code of conduct solve the issue that people like you and the crazy SJW have?" I'm sorry, you have put this after a section of my post which you have specifically quoted. But this does not address that point at all. Simple Yes/No question: when you wrote the following paragraph, were you making a reference to my position re Damore? "Of course, of course, the issue is that you would have refered to as ”creating a hostile (work/collaborative) environment”, had the genders been the reverse. Say a google engineer posted scientific research and commented on it."
Seb Member	Fri Oct 05 11:34:17 Nim: "but in this situation that are a specific and distinct group." No. Because that is not a protected characteristic. You couldn't reasonably claim to be creating a hostile workplace by saying "star wars sucks, and people who like it have poor taste", because star wars fandom isn't an identifiable characteristic like race, ethnicity, religion or gender. I can't believe we need to go into these kinds of basics. Plus, in this case, the people that would be identified as "objecters" are people that are, um, objecting to what is now the groups policy. So it's not just her tweet apparently, the policy itself would be "creating a hostile workplace" for those who object to the policy. Which could be true of objectors to any kind of corporate policy. No Nim, your idea is completely absurd and obviously so - and it is only be an extraordinary effort of good faith that I bother to reply.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 05 12:25:58 I suggest reading the entire posts before responding. But I will play, if star wars is relevant the way collaborators (whome you are happy are leaving) in an open source community are to a work environment, then yes. Maybe if you are working at Disney on Star Wars, expressing negative views about Star wars, would create a hostile work environment. Obviously very noche and context contingent, unlike ”collaborators”. Your example not mine. You don’t get it anything that is being said, do you? Wow.
Seb Member	Sat Oct 06 07:43:51 Nim: Why not first answer the question: were you referencing my opinion of Damore or not with the quote I referred to above? You've said Hood was correct and you were not. Until we've sorted that out, it's probably not worth proceeding to new points.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 06 08:38:13 I think I am good with one 100 post thread where you spend the entire thread saying how you are not willing to take seriously, read past a point and not spend more time on a discussion. Good riddance friend.
	show deleted posts