Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

[Sheshbazzar]

Please, please please agree, please for us to share an open diversity with pleased pleasure & most eloquent elegance refurbished with rosy nectar of tangential, but nonetheless transfinite loquacity:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html "By contrast, to suggest that others use nonfree software opposes the basic principles of GNU, so it is not allowed in GNU Project discussions." vs. http://www.osnews.com/comments/19057

Oily morning star waves of stern yet cajolous liquor love to sing the praise of the bearded wurst.

P.S.: Bearded females are illogical.

[dstaubsauger]

no, that's getting offended at anything, […] Outrage at anything said […]

I think that there's an inbetween step here that is easy to miss if we just look at shitty discussions on twitter: It is possible to be offended by something, and it is possible to launch the kind of shitstorm you're describing. The second _does_ sometimes follow the first, but i think there are more situations where people just think "ugh that was mean" (← they are offended) and move on (without attempting to ruin somebody's life). I am convinced this is the more common case.

You have just provided us with a great example of why this trash is so dangerous.

Please elaborate on that (really!). Do you see me or what i said an example of "dangerous trash"? If yes, why?

[Sheshbazzar]

Please elaborate on that (really!). Do you see me or what i said an example of "dangerous trash"? If yes, why?

Allow me please to perhaps potentially suggest a nonimplausible rêverie that I poetically wandered in, as I sipped a grenadine framboise sirop with a soupçon of succulent creamy suggar flambé, it proceeds, if you will, smoothly with a caressing tune: if thou entertainest with pleasure the idea of regulating men's words, then thou shouldest avail thyself of providence, that the law you publishest be not outwitted.

But then why not just be frank and rely on sharp, true, all destroying arguments? Because faggots can't think or code?

[Sheshbazzar]

Here, you dumbasses, read this and realize what these pedophiles are doing. Google this shit here "the overhauling of straight america: waging peace". Read that diarrhea trail and fight the hell back, Western faggots.

[Bsdisbetter]

I think that there's an inbetween step here that is easy to miss if we just look at shitty discussions on twitter: It is possible to be offended by something, and it is possible to launch the kind of shitstorm you're describing. The second _does_ sometimes follow the first, but i think there are more situations where people just think "ugh that was mean" (← they are offended) and move on (without attempting to ruin somebody's life). I am convinced this is the more common case.


Please elaborate on that (really!). Do you see me or what i said an example of "dangerous trash"? If yes, why?

Your common case existed before these ridiculous cocs and was resolved as you state. Likewise, promoting inclusiveness, is think-speech for letting all the stupid people run the project. Yes, an over-statement for sure but none the less apt.

Elaborate? I thought I'd already covered it in a post to you where you drew a weird conclusion from what I wrote. How uncommon is that.... no seriously? The fact is these rules & decrees are designed ultimately to stifle speech, especially speech that someone takes affront to; and people can take affront to anything as I mockingly stated in my reply to you previously. Read the CoC of bsd or linux to see what I mean. Stahlman's version reeks of a late comer not wanting to be left out of the discussion. Why he even found it a requirement to write such drivel I will never know.

[Bsdisbetter]

Did you read the email/guidelines and footnotes? Make an attempt to understand the debate? I did use the words "encouraging diversity. "

"1. I read that the fraction of women in the free software community overall is around 3%, whereas in the software field overall it is over 10%."

A CoC can be changed by the community or the governing board, I don't think this qualifies as authoritarian. I checked the dictionary. You're free to try and change the structure of a community, or leave.

Do try to reply without saying PC.

PC.
PC.
PC.
I sense a lot of rage, which doesn't assist in making me feel included in the discussion. Perhaps I'm female and you should accept my point and move on for the sake of 'encouraging diversity'...

However:

While a coc may be able to be changed in my experience they're like taxes, they never disappear once they're introduced. When introduced projects will inevitably be stacked by people who support it (why else introduce it) making it impossible for change.

Diversity is code for letting the dumb people in, about lowering standards to whatever extent it takes. If women are in the minority in computer science then that's not my project's fault? Are we to include a dumb white man on the all black software project just for 'diversity'. Nope, it's code for mediocrity. If you want to participate in a project, shut up about your sex, gender or religon and just participate. Stop looking for causes to get outraged about.

As to free to change it, well I can assure you it's not even remotely easy and if you've invested years in such a project, why should you then LEAVE. Do as I say or go, hey? If the license was bsd, hell yeah i would.

And as I said earlier, perhaps not to you, the Stahlman version is an attempt to not be left out of the group.

[microcode]

Glad to see RMS understands the value of displacing hysterical SJ Codes of Conduct with fairly reasonable (though still probably unnecessary, all-told) alternatives.

[dstaubsauger]

Your common case existed before these ridiculous cocs and was resolved as you state.

One could argue that sucking it up is not a satisfactory resolution for all parties involved, in the long term.

Likewise, promoting inclusiveness, is think-speech for letting all the stupid people run the project. Yes, an over-statement for sure but none the less apt.

Well, then let's not let the stupid people decide how "promoting inclusiveness" should work then. The whole point of inclusiveness is to not scare potential contributors away, and i think we do agree that that is good thing.

Elaborate? I thought I'd already covered it in a post to you where you drew a weird conclusion from what I wrote.

I went back to my original post and your first reply. You said that you can accept and respect trans people and address them as male/female like they want to be addressed. I believe you that you meant that. What i'm trying to point out is that sarcastic comments like "or is their name fluid as well" may unnecessarily hit a hurtful point for the same people.

How uncommon is that.... no seriously?

(what is the word "that" referring to here?)

The fact is these rules & decrees are designed ultimately to stifle speech, especially speech that someone takes affront to;

Yes, they do. However, i do believe that it is legitimate and efficient for a discussion forum to have rules (and if it's only to keep the discussion on-topic). This is not some country's government telling everyone what to say and believe. If i look at the list of things that the contributor covenant (which seems to be the most controversial of the CoCs) explicitly forbids, i can't imagine of anything on that list being desirable in a discussion of open source software anyway.

and people can take affront to anything as I mockingly stated in my reply to you previously.

CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.

Read the CoC of bsd or linux to see what I mean. Stahlman's version reeks of a late comer not wanting to be left out of the discussion. Why he even found it a requirement to write such drivel I will never know.

I did read the linux one and the freebsd one. You mean that the lists of "bad things" sometimes seem arbitrary?

[brrrrttttt]

CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.

The point is that offence is taken far far more often than it is given.

[Bsdisbetter]

I went back to my original post and your first reply. You said that you can accept and respect trans people and address them as male/female like they want to be addressed. I believe you that you meant that. What i'm trying to point out is that sarcastic comments like "or is their name fluid as well" may unnecessarily hit a hurtful point for the same people.

The point was, very succinctly, that the introduction of their orientation of sex, gender or anything OTHER than sticking to the project's objectives or the subject under discussion are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY unwarranted. You're predominantly dealing with people over email, internal communication like irc so why is there even a mention of these things? They are totally irrelevant and don't belong in a software project. And yet they come up.

For example, a while back on a software project, person states "i have a child i can't do X this week, in future consider that before requesting X". Why? Just state you're busy. I don't give a damn about your nuclear family. I don't even give a damn if you're male/female/whatever, just do your assigned role - can't do it, hand it off to someone else.

Don't introduce such information. The world's becoming full of snow-flakes & thin-skinned lefties... i must have just violated a myriad of cocs just then.

what is the word "that" referring to here?)

The fact things get easily confused in emails/text and people can misinterpret anything, even more so if they wish to maliciously.

es, they do. However, i do believe that it is legitimate and efficient for a discussion forum to have rules (and if it's only to keep the discussion on-topic). This is not some country's government telling everyone what to say and believe. If i look at the list of things that the contributor covenant (which seems to be the most controversial of the CoCs) explicitly forbids, i can't imagine of anything on that list being desirable in a discussion of open source software anyway.


CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.


I did read the linux one and the freebsd one. You mean that the lists of "bad things" sometimes seem arbitrary?

Jeez that's tame compared to the freebsd one.

i suspect the fun is fast going out of open source where every word you write will be scrutinized by those who want to be a victim. It might just end up either being ignored totally (a good thing) or ending some projects.

when freebsd was requesting comments on their proposal people were gagged and/or banned from the discussion - and not because they were being obnoxious - but moreover because it was a faite-accompli and the 'discussion' was for show.

and yes cocs do forbid things if some random individual is offended, that's one of the main points of these dictates.