GNOME Foundation Names A New Executive Director

[guzz46]

> There was a picture on their Twitter before it was cleared out. IIRC
> there were several old white guys, and while the rest weren't just
> young white guys, it wasn't anything like his claims.

?


oceangate2.jpg

https://lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oceangate.jpg

That's not diverse enough, they're all white woman, it should be 50/50, so 2 and a half should be white, and the other 2 and a half should be black, come to think of it there should be an Asian in there too, and maybe an American Indian, and I think an Australian Aboriginal would round it out nicely, oh and I think it would be racist if we didn't include an Afghan in there for good measure.

[Khrundel]

My god I can only imagine how decrepit, unkempt, and pale of a 43 year old is sitting at your computer chair right now. That's all I can picture when somebody shows this little understanding on how people react with each other.

I've got your point: I'm wrong because you imagining me old and white.

I also had to re-read that example like 5 times before I realized what the scenario you mentioned had to do with racism.

That makes you pretty dumb. I mean you should've started with racism stereotype and after should generalize to every other underprivileged person. You know, the whole meaning of "underprivileged" is that this person had hard life before, had taken severe beatings. If you really believe in in all this privilege BS, you should admit that hearing another "you are useless idiot" is not something what can hurt a real underprivileged person. He have heard worse. If you really believe same behavior should be interpreted differently, a common sense say rude words couldn't penetrate thick skin of someone who seen some shit in this life, so they would cause a minor discomfort at most. For a snowflake from rich family who never heard a single rude word and always have been praised for any small achievement a simple "nobody have noticed my great patch" could cause discomfort and criticism of a patch can provoke a suicide. I'm against treating misbehavior differently, but if you insist on this, rules should be reversed. Assuming they really believe this BS about comfort and safety, which of course isn't true, they just use standard demagogy to mask their racism.

The COC is not list a series of life experiences and qualifications for inclusion and special treatment in the community. Nobody is gonna moderate a situation by asking "Okay have either of you been sexually assaulted, seen someone killed, etc."

Well, if someone uses privileges of "underprivileged" group while actually being a privileged, doesn't it mean he is an impostor and should take hard part of underprivileged fate too?

when determining who is in the right and who is in the wrong. It would be moderated based on behavior.

The text you've quoted says different thing.

You don't know what the word "excuses" means.

Or maybe I do. From my perspective you are reading something like "All redhead men should be beheaded" and instead of condemning such atrocity you are looking for example of redhead criminal and starting to apologize existence of this rule.

That's not what it says. It says "Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist,

Then why these only? I mean there are plenty more severe evildoings like murdering people, like rape, like pedophilia. Can you criticize them? Why making explicit exception for these matters? Maybe because an author of CoC wants to explicitly say that you cant just throw wild accusation of being latent pedophile against other developers but it is OK to accuse them of being hidden racist?

Imagine situation
A tells B he will not work with him (maybe also adding "because I feel more comfortable to work with people of my race")
B accuses A of being racist.

Which rule should apply here? Rule 1 says there are communication boundaries which must be respected. Rule 2 says you can blame anyone of being racist. Looks like contradiction. Until you'll remember old wisdom about reverses "there is no reverse racism". And all becomes clear: all depends on skin color. If A is black and B is white rule 1 is applied, even if A clearly says it is all about race B should shut up or be banished from project. If A is white and B is black rule 2 applied, you can criticize racism of your colleagues without any limit. And even if A will be able to somehow prove his reason was not racism, B will never met any consequences, because he just shared his concern about possible racism within project.

And please, don't answer me. I see you have no any honesty and will protect racist CoC by any means, adding wild guesses. Even when this CoC itself clearly says it works differently for "privileged" and "underprivileged" people. They can add any other promises of treating everyone just, but after this it all doesn't matter. It is like a big code of laws each of which can be just and formulated very carefully but first law says "king decides which law to apply in every case".

[Anux]

That's not diverse enough, they're all white woman ... I think an Australian Aboriginal would round it out nicely, oh and I think it would be racist if we didn't include an Afghan in there for good measure.

That's sexist, you need the same racial constellation with men too. And of course a bigger submarine, fairness ain't cheep.

[Myownfriend]

I've got your point: I'm wrong because you imagining me old and white.

You're not wrong because you're white, you're wrong because you're reading comprehension is bad. Also I said "pale" as a way to say that sunlight doesn't hit your skin, not to say that you're white.

That makes you pretty dumb. I mean you should've started with racism stereotype and after should generalize to every other underprivileged person.

"Racism stereotype"? What is that supposed to mean?

You know, the whole meaning of "underprivileged" is that this person had hard life before, had taken severe beatings. If you really believe in in all this privilege BS, you should admit that hearing another "you are useless idiot" is not something what can hurt a real underprivileged person. He have heard worse. If you really believe same behavior should be interpreted differently, a common sense say rude words couldn't penetrate thick skin of someone who seen some shit in this life, so they would cause a minor discomfort at most. For a snowflake from rich family who never heard a single rude word and always have been praised for any small achievement a simple "nobody have noticed my great patch" could cause discomfort and criticism of a patch can provoke a suicide. I'm against treating misbehavior differently, but if you insist on this, rules should be reversed. Assuming they really believe this BS about comfort and safety, which of course isn't true, they just use standard demagogy to mask their racism.

Now that you're done. Nobody used the word "underprivileged". The words used by both myself and the Gnome CoC are "privileged" and "marginalized". Maybe if they said "attacker" and "victim", you might have understood.

You're going off on rants about things that are unrelated to what was said in the CoC. Certain terms are reminding you about things in society that upset you and that's triggering you to go on these rants.

Well, if someone uses privileges of "underprivileged" group while actually being a privileged, doesn't it mean he is an impostor and should take hard part of underprivileged fate too?

Again, nobody said "underprivileged". Also you're not saying anything here.

The text you've quoted says different thing.

It does not. This is a reading comprehension issue on your part.

Or maybe I do. From my perspective you are reading something like "All redhead men should be beheaded" and instead of condemning such atrocity you are looking for example of redhead criminal and starting to apologize existence of this rule.

This yet another reading comprehension issue. I did nothing remotely like that. Reading between the lines only works if you also read what's on the lines first. You've been basing nothing off their actual wording that myself or the CoC are using.

Then why these only? I mean there are plenty more severe evildoings like murdering people, like rape, like pedophilia. Can you criticize them? Why making explicit exception for these matters? Maybe because an author of CoC wants to explicitly say that you cant just throw wild accusation of being latent pedophile against other developers but it is OK to accuse them of being hidden racist?

You're insane. Pedophilia, murder, rape, etc. are things that are against the law already. If someone is found guilty of these things, they get arrested. If someone in a PR claims that someone is a pedophile, murderer, or rapists... how is Gnome supposed to react to that? It's not like any of these things can happen in a PR and Gnome isn't a police department that's capable of investigating that. The most they could do is try to look up if that person did actual commit any of those crimes, and if they can't find that then the person who made the claim would be considered a harasser. You're talking about things that are actual legal issues; things that are above a code of conduct. If any of these things happened at a Gnome-sponsored events then they're matters for the police and courts to handle. Not Gnome.

That being said. You should read the rest of the CoC instead of just the part we were talking about. It mentions "Unwanted sexual attention or behavior", "Unwelcome physical contact", "Violence or threats of violence", and "possession of an offensive weapon at a GNOME event" being against CoC.

but it is OK to accuse them of being hidden racist?

No. It says that you're allowed to call out racist behavior. Again, this isn't hard to understand. If someone says something racist and you call it out, that's allowed. There's no way to read the CoC and interpret it to mean that you can just claim that anybody is racist for no reason. If someone says "You can remove this check her because a previous check makes this condition impossible" and someone goes "That's racist", that's not going to work because the statement the first person posted is not racist behavior.

You're reading "call out racist behavior" as "You're allowed to call anybody racist for anything", but you'd have to completely change the sentence to interpret it that way.

Imagine situation
A tells B he will not work with him (maybe also adding "because I feel more comfortable to work with people of my race")
B accuses A of being racist.

Which rule should apply here? Rule 1 says there are communication boundaries which must be respected. Rule 2 says you can blame anyone of being racist. Looks like contradiction.

God you're fucking dumb lol In this example, person A would be in the wrong because they're saying something racist. Rule 1 isn't saying that boundaries must be respected. It's saying "Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.” and it's when someone says this in response to something things like harassment. If Person B was harassing Person A (and it doesn't sound like it based on what Person A is saying) then Person B would be at fault. If Person B was harassing Person A and Person A communicated that boundary while saying something racist then are breaking the code of conduct. Person A broke the CoC because they exhibited racist behavior, and Person B would break CoC by harassing person A, not because they called out Person A's racism.

"Communicating boundaries or criticizing oppressive behavior in a “tone” you don’t find congenial" is not saying that you can break the CoC when communicating boundaries or calling out behavior.

Until you'll remember old wisdom about reverses "there is no reverse racism". And all becomes clear: all depends on skin color. If A is black and B is white rule 1 is applied, even if A clearly says it is all about race B should shut up or be banished from project. If A is white and B is black rule 2 applied, you can criticize racism of your colleagues without any limit. And even if A will be able to somehow prove his reason was not racism, B will never met any consequences, because he just shared his concern about possible racism within project.

Again, that's not what's being said even remotely. I'll repeat again, you have bad reading comprehension. I'm legitimately not saying this to insult you. When you're reading one sentence as a completely different sentence then that's a reading comprehension issue.

"There is a not reverse racism" doesn't mean that Gnome will always side with a black individual over a white individual. Racism doesn't mean "when a white individual insults or looks down on a black individual". Racism is simply when someone excludes or treats someone differently because of their race. The CoC literally says:

"Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the “reverse-ism clause” and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved. Nor would unwanted sexual attention be tolerated, whatever someone’s gender or sexual orientation. Members of our community have the right to expect that participants in the project will uphold these standards."

I don't think you realize how much you're showing your ass with these posts.

And please, don't answer me. I see you have no any honesty and will protect racist CoC by any means, adding wild guesses. Even when this CoC itself clearly says it works differently for "privileged" and "underprivileged" people. They can add any other promises of treating everyone just, but after this it all doesn't matter. It is like a big code of laws each of which can be just and formulated very carefully but first law says "king decides which law to apply in every case".

Of course I'm gonna answer you because you're being a little bitch lol

Again, it literally doesn't say "underprivileged". You're putting quotes around something that you aren't quoting from anything. It says "privileged" and "marginalized". Throughout this whole post you claimed that they used words they didn't use, said they didn't speak against things that they DID actually speak against, and overally (intentionally?) misinterpreted what the CoC was saying. Any time that you could have just read the entire CoC for additional context, you avoided it because you made up what you feel Gnome stands for and what they means by privileged and marginalized.

There's two possible scenarios here. The first is that you're intentionally misinterpreting the text. The second is that you're actually that unintelligent.

[Myownfriend]

oceangate2.jpg

https://lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oceangate.jpg

Oceangate had about 50 employees. There's five in this photo.

Why can't I find that screenshot on anything but very conservative websites that are using it in the same exact context?

[Nth_man]

He wrote "There was a picture on their Twitter before it was cleared out. IIRC there were several old white guys, and while the rest weren't just young white guys, it wasn't anything like his claims" and I answered.

[Nth_man]

That's [...].

I found an equivalent one, this time on a humor site, with a graphical representation of the choice of "Safety concerns" vs "Inspirational Design" :

https://9gag.com/gag/a7qpdZw

[Myownfriend]

He wrote "There was a picture on their Twitter before it was cleared out. IIRC there were several old white guys, and while the rest weren't just young white guys, it wasn't anything like his claims" and I answered.

Whose to say that that's the image that were talking about?

[sophisticles]

I'm just gonna assume that anyone who sees diversity as a bad word just wants a white all-male ethnostate.

You would be wrong. "Diversity" is actually a buzzword for "no White males", it's a form of reverse racism.

I used to volunteer in an Oncology unit of a large hospital and I was constantly hearing how great it was to work there because of how "diverse" the employees were.

One day I got tired of hearing this shit and i pointed out to a few people the absurdity of calling that workplace "diverse". We had about 50 staff members, 9 Oncologists, one of whom was a White male, the rest were women, of which 4 were Jewish, 2 were Indian and 2 were Black.

We had 41 nurses and medical assistance, of these 41 we had 1 straight White male (myself), 1 openly gay, and very effeminate White male, 1 Black male, 1 Latino male, 1 White female and the rest were all either Black or Latino women.

I asked them to explain to me how these numbers represented "diversity"?

In company after company, I have noticed that "diversity" as few White males as possible, and in fact I actually met a Latina HR person that raised the same objection in a meeting one time.

Many states have what are known as LARDs, Laws Against Reverse Racism, because reverse racism Is racism.

[transwarp]

Whose to say that that's the image that were talking about?

The company picture on Twitter was the team photo before launching a sub, including the "crew."

Could have been https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/06...7259011999.jpg or https://media.distractify.com/brand-...362188888.jpeg

Again, the guy was trying to justify not having submarine and submarine-operations veterans on his staff and making up reasons.