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

[MartinN]

Whomever is qualified in the view of an employer should get the job without being "forced" to feel guilty about the choice they are making. Forcing employers to pick from a certain pool of candidates for the purposes of playing identity politics is a sad way to go about this.

I've seen both women and men in IT and a lot of them include minorities. This isn't an issue unless someone is making it into one.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-negative-impact-of-the-metoo-movement/

[GI_Jack]

"Libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms. Some people using nonsensical terms to describe themselves does not magically turn nonsense into something that makes sense.

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.

[cybertraveler]

emphasis added:

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.

soo... the socialists are all about respecting other people's private property rights? And the socialists are all about the non-aggression principle? 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"?

You're either a liar trying to deceive good people into adopting a toxic and destructive ideology or you are grossly and dangerously misinformed.

[k1e0x]

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.

Psh bullshit.

Liberal the root of Libertarian use to mean laissez faire, IE capitalism free from state mercantilism. The word was co-opted by progressives and socialists who believe the opposite.

Being a capitalist doesn't have to mean you support state control of business (IE corporatism or mercantilism or economic fascism basically) . Corporations are creations of government and they provide limited risk for business men to do things they otherwise would not be able to, also a corporation can't choose between a moral decision and a profitable one. Any CEO that does that will be replaced by one that will. Being pro-capitalism does not mean you have to support such things. This is a lie created by socialists. "They say look how bad our current system of crony-capitalism is.. socialism must be the answer!" When in fact the problem *is* the government control in the first place.

Anarchy is somewhat of a difficult word. I think most people mean voluntarist when they say this and that is a much more modern word that is less conflicted.

Socialists have lost the argument in the realm of ideas time and time again, they do not work and they know they don't work. They go against basic human nature and so their goal has to be to change human nature. (good luck, because so far nobodys done that.). The practical solution is to accept that people ARE greedy, selfish, and self centred and create a system where those bad elements can be made into a positive that works to societies overall benefit meaning the answer without brain washing people is more freedom more capitalism and less government control. always. You just can't put greedy selfish people in control of people and make things ok and pretend there wont be abuse you have to limit the power for the abuse to exist in the first place.

Also.. I don't want to say that people who believe in Socialism are bad people.. they are (by in large) not. They are compassionate and it is a noble goal. It is. Some that I know are even very very smart. It is a wishful thinking type of approach and they generally want the same things (safe streets good living conditions etc) they are however misguided and fooled by the elite of the movement who know this will place them in power over everyone else. Good old greed and power mongers, nothing more. It takes a truly remarkable person of character to call for destroying the system of power once they have it.

[pal666]

Note that the people near the top of contributor lists are usually an order of magnitude (or several orders) more productive than those in the middle.

note that top contributor list shows historical contributions, not current or future

[GI_Jack]

Psh bullshit.

Liberal the root of Libertarian use to mean laissez faire, IE capitalism free from state mercantilism. The word was co-opted by progressives and socialists who believe the opposite.

Bullshit. The word "Libertarian" was used by French Anarchists in the 19th century when the term "Anarchist" got too hot to handle. The term "Anarchist" with a capital A was first adopted by Socialist Author JP Proudhon in the 1830s. Before then it meant chaos and disorder. Proudhon was called an "Anarchist" by his critics, to which he replied "I am an Anarchist, I am here to destroy the system". Before you start ret-conning him too as a capitalist, he is the person is quoted "Property is theft". Again, 1830s.

the Libertarian meant "freedom from the state and the property owners that propped it up", and that the state was run by property owners and businesses. Which it is. It was never synonymous with the earlier "Liberal" that started with John Locke.

In the 20th century, in the wake of socialist libertarian an Anarchist movements, long after the original liberalism is on the ropes, and socialists are asking about civil liberties for those without property. Then, the "libertarian" and "anarchist"(Murrary Rothbard 1949) capitalists come into play.

You simply don't know history. Socialist Libertarians used the word 100 years prior.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/360/360-h/360-h.htm

The socialist critique is the state is in fact propped up by large businesses and is one in the same. It actually makes a little more sense than to claim to be a capitalist, but then argue the most successful capitalists really aren't capitalist.

[GI_Jack]

emphasis added:




soo... the socialists are all about respecting other people's private property rights? And the socialists are all about the non-aggression principle? 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"?

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". Property ownership only works as well as its enforced. screaming up and down "mine mine mine" isn't a valid claim based on rational discourse.

[fuzz]

As Rousseau said, "laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing." A Code of Conduct goes against everything open source software stands for.

[anda_skoa]

A Code of Conduct goes against everything open source software stands for.

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,
_

[cybertraveler]

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". Property ownership only works as well as its enforced. screaming up and down "mine mine mine" isn't a valid claim based on rational discourse.

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.