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

[GI_Jack]

For someone so educated you fail to see whats right in front of you. You can't change humanity.. and if you try the force and the guns will come out and you'll have a system that is pretty much hell on earth. All the pretty words describing ideas won't change that.

Brilliant comeback, which again, is more projection. Is that like the 1870s when police where hired to put down strikes, and owners hired mercenary armies to shoot striking workers?

We are what we are. I think Ayn Rand had some very good ideas about who we are and how we can use our faults to best serve humanity. And if you want history, look at hers as she had seen all this first hand. On the same page.. go look at Karl Marx's employment history if you want a laugh.

You want a real laugh, look at Ayn Rand's employment history. Rand was a hack writer. Marx, for better or for worse was actually a political analyst. He was the Nate Silver of the 1840s. Anyways, we were discussing "Anarchism" which is explicitly Not marxist as Baukin walked out of the first communist international after getting into it with Marx.

Oh, did I mention Ayn Rand was a terrible hack writer?

[muncrief]

"After Atlas shrugged, he cried."
SearingTruth

[k1e0x]

Brilliant comeback, which again, is more projection. Is that like the 1870s when police where hired to put down strikes, and owners hired mercenary armies to shoot striking workers?



You want a real laugh, look at Ayn Rand's employment history. Rand was a hack writer. Marx, for better or for worse was actually a political analyst. He was the Nate Silver of the 1840s. Anyways, we were discussing "Anarchism" which is explicitly Not marxist as Baukin walked out of the first communist international after getting into it with Marx.

Oh, did I mention Ayn Rand was a terrible hack writer?

He was a bitter man. Angry others were doing what he could not. The Cubans called the communists Los resentidos "the resentful ones" .. As capitalism grows and prospers some people are left behind. Their explanation for this isn't an inward view on their own failure, they don't focus on how to become successful.. they say to themselves "people stole it from me, the system made me fail". They are angry.. "the resentful ones", this is why they kill.

I'm not a big objectivist tho I do believe there are some lessons there.. but lets talk about Rand for a moment.

Her real name was Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum and she was born in St. Petersburg in 1905 making her ~12 years old at the start of the Russian revolution. her father had the unfortunate misery to be a small business owner who owned a pharmacy. He was very proud of his business. Alisa helped out with the family business and worked there as well, she was in the store the day Lenin decided to "loot the looters". Her fathers business was taken from him (violently ransacked) by the communists. She said the look on her fathers face that day of hopelessness she would carry with her for the rest of her life. And then her family walked.... yes, walked... ~1300 miles across war torn Russia to Crimea to attempt to escape the communists. You must assume there is a reason for this as people don't tend to walk across continents to escape paradise. It's a wonder they survived, many did not. To fathom the starvation and rape and.. whew.. not a good time. The attempt to escape failed however with the fall of the Ukraine and the white army. During the war she lived in a small damp, unheated house in a town that changed sides 4 or 5 times, literally a battlefield. During the war she worked to teach the illiterate soldiers to read and write. Years later she returned to St. Petersburg and attended collage at the age of 16. At this time there were still uncorrupted German professors teaching in Russia. Alisa learned to write philosophy in the classical Russian style of fiction as political works were often banned in Russia. (that is why her books are done the way they are) The Communists eventually purged the middle class from the universities.. This caused her parents to worry about her ability to survive the changes coming in Russia.. and at the age of 20 Alisa said goodbye to her parents forever and escaped to the United States. I can't even imagine what that would be like.

You see... Atlas Shrugged is really a story about her father whom she was very close to. It's also a story about communism from someone that knows far more about it.. really knows, than Marx.. as in she lived it, she didn't have to theorize about it. The work takes on a little different light when you know her history. So is it good? Umm Yeah, I thought so.. other people did too. Do I think objectivism is exactly right? No. But I do like the aspect of thinking of our faults as people such as greed and selfishness as a potential boon to society. It makes sense. People are motivated by this. A preacher devotes his live to the church for his personal wish of obtaining morality. A man donates to charity because he wants to feel good about himself. A person will mentor a student because they internally want to pass on their own knowledge, it's about what they want not the student. These are selfish actions that have the byproduct of helping others and it is part of our nature. It's not something that should be eradicated if that were even possible to do. Taken to excess they are bad, but that can be said about anything. So in that light objectivism has a valuable lesson.

But enough about Rand. It's something I mentioned but I don't have enough skin in that fight. She is however a strong female hero.. more people should know her story but.. her story has the wrong politics for today I guess. Anyhow..

I think that the world and how we evolve on a philosophical level happens very slowly.. I don't think we have quite figured out what to do yet with the fall of the Monarchies. Democracies have eventually turned into Corporate Fascism. There is nothing more dangerous than combining money and power, IE: business and government. Communism is stagnant at best.. it can't work unless we can change our nature and remove traits we've had since the stone age. Perhaps.. just maybe the problem comes down to people controlling others. A state at all. And where as we have evolved in some areas, for instance we believe slavery is wrong.. we still have a bit left to go till we can say using force on others is also wrong.

The truth is neither of us will be around for that change.. it might be 100 years, it might be 1000.. but that doesn't stop us from knowing the right answer today. We don't have to have everything figured out in advance. For instance if we were in the 1800's we don't have to know how an end to slavery will affect everything.. we just have to know it's wrong. Once we accept that as a people that we can go from there. Force *is* wrong.

[GI_Jack]

He was a bitter man. Angry others were doing what he could not.

Where have I heard this before. I did not get this at all from reading marx. Sounds like gross projection. Speaking of angry bitter men, there are no shortage in the ancap scene.

The Cubans called the communists Los resentidos "the resentful ones" .. As capitalism grows and prospers some people are left behind. Their explanation for this isn't an inward view on their own failure, they don't focus on how to become successful.. they say to themselves "people stole it from me, the system made me fail". They are angry.. "the resentful ones", this is why they kill.

Yes you are the victim here. Lol no.

I'm not a big objectivist tho I do believe there are some lessons there.. but lets talk about Rand for a moment.

Some shit about rand and Russia.

Nowhere ever did I bring up, mention, or defend the USSR, or communism. You just brought that up as a broad defense of Anarcho-Capitalism. Sure, Rand knew the horrors of the USSR, but she seemed to ignore the putrid trash filled streets of American cities in the late 1800s, workers paid in company scrip. Private armies of mercenaries

You are also missing that oppressed workers are somehow jealous assholes, while oppressed capitalists are rightful in their rage.

[mastermind]

Check this out: "The dark side of women tech groups"

[mastermind]

The term "Libertarian", like "Anarchist" was first used to describe socialist movements, and outside the US, it exclusively is. You are sorely lacking on your history. You can make the except same term about "Capitalism". In fact, almost every term and argument used by libertarians and an-caps was first used by AnComms and Socialists to describe their ideal society and why they dislike capitalism about 100 years prior.

In fact, all the terms I hear being used to describe "capitalism" in this thread is purely Socialist rhetoric with "Socialism" and "Capitalism" reversed as far as terms. Nothing more. You want a stateless society that exists with Free individuals voluntarily co-operating? That is how socialism described itself, and before the "libertarian" capitalist came along as a concern troll. You then define everything you don't like as socialist somehow.

Bullshit. Lysander Spooner lived in the 1800s and he was no commie, to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

[mastermind]

You couldn't be more wrong.

He is questioning the very idea of property in the first place. To assume that property exists is a logically fallacy in itself. From this foundation the evils of mankind grow.

WRONG. The idea of property is what allows to minimize conflict between people. No one person can physically stand on the same patch of land at the same moment etc.
The moment you start to question the idea of property, you breed conflict. And by the way the muddier the water the better it is for the parasites of society (politicians).

Which is why truly open source software (GPL) is so important -- the one right we ought to have is the right to do what we want with our software without limiting the rights of others (so you can't limit the rights of others to do what they want with it).

WRONG. GPL uses coercive powers of the state to COMPEL people (contributors) to behave in a certain way. The irony that escapes GPL proponents is that they legitimize and reinforce the tool that enables the fiction of "intellectual" "property" to exist, which they supposedly oppose.

[mastermind]

I am sorry, that you dont see the ideas behind coc.
Also in the academic world, if two candidates are for example of similar competence, the female has the priority. And it is good like this, to recover the inbalance.

Are you concerned with the gender "imbalance" in the coal mining or brick laying industry as well?
Why is this "recovering the imbalance" a goal at all? What is it good for? Should we cut the tall people's legs to "recover the imbalance" too?

Men and women naturally tend to like doing different things. In places where leftists pushed their "equality" policies to the extreme (Scandinavia) men still tend to prefer working with things (engineering etc.) and women prefer to work with kids etc. There are actually studies about this done by leftist (!) academics. No matter how much they indulge in wasting our time with their nonsensical non-goals of "recovering the balance" they can't alter the nature of human beings.

[fuzz]

WRONG. GPL uses coercive powers of the state to COMPEL people (contributors) to behave in a certain way. The irony that escapes GPL proponents is that they legitimize and reinforce the tool that enables the fiction of "intellectual" "property" to exist, which they supposedly oppose.

I see you love putting words in other's mouths. What you claim and what is defined by the licensing are two very different things. The only rights that need defending are those that give equal freedom to the citizens and users. The ability to take that freedom away is completely against the right.

[GI_Jack]

Bullshit. Lysander Spooner lived in the 1800s and he was no commie, to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

Two points:

from your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysand...oner#Anarchism

1. Spooner came after Proudhon, who was a undeniably socialist:
2. Spooner was not a self-described Anarchist. He was only described as such

George Woodcock describes Spooner's essays as an "eloquent elaboration" of Josiah Warren and the early American development of Proudhon's ideas

2. Spooner was in fact a socialist, or self identified as a socialist.

Lysander Spooner and William Batchelder Greene had been members of the socialist First International.^[28]