Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over CoC, Outreach Program

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
    How so?

    FOSS communities have been using written guidelines for ages, some way more controversial than common sense rules of respectful behavior, e.g. coding style rules.

    Cheers,
    _
    Rules give power to those that previously did not have it. They get abused. Society's rules do not need to be written down to exist. It's called human nature and the social contract. Formalizing rules only gets them wrong especially when they don't adapt to change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post

      Thought so.

      I sincerely hope you are never my neighbour and you never live and work in the same community as me. Just like this LLVM contributor, I will choose to peacefully not associate with people I strongly disagree with... namely thieves, socialists and commies.

      I also sincerely hope that some unsuspecting soul does not suffer the misfortune of accidentally employing you or others like you. I expect you take care not to mention your communist inclinations during interviews though, as you know that would mean you would not get the job. So you enter the work place by cover of darkness. You eye another man's stuff and decide that it's all fair game to take it if you can get enough people to side with you.
      You keep saying these things, equating proponents of philosophical ideas with thieves. Yet no one is advocating for stealing things from others, just pointing out how laws get abused.

      The more you say these things the more I question whether or not it is you who wishes to do the stealing -- perhaps you don't trust yourself? Religion exists for people like you. Don't codify it with governmental laws, or you will eventually get Fascism.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fuzz View Post

        You keep saying these things, equating proponents of philosophical ideas with thieves. Yet no one is advocating for stealing things from others, just pointing out how laws get abused.
        A thief is someone who takes another persons property without consent.

        GI_Jack is absolutely advocating for theft and the fact you are claiming otherwise having read my post and his tells me all I need to know about you.

        I said:
        So if I decide to build up a business where by I save up for and buy my own building, machinery, computers and a fleet of vehicles and I then decide to make a purely voluntary arrangement with other adults to pay them money in exchange for their labour... the socialists are going to be completely fine with that? The socialists aren't going to demand that I hand over control of my private property (the means of production) to the "workers"?
        GI_Jack directly responds:
        I am arguing that its not your property and your ownership claim is entirely invalid. Its based on the fact you aren't the one who actually did any of the building, its just you moved some pieces of paper around and the people who actually program the computers, work the factory lines, drive the trucks, etc.. have a stronger claim than you and "well I paid for it".
        (both posts cropped and emphasis added)

        There's nothing philosophical about his claims. All he's doing is saying that he doesn't agree it's my property and therefore it isn't theft. I can do exactly the same: I can say to a man I meet on the street: your wallet isn't your property and therefore when I take it from you it isn't theft.

        There are areas where assigning property rights to a person can be complicated, but neither the purchase-of or construction of a building and some machinery is one of those situations. If 2 people agree to an exchange of their property, then in almost all cases, both parties are better off than before the exchange. So if 1 person hands over money/silver/chickens and the other errects walls using bricks, then the brick layer and the purchaser of those laid bricks are better off than before they exchanged their property/labour. This is simple, elementary stuff.

        This current discussion between myself and GI_Jack is nothing to do with abuse of laws. This is GI_Jack (an apparent socialist/communist), openly stating how he can justify taking another man's property. These kind of people need to be called out where ever they are found. If they don't willingly change their mind then the best way to deal with them is by decisive disassociation and in the unfortunate circumstance where one or more of them try to steal from you, then you may have to fall back on physical self-defence of your persons and property.

        On that note: I am ending my part of this discussion with the pair of you. You're not worth another second of my time.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by fuzz View Post
          Rules give power to those that previously did not have it.
          Not necessarily.

          They can also restrict power that existed by making the rules clear under which they can be exercised.

          For example project administrators already had the power to restrict or revoke access, rules can make it easier to control that these powers are not abused.

          Or take app store review processes: the app store curators can already reject apps, rules make it more controllable why something gets rejected.

          Hence why projects already having rules, guidelines, policies.

          Most FOSS projects have code guidelines, or licencing policies, or library compatibility commitments.
          All rules, but giving power to reject or remove things, but also making clear what the project's goals are.

          Originally posted by fuzz View Post
          Society's rules do not need to be written down to exist. It's called human nature and the social contract.
          That's a very anarchistic way of looking at society.
          There are reasons why we have laws and their enforcement.

          Cheers,
          _

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
            A thief is someone who takes another persons property without consent.

            GI_Jack is absolutely advocating for theft and the fact you are claiming otherwise having read my post and his tells me all I need to know about you.
            A thief is one who steals. The definition of stealing is to take something without the right to do so. We are debating the right of property, which you seem to think (illogically) is something set into stone according to your own world views. In fact, it's highly subjective.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
              They can also restrict power that existed by making the rules clear under which they can be exercised.
              On the contrary, the enforcers of said rules have ultimate power over those that obey them. You are only considering the subjugated.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post

                Thought so.

                I sincerely hope you are never my neighbour and you never live and work in the same community as me. Just like this LLVM contributor, I will choose to peacefully not associate with people I strongly disagree with... namely thieves, socialists and commies.
                Have fun. Lets be perfectly honest here. I'm not gonna miss you. Despite the recent political drama, I still maintain friends on all places of the political spectrum.

                Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
                I also sincerely hope that some unsuspecting soul does not suffer the misfortune of accidentally employing you or others like you. I expect you take care not to mention your communist inclinations during interviews though, as you know that would mean you would not get the job. So you enter the work place by cover of darkness. You eye another man's stuff and decide that it's all fair game to take it if you can get enough people to side with you.
                Likewise, I'll try getting nutcases like you fired from your place of employment as well. Its funny, if I couldn't find a job due to my political leanings, that as you've guessed I don't really bring to work, you'd call it just deserts and my being w worthless socialist. However the instant shitbags like you and James Damore get fired, its some goddamn conspiracy against you. Why would a corporation fire someone who believes in them so much? I dunno, unlike myself who does in fact keep his mouth shut in the hiring process and actually does his job, you're likely to keep yammering on like an idiot and cause a PR disaster that no one wants.

                edit: I also have no issue finding work. I am a top tier UNIX/Linux operator. My skills, not my political opinions speak for themselves. So cry harder.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by fuzz View Post
                  On the contrary, the enforcers of said rules have ultimate power over those that obey them. You are only considering the subjugated.
                  The enforcers have the power whether the rules are written down or not.

                  But written rules make it possible to control that use of power.

                  Cheers,
                  _

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by anda_skoa View Post
                    The enforcers have the power whether the rules are written down or not.

                    But written rules make it possible to control that use of power.

                    Cheers,
                    _
                    Very true about the enforcers of power; however, one could argue that once rules are in place the populace gets manipulated into thinking the enforcers should always be the ones enforcing rules -- ignoring that rules don't adjust to change well. The enforcers enforce the rules, why would they want them to change? If you say benevolent rulers will allow the rules (and thus the ruling class) to change, you suddenly don't really need enforcers. It's a circular argument and doesn't solve anything

                    This is where I tend to agree with Karl Marx the most (Capitalism vs Proletariat) but the identification of the pattern doesn't do us anything; which is why I think the problem is likely systemic within modern western society. This is where post-modernism and the criticism of structuralism is most promising but also incredibly misunderstood. Our societies seem to have an inherent desire for fragmentation.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X