Tag: SJW

No SJWs allowed

One senses the hand of Linus Torvalds behind this unexpected action by the Linux Foundation:

Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation

The Linux Foundation is an industry organisation dedicated to “promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software”[1]. The majority of its board is chosen by the member companies – 10 by platinum members (platinum membership costs $500,000 a year), 3 by gold members (gold membership costs $100,000 a year) and 1 by silver members (silver membership costs between $5,000 and $20,000 a year, depending on company size). Up until recently individual members ($99 a year) could also elect two board members, allowing for community perspectives to be represented at the board level.

As of last Friday, this is no longer true. The by-laws were amended to drop the clause that permitted individual members to elect any directors. Section 3.3(a) now says that no affiliate members may be involved in the election of directors, and section 5.3(d) still permits at-large directors but does not require them[2]. The old version of the bylaws are here – the only non-whitespace differences are in sections 3.3(a) and 5.3(d).

These changes all happened shortly after Karen Sandler announced that she planned to stand for the Linux Foundation board during a presentation last September. A short time later, the “Individual membership” program was quietly renamed to the “Individual supporter” program and the promised benefit of being allowed to stand for and participate in board elections was dropped (compare the old page to the new one). Karen is the executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organisation involved in the vitally important work of GPL enforcement. The Linux Foundation has historically been less than enthusiastic about GPL enforcement, and the SFC is funding a lawsuit against one of the Foundation’s members for violating the terms of the GPL. The timing may be coincidental, but it certainly looks like the Linux Foundation was willing to throw out any semblance of community representation just to ensure that there was no risk of someone in favour of GPL enforcement ending up on their board.

The Foundation’s action doesn’t have anything to do with Karen Sandler being the executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, but rather, her having been the executive director of the Gnome Foundation, which she bankrupted in three years by devoting nearly 50 percent of the foundation’s budget to a new Women’s Outreach Program.

This demonstrates the seriousness of the threat that the most influential  people in tech know that the SJWs pose to it. It is well worth destroying the community aspect of a project to keep them out, if necessary, because if they are allowed in, they will spend all their time and effort in attempting to take it over; even if they are prevented from doing so, far too many resources will be wasted in stopping them, resources that could have been spent on achieving the goals of the project.

Keep them out. As Linus knows, even it requires changing the rules, you have to keep them out.

A second SJW attack on PHP

Another SJW, this time one Derick Rethan, takes another crack at imposing a Code of Conduct on PHP:

Hi, I’ve decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, but there are a few points I want to make. I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of toxic behaviour on this list is in my opinion unacceptable. It drives people away, it certainly did. It is also one of the reasons I am not nearly as active as I used to be.

It also makes me reluctant to welcome and mentor new people wanting to contribute. I have said “no” to two people in the last few days, mostly because I am not sure whether I want them exposed to some of the things being said on the list.

But I think this list, and hence this project, and language, can be improved. A Code of Conduct alone is not enough. The focus for this list, and wider community, should be on collaborating to make PHP even better and faster than it already is. Collaboration works better in a happy environment, where people work together instead of against each other.

The new 0.5 version of the RFC that is up at  https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct focusses more on working  together and mediation than on acting with an iron fist on when things
go awry, although these parts of the RFC are still included. In my opinion, an CoC that is not enforced is nothing but some text on a piece  of paper—or in our case, a few bits on a disk. I have added a section,  Constructive Contributor Guidelines, in addition to the CoC. This section definitely needs improving.

I would everybody invite you to help out improving this RFC, but please take into account  https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct#constructive_collaboration_guidelines

I want this to work, and work together, to get this approved.

cheers,

If the project leader at PHP has any sense at all, he will expel this SJW from the project immediately. Notice how he spews squid ink the moment his idiocy is confronted:

There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser

That is a tricky one. In my opinion, in the case of abuse as pointed out in the draft CoC, I think this is fair, and necessary that we all for reports of abuse in private, and with secrecy. Without it, an accusor is likely immediately going to be lambasted by the perpetrator.

Here we have the core of (yet another) problem: presumption of guilt. The “accused” is casually referred to as the “perpetrator.”  This is *exactly* why the accused needs to be able to confront the accuser.

The common reply here is to say “oops, sorry, I meant to say ‘the accused'”.  I don’t think that’s true; it’s a wink-and-a-nod, a recognition that one has revealed their true thoughts: all accusations are to be believed. Except, of course, the ones that are not to be believed, and those will (strangely enough) line up with the political beliefs of the enforcers. Because it is a political document, the Contributor Covenant is *intended* to work that way.

That is only one of the many reasons the Contributor Covenant, and all documents like it, should be removed in toto from any Code of Conduct discussion.

There is nothing “tricky” about it. SJWs want to be able to act arbitrarily, and in secret, without any oversight or possibility of public protest. Again, PHP should ban this SJW from the project immediately; he is actively seeking to destroy it and he is using deception to do so.

Furthermore, the Code of Merit appears to be an effective way to go, because the SJWs are definitely against it:

I had a look at this, and I think it is not suitable. It is almost the exact opposite of promoting collaborative behaviour, and instead only focusses on the “if you done nothing before, you have no voice”. There is also no chance the PHP project will have have a benevolent dictator (or group of people). And it only focusses on the technical aspects of a community, but even covering a set of guidelines to improve collaboration.

Remember, to the SJW, “not suitable” means “it won’t help us take control and play thought police.” But clearly it can be approved. “Almost the exact opposite” is not good enough. If they’re not shrieking and crying and protesting, it’s clearly not enough.

Show them you mean business and will not put up with the disruption. Kick them out as soon as they show themselves.

Initial SJW attack defeated

An SJW gives up on his initial attempt to seize control of the PHP project:

I’ve decided to withdraw the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, but there are a few points I want to make.

As to the content of the RFC, when I initially proposed it, I selected the Contributor Covenant due to it being a well adopted standard. Several people raised objections to it, and I was completely open to changing it. But the more objections I see, the more I feel the nature of the objections actually justifies the Covenant as the choice rather than justifies switching it. The more I hear people complain about the “scope of applicability” being outside the project, the more it’s apparent that many (not all, but many) simply don’t want to need to think about their actions in other contexts. Some will claim that ambiguity will lead to abuse, but the underlying idea is “treat people with respect”. And as long as you do that, all will be fine.

And while several would rather see a CoC that focuses on “positive behavior”, to me that’s not what a CoC is for. The CoC is to take a stand and say “this is what we will not tolerate”. Positive behavior should be encourage in another “Contributing” document. Where you detail how people should contribute. The CoC is a mechanism for people to feel safe. And safety is achieved by taking a stand.

As far as voting on just the CoC without a private reporting mechanism (which implies some degree of “teeth”), I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe that’s tenable. I believe that asking people to go public with every incident defeats the entire point of having a CoC.

I am also not happy with the RFC in its current state (I’ve been clear about that since day one). But I also have no further energy to evolve it further. Hence, there is nothing left for me to do but withdraw it.

Notice the First Law of SJW at work: the initial suggestion is that the Code of Conduct is simply about being nice, and that there is nothing controversial about it. But then, the moment that anyone objects, the fact that there is controversy only proves the need for this uncontroversial policy to be implemented. And then notice how, although the Code is said to be about nothing but feelings, it needs “teeth” and private enforcement in order to be “tenable”.

And don’t forget the Second Law of SJW: SJWs always double down. No sooner did Ferrara withdraw his attempt to impose the Code of Conduct on the project than someone else proposed it again.

One of those who successfully resisted the initial entryist attack, PHP project member Paul Jones, explains in detail why the Code of Conduct is nothing more than an SJW weapon used to exert political control over an OSS project:

Recently, Anthony Ferrara opened an RFC for PHP internals to adopt and enforce a code of conduct. Even leaving aside for the moment whether this is an appropriate use of the RFC system, the RFC generated a lot of discussion on the mailing list, in which I participated at great length, and for which I was hailed as abusive by at least one person in favor of the RFC (a great example of a kafkatrap).

To restate what I said on the mailing list, my position on the RFC is not merely “opposed”, but “reject entirely as unsalvageable” (though I did make some attempts at salvage in case it goes through). I continue to stand by everything I said there, and in other channels, regarding the proposed Code of Conduct.

Normally, if you had not heard about this particular discussion, I would say you were lucky, and probably the happier for it. In this case, I have to say that you should be paying close attention. The Code of Conduct as presented enables its enforcers to stand in judgment of every aspect of your public, private, professional, and political expression. I understand that’s a bold assertion; I will attempt to support it below.

The Contributor Covenant version on which the RFC is based is authored and maintained by intersectional technologist and transgender feminist Coraline Ada Ehmke. Ehmke believes that open source is a political movement:

    From the onset open source has been inherently a political movement, a reaction against the socially damaging, anti-competitive motivations of governments and corporations. It began as a campaign for social liberty and digital freedom, a celebration of the success of communal efforts in the face of rampant capitalism. What is this if not a political movement?

– Why Hackers Must Welcome Social Justice Advocates

Whether or not this description of open source is accurate, it is true that Ehmke thinks of open source as a political arena. As such, one must read the Contributor Covenant as a political document, with political means and political ends. Specifically, it is a tool for Social Justice.

As a tool for Social Justice, it recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. This attitude is written into the Contributor Covenant with the text, “This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.” So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

Never accept any Code of Conduct proposed for any reason. And every OSS project leaders should impose a rule that anyone proposing a Code of Conduct will be immediately expelled from the project. At a bare minimum, only those who have been contributing to the project for at least three years should be permitted to propose, discuss, or vote on project-related rules.

Notice how the SJW Coraline had been a member of the Ruby project for all of two days before proposing the Code of Conduct there. But in the present circumstances, it is much better to simple expel every member, new or old, who proposes or supports one.

More SJW attacks in tech

An SJW entryist attacks Ruby. Note the appeals to “everyone’s doing it” as well as how quickly SJWs line up to endorse it in an attempt to create momentum for the Code of Conduct that will allow them to take over the project:

Code of Conduct
Added by Coraline Ada Ehmke 2 days ago.

I am the creator of the Contributor Covenant, a code of conduct for Open Source projects. At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github that have adopted it. This past year saw adoption of Contributor Covenant by a lot of very large, very visible projects, including Rails, Github’s Atom text editor, Angular JS, bundler, curl, diaspora, discourse, Eclipse, rspec, shoes, and rvm. The bundler team made code of conduct integration an option in the gem creation workflow, putting it on par with license selection. Many open source language communities have already adopted the code of conduct, including Elixir, Mono, the .NET foundation, F#, and Apple’s Swift. RubyTogether also adopted a policy to only fund Ruby projects that had a solid code of conduct in place.

Right now in the PHP community there is a healthy debate about adopting the Contributor Covenant. Since it came from and has been so widely adopted by the Ruby community at large, I think it’s time that we consider adopting it for the core Ruby language as well.

Our community prides itself on niceness. What a code of conduct does is define what we mean by nice. It states clearly that we value openness, courtesy, and compassion. That we care about and want contributions from people who may be different from us. That we pledge to respect all contributors regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors. And it makes it clear that we are prepared to follow through on these values with action when and if an incident arises.

I’m asking that we join with the larger Ruby community in supporting the adoption of the Contributor Covenant for the Ruby language. I think that this will be an important step forward and will ensure the continued welcoming and supportive environment around Ruby. You can read the full text of the Contributor Covenant at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/ and learn more at http://contributor-covenant.org/.

Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I also enjoyed the false claims about a community to which he doesn’t even belong. I’ve seen this cookie-cutter approach being used in various projects. The problem is that most of the respondents don’t understand what is going on and are taking the entryist at face value. This guy, however, does:

Yes, we know who you are. To everyone reading this thread, please take time to read the following by ESR (Eric Raymond). http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 (Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs)

You now have the basic information behind why people are attempting to wedge in CoCs…. If any sort of CoC is adopted, let’s adopt one like the “Code of Merit” where people who do great work are the ones working up the chain with the purpose of being a leader in the community.

However, even this response makes the mistake of nodding to equality and so forth. They prey on that sort of niceness and tolerance. “What’s important in this process however is that people who might
otherwise feel excluded from certain open source communities be involved
in shaping the final code of conduct.” Reject it. Reject ALL of it. Let those hypothetical people feel excluded. Give them no ground whatsoever.

Alarming the Left

Even old double-dyed Reds are beginning to worry about how out-of-control the SJWs are, now that they’re being targeted too:

The last few years have seen the dawn of a new kind of political correctness which I think of as “PC 2.0”. This is the movement that seeks to de-platform Germaine Greer and wants every trace of Cecil Rhodes removed from Oxford. It’s the kind of thinking that has made gender so confusing that I don’t even know what the right view is any more, although I’m pretty sure that my view will be the wrong one, whatever it is.

Suddenly, those of us who had never worried about being seen as politically unsound are being cast as ageing, right-wing bigots. It’s weird finding yourself on the “reactionary” side of the argument with one of the world’s most famous feminists. Yes, in the blink of an eye, Germaine and I have become those crusty old people who start spouting unacceptable platitudes after a couple of drinks.

It’s going to be amusing to see how the Wil Wheatons and John Scalzis of the world start behaving once the SJWs of the SF world turn on them. No amount of snarky goodthink is going to save a rich old white guy from their tender attentions once they decide he has offended them by existing.

Once you decide to ride the tiger, it is the tiger who decides exactly when, and how, you’re going to get off.

How fortunate that there is an answer for those on whom the tiger turns.

Lessons in Rhetoric: Christian edition

LB engages with a Christian SJW on the attack and observes they don’t behave any differently than their godless cousins, they merely rely upon different lies and double down on the sanctimony. A dialogue with analysis:

C-SJW: “Baptists have a habit of preaching ‘against’ the things of this life rather than preach Christ Jesus & Him crucified. They never point people towards the Holy Spirit, Who leads & guides into All Truth, comforts us & empowers us to live the Life that is INSIDE of us: Christ IN you, your hope of glory. Being in agreement about what we’re supposed to oppose hardly produces the Love of Christ in us to share with a hurting world.”

Analysis: There are a lot of dialectical bunny trails one might chase. But the SJW’s primary attack works on two levels: 1. rhetorical holiness posturing, and 2. a dialectically false interpretation of Scripture as New Age niceness congenial to the worldly Zeitgeist.

LB: “Concern troll is concerned. Go censor all the Biblical examples of preaching “against” things. You’ll be left with genealogies and genocides.”

Analysis: Direct dialectical refutation, but succinct and dismissive to retain rhetorical frame. To the dialectical, the SJW is done. But due to brevity, the rhetorical will hear the slap without seeing the bullets. This baits the SJW to come in hot, stupid, and overconfident. He responds in rhetorical kind.

C-SJW: “Put down the crack pipe & talk plainly. I have no idea of what you are speaking.”

Analysis: Insult + dialectical bait. If I expand and explain, I lose. Instead, I switch to rhetoric and reframe his incomprehension as stupidity.

LB: “In you is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias.”

I know his pride is invested in superior Biblical knowledge, so I drop an obviously Biblical reference on him that I know he won’t get. Pride directs him to Google. Google then directs him to Matthew 13:14:

“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive”

This is part of a longer passage in which Jesus explains that he deliberately speaks in confusing parables so that an undeserving people would NOT be saved. The reference simultaneously insults the C-SJW, refutes his universalist niceness, and silences his objection to my obscure speech, all using a direct New Testament quote from Jesus Christ himself.

C-SJW: “LOL, are you vexing me?  LOL  You are full of pride & it makes people not want to be around you. If you can’t walk in love & understanding, you can’t walk in the Light.”

Analysis: It’s a hit! Two all-capital LOLs. No different than a negged girl laughing off tingle-tension, although less aesthetically appealing. He starts reframing hard to rebuild his ego, launching all kinds of random and rabbity accusations. He has no possible support for them as I’ve done nothing but quote a single line of Scripture! It’s rhetorical and psychological, not dialectical.

He’s suddenly given me a lot of material in just four sentences, and it would be easy to be overwhelmed by target selection. But going off on a tangent would be a welcome psychological relief for him. I need to maintain and intensify the pressure, which means continuing to drive down the rhetorical middle. That would be his holiness posturing, which is now the only barrier between me and his fragile gamma ego.

LB: “By “walk in love and understanding,” I assume you mean “accuse people of smoking crack.””

Analysis: Barrier penetrated: hypocrisy demonstrated. Zero dialectic breather. Short reply highlights the verbosity of his butthurt reaction.

C-SJW: “Or calling me a troll”

Analysis: This is the SJW in retreat, now spewing squid ink. He’s trying to settle for moral equivalency rather than retain his superior holiness posture, and there’s no more attempt at offense. He’s crying foul and looking for the ref. Now it’s time to encircle and destroy. Mustn’t let him escape with a failed offensive and a minor tacit concession.

LB: “Not only are you a concern troll, you are too stupid to avoid exposing yourself as a posturing holier-than-thou hypocrite within the space of two comments. But you proved yourself a liar in your first comment: “They never point people towards the Holy Spirit”

I Googled “sanderson1611 Holy Spirit” and found 4 youtube sermons on it in 3 seconds.”

Analysis: The correct response to the cry of “foul” is to do it twice as hard – because it hurt. By repeating the accusation, I deny his lie of equating “concern troll” with “troll”. I then reject his frame of equal culpability, making the hypocrisy charge explicit. I don’t know what untried rhetorical options he has left at this point, other than Fall Silent.

C-SJW: *crickets*

Analysis: QED

This is really well-done rhetorical jujitsu. Knowing when to utilize pure rhetoric and when to launch a concise dialectical strike for rhetorical purposes is an art, not a science, and LB switches back and forth between the two very effectively here. The key, as he shows, is to identify the SJW’s primary point of pride and, Belichick-style, attack it. Then one has merely to recognize when emotional pain has been felt, as indicated by the nature of the reaction, and press harder on that point.

As LB implicitly noted, “laughing” is SJW for “you are hurting me”. Don’t get distracted and deviate into dialectic at that point, just press harder on the Schwerpunkt.

The shame of the SJWs

The Ralph Retort postulates that the root source of SJW behavior is to be found in shame:

Every SJW has something that they’re deeply ashamed of, something that makes them feel guilty or insecure, and this is the key to understanding everything else about them. You may have noticed that our enemies have enough skeletons in their closets to fully replenish the world’s oil supplies if they were underground – from pedos, to sibling sex-assaulters, to literal shit-eaters, to guys that think that rape is funny, to pedos, to guys that fail to report rape, to trannies that sleep with men without disclosure, to pedos, to women who abuse their boyfriends, to virulent racism, to pedos, to general all-around sociopathy – nearly all of these people’s lives are complete and utter trainwrecks, and this is no coincidence.

Of course, nearly everyone is ashamed of something, so that doesn’t explain SJWs all by itself. SJWs are made by how they deal with it. There are a lot of healthy ways to deal with shame, depending on the underlying reason for it. You can seek to improve your habits, you can repent and make amends to people you’ve wronged, you can seek forgiveness from God, you can realize that it’s nothing to be ashamed of and come to terms with it, you can find some escape to help you cope, etc.

But SJWs deal with it in the worst way possible, and that’s the factor that makes them SJWs. The SJW seeks to rationalize away their shame by pinning the blame for it on everyone else. “There’s nothing wrong with me,” they tell themselves, “I only feel bad because society has oppressed me with it’s arbitrary, regressive norms. In fact, I’m more progressive and enlightened that everyone else for realizing this. They should be ashamed! I should be judging them!”

From what I’ve seen, SJWs disproportionately come from the low-end of the social totem pole and the ugly end of the attractiveness spectrum. I suspect that gamma rage-against-society and ugly female rage-against-society also play a substantial factor in what motivates SJWs to behave as they do.

Sad Puppies can’t protect them now

Sarah Hoyt tries to explain what Brad and Larry couldn’t manage to get across to the SF SJWs last year.

What they don’t realize is that they’re attacking the people who read in favor of the imaginary “other” who will be so refined and perfect. They also don’t realize that Sad Puppies was the only thing PROTECTING them from Vox. I don’t know if we still are enough to protect them, and at this point I know any number of people who say “May G-d have mercy on their souls” rather than try to defend them.

Even if one disregards how many Sad Puppies were converted into Rabid Puppies by the actions of the SJWs, there simply isn’t anything the Sad Puppies can do to protect them from us this year. Nor are they particularly interested in doing so.

“I find Vox Day a bit abrasive but honestly at this point I’m ready for him to eat them alive.”

Last year, my alliance with the others tied my hands. You may recall that I did not talk much to the media or bother to protest most of their ridiculous characterizations, but left that to Brad, the SP3 spokesman. I had no need to defend myself against spurious charges, and there was no point in doing so anyhow.

This year is when the Rabid Puppies will respond. But not in kind. No, because we have no need to tell lies about them. I intend to do something far, far worse. I intend to tell the truth.

While they, apparently, are occupied with making Lego figures of us. It seems that is what they do when they are not obsessing over what they think we are thinking. Even in light of how poorly they anticipated me last time, it’s mildly amusing to see that they still don’t understand my perspective at all.

“The Most Important Book of 2015”

The Most Important Book Of 2015: SJWs Always Lie

As someone who has been the target of SJW attacks for years, and who has helped bring awareness to their totalitarian interpretation of “justice,” I began reading Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie with enthusiasm. Not only does it go into depth about what SJW’s think and how they behave, it also gives you a strategy for fighting back when they come after you or your organization.

SJW’s have so infected Western institutions and corporations that it
is inevitable you will come face-to-face with an SJW who hopes to harm
you and your livelihood. For that reason, SJWs Always Lie amounts to essential reading for all men. It’s the most important book I read in 2015.

In the universities, in the churches, in the
corporations, in the professional associations, in the editorial
offices, in the game studios, and just about everywhere else you can
imagine, free speech and free thought are under siege by a group of
fanatics as self-righteous as Savonarola, as ruthless as Stalin, as
ambitious as Napoleon, and as crazy as Caligula. They are the Social
Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the self-appointed thought police who have
been running amok throughout the West since the dawn of the politically
correct era in the 1990s.

Vox methodically breaks down the enemy that we have been fighting for
years, including their strengths, weaknesses, and modes of attack.
While information on fighting SJWs are available on various sites and
forums, this is the first time it has been assembled in one cohesive
work.

I very much appreciate the distinction. Regardless of what you might think of him, Roosh has been on the front lines of the cultural war and he has fearlessly continued to stand up for men, even men who disdain and disavow him.

Roosh knows, much better than most of us, the lengths to which SJWs are willing to go to disqualify, discredit, and destroy a man. That is why his praise for the book is so meaningful, and so significant.

SJWs defending their turf

One of the people following my author page received this from Goodreads today:

Hi there

Your account was recently brought to our attention.  Upon review, we have decided to remove it from the site.  A CSV of the books you shelved is attached for your personal records.  You are banned from using Goodreads in any capacity going forward.

Sincerely,

The Goodreads Team

That’s four banned already. As I said, for all the libertarian pretensions of the CEO, the company has been entirely converged. The purpose of Goodreads is no longer to simply read and review books, but to advance social justice ideals by building up SJW authors and attacking anti-SJW authors and anyone who supports them.

That is why Goodreads will go into decline and Amazon will eventually shut them down and replace them. The only way a converged business can survive is as a parasite, either with a government host or a corporate one.