All FreeDesktop.org Projects Now Appear To Have A Contributor Covenant

[onicsis]

This "Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct" looks like it came from the evil mind of a totalitarian regime.
Any critical thinking against this regime is prohibited by the 1984 totalitarian state.

[microcode]

Fuck you, white males. You've done nothing in this society, we need people of color and women!

"Diversity" = handing out jobs / opportunities for less skilled people simply because of their gender or color of skin. That is as far away from equality as you can get.

FreeDesktop is SJW paradise.

I don't think it's gone that far yet, but it is nonetheless quite a drag. One constantly has to wonder if they might be unfairly maligned in this sort of world. It hits especially hard because many of the most productive and insightful people in technical fields are autists with little or no control of tone in their language, and since they're smart, they are just talking less now. Worse for everyone.

[microcode]

Phoronix: All FreeDesktop.org Projects Now Appear To Have A Contributor Covenant

X.Org, GStreamer, Wayland, LibreOffice, Mesa, VA-API, Harfbuzz, and SPICE are among the many projects hosted by FreeDesktop.org that now appear to be on a contributor covenant / code of conduct...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...butor-Covenant

I get where you're coming from when you say these codes appear to be "common sense" or "common decency", but the specifics are very important. One of the fundamentals of most successful free software projects is that quality and practicality are more important than aesthetics and feelings. If somebody can pull their weight and wants to deliver good quality improvements to the project, they should be welcome to do so. Their political opinions, personal opinions, and mannerisms are not the responsibility of the project. If you feel that somebody is an unproductive, intolerant bully; then you have a choice whether to listen to them or not. If you tell them what to say, it will not change what they think.

[damonlynch]

He was recently shouted down at a talk he was trying to give at Middlebury College for being a racist, a hater, etc. His controversial book is The Bell Curve, which I have not read, but I've listened to some of this talks on Youtube and he seems quite sane.

Charles Murray's ideas are sane? There is no scientific basis to his work on race whatsoever. As Agustin Fuentes, an actual scientist and an expert on biology and race puts it, Murray's "assertions are unsupported, unscientific, simplistic, myopic, agenda driven propaganda".

[microcode]

Charles Murray's ideas are sane? There is no scientific basis to his work on race whatsoever. As Agustin Fuentes, an actual scientist and an expert on biology and race puts it, Murray's "assertions are unsupported, unscientific, simplistic, myopic, agenda driven propaganda".

I'm not familiar with Charles Murray's work specifically, but the gist seems to be that racial cohorts have observable differences in IQ distribution, and that since those correlations often carry naturally to greater success in some strictly-meritocratic situations which have an outsize correlation with IQ, and given that people tend to have kids with people who are both nearby and socially similar, that these correlations will tend to be preserved generationally in a fair liberal society. I don't know what sources Charles Murray cites for these claims, but the individual clauses seem to have plenty of independent proof. Even if his approach is propagandistic, if it's true it's true.

As for Augustín Fuentes, I don't see where you get the idea that he is an expert on race. He did write a book which by the title seems facially dismissive of the concept of race, but I don't think that says much.

I hope it's obvious to you at least that race exists in some fashion. Even if it's more a matter of demographics, there are distinct groups with large numbers of common distinct characteristics. For example, in many east asian populations, most people have a genetic configuration which inhibits the development of apocrine sweat glands, which produce a type of sweat suitable for bacterial cultures which are largely responsible for body odour. I, being western European, am likely to have a different configuration, allowing me to develop apocrine sweat glands. If cohort genetic differences affect apocrine sweat glands, you would be a fool to think they don't affect the development of specific behaviours of the brain, or any other organ for that matter, the most obvious being the skin.

The only way to avoid admitting that race exists, is to attempt to redefine it as something other than what people mean when they say it. When most people talk about races, they mean visibly-distinct genetic cohorts.

As far as I'm aware, a "basis in science" requires a thorough review of empirical data which could be taken to conflict with the claim, a claim becomes more legitimate when it enables you to predict outcomes reliably and when it stands up to exhaustive scrutiny. It is trivially obvious that visible genetic cohorts exist, because there are peoples with common genes (usually due to long term isolation in a specific region) which have obvious visible effects like skin or hair colour; that is to say, it is trivially obvious that race exists. It is also trivially obvious that these visible genetic cohorts, races, have different statistical distributions on almost any measurable scale or axis. These are trivially obvious because there is a vast, trustworthy, and well-published body of empirical data which confirm the claims.

The takeaway is that if you are dead-set on categorizing people based on race for any practical purpose, you are going to observe a world which appears to be unfair to some races in some situations, when in reality you are observing situations which are unsuitable for people with certain genes. Because of the historic proximity of genetic cohorts, cohorts will share genes which are different between cohorts. Basketball will appear racially biased against east asians, some people will say it's because the team owners are biased against people with golden skin, when in actuality it's that basketball favours people with long limbs, and people with golden skin largely also share genes for a more moderate overall size.

My concern is more that Charles Murray is even coming up in this conversation. I don't see the relevance except that it is inherently hard to reconcile his claims with critical theory, which is the growing doctrine in western schools, and ultimately percolating to western society as a whole. Critical theory education is probably responsible for the introduction of these codes of conduct.

[damonlynch]

I'm not familiar with Charles Murray's work specifically, but the gist seems to be that racial cohorts have observable differences in IQ distribution, and that since those correlations often carry naturally to greater success in some strictly-meritocratic situations which have an outsize correlation with IQ, and given that people tend to have kids with people who are both nearby and socially similar, that these correlations will tend to be preserved generationally in a fair liberal society. I don't know what sources Charles Murray cites for these claims, but the individual clauses seem to have plenty of independent proof. Even if his approach is propagandistic, if it's true it's true.

As for Augustín Fuentes, I don't see where you get the idea that he is an expert on race. He did write a book which by the title seems facially dismissive of the concept of race, but I don't think that says much.

I hope it's obvious to you at least that race exists in some fashion. Even if it's more a matter of demographics, there are distinct groups with large numbers of common distinct characteristics. For example, in many east asian populations, most people have a genetic configuration which inhibits the development of apocrine sweat glands, which produce a type of sweat suitable for bacterial cultures which are largely responsible for body odour. I, being western European, am likely to have a different configuration, allowing me to develop apocrine sweat glands. If cohort genetic differences affect apocrine sweat glands, you would be a fool to think they don't affect the development of specific behaviours of the brain, or any other organ for that matter, the most obvious being the skin.

My concern is more that Charles Murray is even coming up in this conversation. I don't see the relevance except that it is inherently hard to reconcile his claims with critical theory, which is the growing doctrine in western schools, and ultimately percolating to western society as a whole. Critical theory education is probably responsible for the introduction of these codes of conduct.

Agustin Fuentes is an anthropologist who happens to be an expert on race, among other topics. He's well known for his expertise. Anthropology is the study of humans. Anthropologists will study pretty much anything if it is related to humans. For many decades now biological and cultural anthropologists have been studying the concept of race. If you were familiar with their research you would know that biologically speaking, there is one race, the human race. Period. Socially speaking, however, the illusion of race and racial difference is real and that has real consequences for people's lives. Anthropologists study that too.

You raise the topic of biological human variation. Compared to other species there is very little variation among us, and what variation there is is widely diffused because humans travel and mate so much. That's a scientific fact that has been shown to be true time and time again. In fact scientists suggest every human alive today shares a common ancestor that lived no longer than about 3,000-4,000 years ago. Moreover, given anatomically modern humans have been around for up to about 200,000 years, there simply hasn't been the time for genetic sub-populations to emerge. There is some variation linked to environmental conditions like the propensity for sickle cell disease but that's geographic and has absolutely nothing to do with what you mean by "race", unless you're going to claim Greeks and Central Africans belong to the same "race".

[microcode]

Agustin Fuentes is an anthropologist who happens to be an expert on race, among other topics. He's well known for his expertise. Anthropology is the study of humans. Anthropologists will study pretty much anything if it is related to humans. For many decades now biological and cultural anthropologists have been studying the concept of race. If you were familiar with their research you would know that biologically speaking, there is one race, the human race. Period. Socially speaking, however, the illusion of race and racial difference is real and that has real consequences for people's lives. Anthropologists study that too.

You raise the topic of biological human variation. Compared to other species there is very little variation among us, and what variation there is is widely diffused because humans travel and mate so much. That's a scientific fact that has been shown to be true time and time again. In fact scientists suggest every human alive today shares a common ancestor that lived no longer than about 3,000-4,000 years ago. Moreover, given anatomically modern humans have been around for up to about 200,000 years, there simply hasn't been the time for genetic sub-populations to emerge. There is some variation linked to environmental conditions like the propensity for sickle cell disease but that's geographic and has absolutely nothing to do with what you mean by "race", unless you're going to claim Greeks and Central Africans belong to the same "race".

>If you were familiar with their research you would know that biologically speaking, there is one race, the human race. Period.
So you're telling me that contemporary Africans don't have any obvious, visibly-expressed genes that might differ, as a statistical matter, from my closer ancestors?

You see, this is the redefinition I was talking about. You redefine race so that you can claim it doesn't exist, meanwhile the rest of the world knows what race is, and the way they would define it can be proven beyond refute. Even less-obvious variations, with concentrations of specific mutations in what people tend to call "races", are so obvious a child can observe them, profound enough to have a real effect on the outcomes of certain situations.

If you were familiar with critical thinking and empiricism, it would be trivial to cast doubt on their relatively weak reasoning on the matter. Augustín Fuentes does not hold a monopoly on analysis, and his statements on this matter appear prejudicial, since he does not follow them up with evidence and a review of the contrary evidence in the context of the meaning of the word "race" as understood by the public.

Academia is, in effect, playing dumb with regard to race. Activism has no place in the pursuit of truth. The fact that the differences in the coding of DNA are proportionally small compared to the similarity has nothing to do with the obvious fact that there are differences and cohorts which share the same differences due to co-breeding.

[damonlynch]

>If you were familiar with their research you would know that biologically speaking, there is one race, the human race. Period.
So you're telling me that contemporary Africans don't have any genes that might differ, as a statistical matter, from my closer ancestors?

You see, this is the redefinition I was talking about. You redefine race so that you can claim it doesn't exist, meanwhile the rest of the world knows what race is, and the way they would define it can be proven beyond refute. Even less-obvious variations, with concentrations of specific mutations in what people tend to call "races", are so obvious a child can observe them, profound enough to have a real effect on the outcomes of certain situations.

If you were familiar with critical thinking and empiricism, it would be trivial to cast doubt on their relatively weak reasoning on the matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/776...x2-700x467.jpg

Academia is, in effect, playing dumb with regard to race. Activism has no place in the pursuit of truth. The fact that the differences in the coding of DNA are proportionally small compared to the similarity has nothing to do with the obvious fact that there are differences and cohorts which share the same differences due to co-breeding.

Keep on talking! You're making your absolute ignorance of decades of scientific thought clear. Some of my departmental colleagues have their work published in the journal Science. Others among them have their work published in journals of a decidedly more social scientific and even literary bent. What they and I have in common is that our understanding of and teaching about race is scientifically informed. Try telling my colleague who is a world expert on chimp behavior and its relationship to human evolution that what he teaches about race is because he's an "activist" or somehow a swept up in "critical theory education", whatever that is supposed to mean. That's hilarious.

If you want to argue with the American Academy of Sciences and the American Anthropological Association, go for it. Try to publish your research findings and see if anyone even minimally educated on the topic pays the slightest attention to you.

[microcode]

Keep on talking! You're making your absolute ignorance of decades of scientific thought clear. Some of my departmental colleagues have their work published in the journal Science. Others among them have their work published in journals of a decidedly more social scientific and even literary bent. What they and I have in common is that our understanding of and teaching about race is scientifically informed. Try telling my colleague who is a world expert on chimp behavior and its relationship to human evolution that what he teaches about race is because he's an "activist" or somehow a swept up in "critical theory education", whatever that is supposed to mean. That's hilarious.

If you want to argue with the American Academy of Sciences and the American Anthropological Association, go for it. Try to publish your research findings and see if anyone even minimally educated on the topic pays the slightest attention to you.

Well, you tell me. What is race, and what qualifies your hero to say it doesn't exist? If you don't back up your statements with any rationale then I don't care if he's your daddy or your long lost son, it doesn't make what he says right. I don't agree with everything my housemates say, my ex girlfriend says, or my colleagues at work say. I investigate, I go deep.

Tell me why what you're saying is true, don't pick on me for having to work full time since my teen years instead of spending money acquiring credentials.
If I'm so ignorant, then please use your ability to type whole paragraphs of text to explain the reasoning behind your buddy's assertion which makes it so convincing to you.

Here are two simple statements (among others) which you would have to adequately refute in order to refute the grounding of the folk concept of race in reality:

All black people share genetic material which causes them to produce black eumelanin through melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis.
Black people are considered a race based largely on this phenotypic trait, hence the concept of race is used (among other uses) to distinguish black people from other people by this trait.

Therefore, in the case of black people, the concept of race (in its use since the 19th century) distinguishes the cohort of people with genetic material which causes them to produce black eumelanin.

I don't care who you know, who said it, what feels right, or what your textbook says. Say why it isn't so.
Use your own ability to follow a line of reasoning from observations, through the counterfactual, all the way to a conclusion.

[smitty3268]

>If you were familiar with their research you would know that biologically speaking, there is one race, the human race. Period.
So you're telling me that contemporary Africans don't have any obvious, visibly-expressed genes that might differ, as a statistical matter, from my closer ancestors?

You see, this is the redefinition I was talking about. You redefine race so that you can claim it doesn't exist, meanwhile the rest of the world knows what race is, and the way they would define it can be proven beyond refute. Even less-obvious variations, with concentrations of specific mutations in what people tend to call "races", are so obvious a child can observe them, profound enough to have a real effect on the outcomes of certain situations.

If you were familiar with critical thinking and empiricism, it would be trivial to cast doubt on their relatively weak reasoning on the matter. Augustín Fuentes does not hold a monopoly on analysis, and his statements on this matter appear prejudicial, since he does not follow them up with evidence and a review of the contrary evidence in the context of the meaning of the word "race" as understood by the public.

Academia is, in effect, playing dumb with regard to race. Activism has no place in the pursuit of truth. The fact that the differences in the coding of DNA are proportionally small compared to the similarity has nothing to do with the obvious fact that there are differences and cohorts which share the same differences due to co-breeding.

While I will admit that academia is somewhat burying their heads in the sand when thinking about racial differences, I've always found this line of thinking rather dubious. It feels like someone wanting to take a belief and find an explanation for it, rather than gathering facts and then coming to a conclusion.

As someone who grew up in a predominately white area, I've known a great number of very smart white people, and a lot of very dumb ones. If intelligence varies so widely among my race, I would by default assume the same is true of others, unless given solid proof otherwise, and I find the circumstantial evidence some provide very lacking.

Let's take a positive stereotype. Everyone knows Asian kids are smart, right? They always get the best grades. But are they actually smarter than everyone because of their genes? Or do they just have a culture that promotes learning? Parents that force them to study for hours each night? That are disappointed with anything less than an A and tell them they let down their family?

I've known some people of other races that were adopted and raised by white families, and you know what? They act just like white people too. So in this case, I'm a big believer in nurture over nature.