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

[Djhg2000]

At first it sounds to me like you're saying freedom of speech is absolute but freedom thought is not. To me speech is the action and the intent is the thought. If this is where you left it, I wouldn't have replied.

That's still not quite it, we have freedom of thought as well. Intent is when you act upon your thoughts, whether that is speech or any other external output. I guess you can say intent when writing in this thread would be when when you push the keys on your keyboard to formulate sentences from your opinions.

This fixes my first impression. I still disagree with the idea that freedom of speech is absolute for three reasons:
1. I believe in accepting the Supreme Court's interpretation of free speech protections as the "highest" interpretation of law. If you believe in a natural law or religious law that demands this, then we are probably at an impasse--which is okay for me as a secular humanist, though naturally maybe not for you since my opinion would violate a higher order for you if there indeed is one. The Supreme court does sometimes care about intent but moreso cares a great deal about context. When they've written about freedom of speech, they have focused on the context of who might be hurt, the captivity of an audience, and whether there might be conflict of interests related to political positions.
2. Nothing has ever suggested to me that freedom of speech applies to non-government entities except in very rare cases where there is an important benefit to society--for example, it the small way whistleblower laws are vaguely related to freedom of speech. To suggest that there is anything morally wrong with a non-government organization forbidding or compelling speech is bizarre to me since if, for example, my employer tells me I cannot say something, I can ignore the desire to say such a thing or quit.
3. Where does an absolute freedom come from? More on my thoughts there after the next two quote blocks.

Then from what I can gather you do not have free speech, only the illusion of free speech. Just like with many other countries including mine. I'll try my best to address your three points below:
1. I'm an atheist so science and philosophy governs my opinions. The US Supreme Court can indeed decide how to interpret the US law and you have to abide by it. That said any and all exceptions to free speech makes it not free speech, because anything minus a non-zero becomes less that what it previously was.
2. I'm not sure what you're referring to here concerning a distinction between government and non-government entities, please clarify. You could argue that whistleblowers are exercising their right to free speech, but the laws against that are usually directed towards the intent of violating an agreement to not release secret information to a wider audience than it already is.
3. An absolute freedom is a philosophical concept. It can be implemented in an enforceable manner through law or remain an idea in an unregulated environment.

I don't have a lot to say about that because hate speech to me is about someone's intent and internal thoughts, which I believe is more "sacred" than freedom of speech. Therefore I don't see why punishment should take "hate" into account. I believe the words combined with the context are the action, which again I believe is the way courts have tended to go. For example, publicly calling out, insulting, and showing pictures of a transgender student who made a title 9 complaint (to borrow from recent events in academia, though I do not recall the names and schools) is speech, but it is also in the context of transgender people being common victims of violence and the image being shown in a context where inciting violence or harassment against the person could certainly be implied. The speaker claimed that the *intent* was to talk about disagreement with title 9, and I believe him, but I also believe the *context* provides reason for an academic institution to choose to censor the speaker.

That's exactly why the term is so poisonous, it makes implications about how the speech came to be. Hate is a strong negative opinion of something which by itself is a form of thought. You are free to hate whatever you want because you have freedom of thought. But when you put it together with speech to form "hate speech" then it irrevocably means the speech can come from no other source than hateful thoughts. This also means only the original author can tell whether or not it is "hate speech", all you can do as an external party is guess. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard, but worst of all it's always a guess. There simply is no definite way to tell without reading their mind at the point which they said it.

In the example you bring up there's a suggestion that the intent was to cause some kind of harm to the person in question. What the intent actually was is something we can only take his word for until there's been a proper investigation showing beyond reasonable doubt that the intent was to cause harm.

The quote is different for me. I do not believe in the inalienable right. I believe in the nation and justice system where the people have agreed to a constitution that I believe is one of the best in the world, and I spent 4 years of active duty willing to die defending that nation and structure which I believe is excellent, but to me an inalienable right is a logical fallacy. It's picking a point and saying that this one point is something that can't be argued. If I agreed, then we would have a base to build one, but if we disagree, then it's hard to discuss less foundational things since you have shut down the argument on that topic. And perhaps that more foundational thing is something you'd be interested in discussing more, but I suspect a forum is not the place you'd rather do it as it sounds to me like a better topic to discuss over beer and fries. I say this because I find that when people get to the thing they believe is inalienable or absolute truth, the conversation ceases to be productive unless you have some beer and junk food to connect over. (shrug)

I guess you caught me there since freedom of speech in practice is in fact not an inalienable right, as proven by the US Supreme Court from what you're saying. It does still apply in a system with freedom of speech.

I agree that criticizing them is totally fine. However, if criticism is less about "that seems inefficient" or "this could cause people talking about xyz to get in abc trouble" and instead tilts more towards, "this code of conduct is morally or ethically wrong" then that i where I will criticize the criticism.

It is morally wrong because it imposes restrictions on free speech. A much better way is to have guidelines and deal with cases as they occur.

I'm not sure of the difference between guidelines and hard rules in this case. It sounds like you want less specifics and I prefer things to be encoded more specifically so that the power is less in the hands of someone interpreting a guideline and more enshrined in a readable format.

The difference is guidelines can be broken without consequences from an authority. You can still tell the offender to please not continue breaking the guidelines. You can still make ultimatums on a case by case basis like "if you keep doing this then I might ban your account". You just can't refer back to guidelines and say "you said this which breaks this rule and you are therefore banned". I think you can say it's a less formal way to deal with the situation and one that leaves room for error. Some leeway is needed because it's in human nature to make mistakes, which applies to all involved parties.

The amount of power an open source repo has over me is so little, that I feel zero mental stress. Even if they restricted me from arbitrary topics of zero consequence, I don't think it would bother me.

That's probably because you don't have as much effort invested into the repo as Rafael Avila de Espindola has invested into the LLVM repo. I'd imagine if I were on his level I might call the quits as well, but as always it's hard to tell without actually being there. We all have an individual threshold and resistance to stress.

[fuzz]

It's pretty clear what Jean-Jacques is saying:

"from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor"

He is advocating destruction of another man's property and more generally the abolishment of private property rights in order to save mankind from "horrors and misfortunes".

"the fruits of the earth belong to us all"

Again: very clear. He doesn't care about property rights. He's saying that an individual can't own things on this earth. He's saying we have collective ownership. He sounds dangerous and like somebody that I'd want to live very far away from.

I personally have spent countless hours thinking about the consequences of the values which I support and what their consequences are. I'm quite comfortable advocating that people respect each others property rights and that they should not initiate force against their fellow man. I will not take your fish or trespass on your land. If you were my neighbour I would do my best to support and defend you if you suffered the misfortune of someone else attempting to take your food or occupy your home against your will.

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.

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).

This is significant to the discussion because any more rules beyond that are ultimately and unnecessarily restrictive. Code of Conducts are evil-natured, don't solve anything, let alone the core of the issue, and only cause more problems.

I think this is the single worst aspect of modern Western society that needs to change. It starts with rules that don't need to be there.

[fuzz]

On a more serious note, it seems like the people who advocate most vocally for Codes of Conduct of this sort seem to be the people who don't take decency for granted. If somebody is suggesting a Code of Conduct because they can't believe that people will behave themselves without one, it's probably because they're constantly breaking these rules which can remain unwritten for more decent folk.

I couldn't agree with this more. The core of the argument seems to be the natural state of human nature.

[fuzz]

The amount of power an open source repo has over me is so little, that I feel zero mental stress. Even if they restricted me from arbitrary topics of zero consequence, I don't think it would bother me.

I understand your point and for the most part agree, but what if your life depended on said open source code? That is becoming a more realistic scenario every day.

[pcxmac]

not a fan of the politically correct/censorship movement in and around silicon valley. It is a corrosive and ignorant movement that seeks to address symptoms and assert corruption, vs actually solving real problems. Attitudes change with time, being hypocritical in the pursuit of changing them is not correct.

[onicsis]

not a fan of the politically correct/censorship movement in and around silicon valley. It is a corrosive and ignorant movement that seeks to address symptoms and assert corruption, vs actually solving real problems. Attitudes change with time, being hypocritical in the pursuit of changing them is not correct.

Best Idea: To stay away from this toxic environment.As a No-Go zone.

[Guest]

Adam Weishaupt was a German...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

and he was not responsible for the french Revolution he was responsible to create the Illuminati https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminatenorden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

The person who started the French Revolution was not Weishaupt it was the aristocrat/nobleman Marquis de Sade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade before the french revolution storm on the bastille startet Marquis de Sade was a prisoner in the bastille and he startet the Revolution by lieing to the people who where in front of the Bastille he claimed in a lie that the prisoners do not get food anymore and the Gards start killing prisoners. this was a clear lie but the people in front of the Bastille believed him so they stormed the Bastille and freed all prisoners... later the people tried to kill Marquis de Sade 3 times by public execution with the Guillotine because he was a "Porno writer" who break all the rules for Freedom of speech and every time he survived the Guillotine because people remembered him as the one who started the French revolution and his only crime always was Freedom of Speech...

Stop kidding me. Jewishpedia isn't viable source in this case. I have pre-War publications about this. He was a jew. Yes, he was responsible for creating Illuminati and he was responsible for French Revolution as well. He wasn't an only one, though.

Later in the Revolution the Illuminati ended the mass murdering in public execution with the Guillotine because the Illuminati members convinced the others to stop mass murdering people by Guillotine because Illuminati promoted a non Violence gentlemen agreement...

Don't believe in bullshit for naive people, ok? Few other infamous jews who are responsible for killing millions of people:

Trocki, Dzierżyński and others 'worth mentioning': Izrael Leplewski, Aleksandr Minajew - Cykanowski, Władimir Cesarski, Helena Wolińska (Fajga Mindla-Danielak), Wiktor Herer, Salomon Morel, Stefan Szechter (brother of Adam Michnik - Szechter). It's just a drop in the ocean.

[GI_Jack]

Props to mastermind and Luke_Wolf for the sober replies to GI_Jack 's post. I read each paragraph of GL_Jack's post twice in a desperate effort to extract some sense from it. It made my head hurt :P

Welp, Thats because I tried and "apples to apples" approach, and it kinda broke your brain, because your argument fell apart real quick. You get to pick your definition of Libertarian, and your definition of Socialism. Essentially comparing Socialist reality to Capitalist ideology. Which is what many socialists are guilty of as well.

If you hear a libertarian say "not real libertarianism", they're saying it because the target being described is not characterised by:[LIST][*]Non-aggression. An imperfect short explanation of what this means is: don't violently attack others[*]Respect for property rights

Right now there isn't a libertarian nation/country/society on the face of this planet. There are however many libertarian people who -- as best as they can -- live by and promote libertarian principles.

Libertarianism becomes defensible because no regime in history was ever libertarian.

If you hear a capitalist say "not real capitalism", they're saying it because the target being described is not characterised by:

• individuals being allowed to freely acquire capital (money / goods / property / things!) via peaceful trade, work and gifts.
• an environment where private property rights are widely respected
• people are allowed to freely associate and trade their private property without coercive restriction
• people are not violently controlled, coerced and selectively robbed by a state

Right now you will find pockets of capitalism in various places on the earth, but the American economy, for example, absolutely cannot be fairly described as capitalist. It has capitalist elements, but there is a very high degree of:

• restrictions on what types of capital private individuals can peacefully acquire.
• violations of property rights by the state (for example: extreme "taxation", licensing, asset forfeiture, property zoning and businesses being shut down due to non-compliance with regulations and licensing)
• extreme restrictions on trade
• one side of almost every transaction is manipulated by a socialist institution called the Federal Reserve. It is a government controlled monopoly of the means of monetary production.
• people are continually controlled, coerced and selectively robbed by the state.

No regime in history has ever fit that description. This is your idealized version of capitalism.

If you hear a socialist say "not real socialism", they're almost certainly saying it because the target being described is failing in some obvious way and there are still pockets of freedom that can be found that have not been completely controlled or crushed by the socialist state; or in the case of anarcho-socialists: they have not been controlled or crushed by the individual socialists. The point here is: the socialist will blame the failure on the pocket of freedom.

So your definition of socialism which is merely "state control" not any self described definition of socialism which is "workers owning the means of production". So by their definition, they can make the same arguments is that in many state socialist regimes, workers had no control over their economic output, so not socialist. Your argument only works if you redefine socialism in a way no socialist author or idealist would agree with, based around realities of previous and still standing socialist regimes. Then you compare it to a non-existant capitalist ideaology that never existed in real life, and likely won't ever and is not possible. You then declare "victory".

So, in short, you cannot produce an "Apples to Apples" comparison, instead move goal posts and make unlike comparisons.

[uidzero]

(emphasis added)



Note that they are saying that the things which they say threaten the "safety" of "marginalized" people only threaten the "comfort" of everyone else ("privileged people").

I'd really like to know more about these "Privileged People" of whom they speak.. I can tell you I didn't feel very "privileged" when I lived in a cock-roach infested apartment when I was in college..

[cybertraveler]

Welp, Thats because I tried and "apples to apples" approach, and it kinda broke your brain, because your argument fell apart real quick.

You're wrong, but feel free to believe that if it makes you feel better.

You get to pick your definition of Libertarian, and your definition of Socialism. Essentially comparing Socialist reality to Capitalist ideology. Which is what many socialists are guilty of as well.

I didn't define socialism. This is one of the reasons I found your first post such a brain f***. You're responding to stuff that isn't there.

I'm not picking and choosing definitions. Libertarianism is, as I described.

Libertarianism becomes defensible because no regime in history was ever libertarian.

I don't know if that's true or not and I expect you don't either. There are at least 3 projects being worked on right now to create libertarian countries. All of the organisers of these projects are perfectly open to criticism of their efforts. I expect their biggest issues will be dealing with non-libertarian countries governments and to a far lesser extent non-libertarian people (IE people who want to rob you, control you or otherwise initiate violence against you).

Your comment above only makes sense in the context of minarchist libertarians. IE libertarians who think government is acceptable and necessary to provide courts and police for handling property rights disputes and for dealing with aggressive people. However your comment makes zero sense in the context of anarchist libertarians who represent a very large part of the greater, libertarian group. You will not ever find an anarchist libertarian regime because then it wouldn't be anarchist libertarian. Regimes are forms of governments. Governments are rulers. "Anarchist" literally means without (or against) rulers (archons).

Furthermore: although libertarians are likely to want to live in a country mainly populated by libertarians, this is not necessary. There are millions of libertarians alive today who live a principled life and in general make this world a better place. So you cannot simply discredit libertarianism because there may not have been a minarchist libertarian regime. Look at the libertarian individuals that are out there and judge the libertarian philosophy by these people. You will find that these people are very open minded, they don't want to interfere with your life, they will respect your property rights and they will not initiate aggression against you. Because libertarians in general care for the liberties of individuals and they consider self-responsibility to be a virtue, you will probably find they are great people to live near or have in your society in general.

No regime in history has ever fit that description. This is your idealized version of capitalism.

It's not idealized. That's what capitalism is. You can call something that's not capitalism, capitalism, but that just makes you a fool. If lots of other people share your view of capitalism, it doesn't make you right, it just makes you one of many fools.

So your definition of socialism which is merely "state control" not any self described definition of socialism which is "workers owning the means of production".

Again: I didn't define socialism. I am well aware of the concise definition of socialism. It is either worker or state control over the means of production. Infact, I even referenced anarcho-socialists (who fit the more pure definition of socialism "worker control over the means of production") in my post.

Whether you take the pure form of socialism (anarcho-socialism) or the less pure (state socialism), there will still be mass violations of people's property rights if either of these ideologies become popular. As soon as you start looking into exactly what "the means of production" is, you will quickly find out what it is that socialists will seek to violently take control of should enough of them get together in one geographic area.

These concise definitions are obviously insufficient to get a full sense of what socialism, capitalism and libertarianism are. I'm not up for going into details with you though. That would be extremely tiresome and non-productive.

So by their definition, they can make the same arguments is that in many state socialist regimes, workers had no control over their economic output, so not socialist. Your argument only works if you redefine socialism in a way no socialist author or idealist would agree with, based around realities of previous and still standing socialist regimes. Then you compare it to a non-existant capitalist ideaology that never existed in real life, and likely won't ever and is not possible. You then declare "victory".

Capitalism does exist today in the form of black markets. You will also find some capitalist principles in white markets.

I really have tried to understand socialism by listening to socialists and come to the conclusion that socialism is an incoherent and inconsistent ideology in which any act of trying to wholly implement it results in mass theft, mass aggression against peaceful individuals and eventually, literally starvation and completely societal brake down.

An extremely important distinction between capitalists, libertarians and socialists, is that the latter group is made up of people who will steal your property and demand you obey them even when you are on your own private land. It's an incredibly dangerous and hostile ideology.

So, in short, you cannot produce an "Apples to Apples" comparison, instead move goal posts and make unlike comparisons.

Would you mind pointing out where I moved the goal posts? I'm not sure what you're talking about.