The Linux Kernel Adopts A Code of Conduct

[cesarcafe]

I think it's not time for whining, but for taking action. There's an urgent need for measures that protect projects against becoming kidnapped by ideology like this CoC.

I don't know how this can be done, though. Not sure if it's something that should be specified in the software license, or some agreement that doesn't allow CoC adoption and all contributors must accept... I'm not really sure... The only thing I'm sure is that action must be taken if freedom is not to be lost in more open source projects.

[Cthulhux]

I doubt that. FreeBSD lost a good amount of contributors when they adopted the Geek Feminists' CoC.

[geearf]

Oh oh :/

This looks worrisome, I'm definitely not against a CoC, but the fact that they have to list what could constitute harassment, for example the part about inclusive language, seems dangerous.

The kernel is not a place to take a stand on unrelated topics.
Forcing people to say things they don't believe in, no matter how good it's supposed to be, really seems unhealthy to me.

Hopefully this is not Back To The FreeBSD.

[jukk]

You have failed to put forth a counterpoint to any of his arguments and have instead just tried to dismiss them by attacking him, I guess you have done this because you can't formulate a counterpoint as you know he is right.

Some people have a hard time accepting that their religious views can be discriminating. But the only solution is that they learn to live together with and accept people that are different (often this is what the respective religion is preaching). Still they are demanding that the rest of the society accept that they publicly discriminate other according to their religious beliefs, otherwise they are being discriminated in turn. Sorry, I won't bite.

[Wilfred]

Love this. Actions speak louder than words and Linus and GKH are stepping up. This can only lead to a stronger and healthier kernel and community, without compromising code quality or feelings. Well done.

The fucking SJW's have gotten to Linus. No this is a bad thing.

[karolherbst]

You are missing the point. No one is advocating for discriminating against people. [...]

But you do discriminate. You said it yourself. Maybe you are just not aware that you indeed discriminate upon other believes. You said you didn't respect them. This is discrimination based on others believes.

Also there is a difference about facts "others feel discrimated based upon their believes" and theories "they feel discrimated because they don't feel to be taken serious". You can't deny that they suffer, but you can discuss _why_ they do suffer and there can be multiple reasons for it. All what the Code of Conduct does it to say people should not discriminate based upon what people call "gender identity". It doesn't make any statement about what causes it or why it exists. You could also provide an endless list of things people should not discriminate upon as well.

The Code of Conduct doesn't state those are the only things to not discriminate about and discriminating for examples dog owners is okay. It isn't. It just gave a list of things people are usually discriminated for. And it seems to be correct as you actually are doing it already, but not respecting those people just because they believe in "gender identity".

And you are prejudgemental as well. Most of first part of your posting consists of prejudgments.

The fact remains thatn no theory that would meet the accepted criteria of the scientific method or rigorous philosophic reasoning, and consistent with the current understanding of biology, anthropology, physiology, genetics, psychology or cognitive science, allows for such a notion as "gender".

You are trying to mix two things which aren't the same: 1. facts: "people suffer due to what they call gender identity" 2. theory: "gender exists". Even if gender doesn't exists, it doesn't change the fact that the fact I stated is true. And most of the suffering is caused by other people not giving them any credit for what they say.

Also your sentence doesn't make sense in regards to the scientific method. Just because there isn't such one today, doesn't mean there won't be one in the future (and there might be one already without you knowing about it). You can't prove based on the non existence of something as this is garbage in a science sense. You can only prove based on the _existence_ of something. But this is the hard way, as you would need to find claims in those fields claiming that there is a fixed connection between the natural gender we call "sex" _and_ how the brain identifies what "sex" it actually has. And we have examples that this isn't always the case. Meaning your whole argument is false, yes, because we have at least one example stating something else. We just decided to call this identification "gender". It really is as simple as that. And there is nothing you can do about it execpt falsifying all those counter examples we have. Of course you can say that everybody is lying and try to prove that. Good luck though. But you even said there is a medical condition called "Gender Identity Disorder".... maybe in all cases it is that, maybe there are other disorders or maybe in some cases it isn't a disorder at all, as we know, there are animals which change their sex physically and maybe it makes sense in certain social constructs that people identify themselves with a different gender.

But you don't actually follow the scientific way, you just talk about something which you think is science, but isn't in fact. You already made severe mistakes every scientists would have spotted in no time and would decline your theory based on that. Like I just did.

You talk a lot about what science is supposed to be, but clearly your knowledge about science is lacking some important bits.

I know it sounds hard, but you need to accept people for what they are, even if this is strongly against your own believes or against what you think the world is or what theories you accept as being correct so far. Others can be right and you can be wrong, or others can be wrong and you can be right. But you can't ever know that your theory is correct. You can only know that until today, there was no example of it being wrong. And that's the best you get. If someone just finds _one_ _valid_ example which makes your theory invalid, it is invalid. Period.

[nanonyme]

"I can't wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it's been infiltrated by SJWs. Hahahahah" Coraline Ada Ehmke

This is by the person who wrote the code of conduct that Linux adopted.

Sarcasm over the Internet is apparently a hard art

[Blahblah]

Next chain of events:

1) People report Linus to the "TAB" for his previous (and near future) transgressions against the CoC
2) The TAB has to publicly condemn his behavior/language as inexcusable
3) The TAB now either has to punish Linus as they would another contributor (i.e. banning him), or has to play favoritism to keep Linus part of the project

[ThoreauHD]

Cultural marxism has worked so well in every other failing endeavor. Sure, let's try it here.

[johnc]

Welcome to cancer.