Tag: technology

You can safely write off Swift, Mono, and Discourse, as all three have succumbed to Social Justice Convergence and adopted SJW Codes of Conduct:

One of my heroes, Miguel de Icaza, happens to have lots of life experience in open sourcing things that were not exactly open source to start with. He applauded the move, and even made a small change to his Mono project in tribute:

    When Swift was open sourced today, I saw they had a Code of Conduct. We had to follow suit, Mono has adopted it: https://t.co/hVO3KL1Dn5
    — Miguel de Icaza (@migueldeicaza) December 4, 2015

Which I also thought was kinda cool.

It surprises me that anyone could ever object to the mere presence of a code of conduct. But some people do.

        A weak Code of Conduct is a placebo label saying a conference is safe, without actually ensuring it’s safe.

        Absence of a Code of Conduct does not mean that the organizers will provide an unsafe conference.

        Creating safety is not the same as creating a feeling of safety.

        Things organizers can do to make events safer: Restructure parties to reduce unsafe intoxication-induced behavior; work with speakers in advance to minimize potentially offensive material; and provide very attentive, mindful customer service consistently through the attendee experience.

        Creating a safe conference is more expensive than just publishing a Code of Conduct to the event, but has a better chance of making the event safe.

        Safe conferences are the outcome of a deliberate design effort.

I have to say, I don’t understand this at all. Even if you do believe these things, why would you say them out loud? What possible constructive outcome could result from you saying them? It’s a textbook case of honesty not always being the best policy. If this is all you’ve got, just say nothing, or wave people off with platitudes, like politicians do. And if you’re Jared Spool, notable and famous within your field, it’s even worse – what does this say to everyone else working in your field?

Mr. Spool’s central premise is this:

    Creating safety is not the same as creating a feeling of safety.

Which, actually … isn’t true, and runs counter to everything I know about empathy. If you’ve ever watched It’s Not About the Nail, you’ll understand that a feeling of safety is, in fact, what many people are looking for. It’s not the whole story by any means, but it’s a very important starting point.

I’m not sure which amused me more. The Gamma tell: “Which I also thought was kinda cool” or the idea that a short humor video serves as an adequate rebuttal

Now, it is true that “a feeling of safety” is what many people are looking for. It’s why they should not be permitted to vote in a representative democracy. But (and this would be the only relevant point), “a feeling of safety” is not what people are looking for in technology projects.

As I told Robert Rosario, there is soon going to be a significant movement of talented programmers away from projects that have converged. Perhaps it is time to create a qualification that is awarded to sufficiently skilled and credentialed open source contributors who vow not to work on any open source project with a Code of Conduct, and to fork any open source project that adopts one.

This isn’t my field, but I have a vision for an effective anti-SJW technology force that will benefit greatly from the many open source projects bogging themselves down in social justice. If anyone who is actually in OSS in a signficant way would like to lead a Brainstorm discussion of it, let me know.

Breitbart Tech observably notes the mysterious silence in the technology media concerning the explosive claims of feminists “taking runs” at OSS project leaders and Linus Torvalds being targeted for disqualification by the Ada Initiative:

Discontent at the behaviour of feminists in tech has already been spreading in the open source community thanks to the feminist-led introduction of controversial codes of conduct for developers on some open source projects. But these new claims elevate feminists in tech from the controversial to the potentially criminal.

The claims of Raymond’s source could also provide an explanation for why so many tech diversity activists, such as the innovation expert Vivek Wadhwa, and the Puerto Rican software developer Roberto Rosario, have been mercilessly set upon by tech feminists.

If feminists are trying to frame software developers for sexual assault, it would be important for them to occupy the chief positions in the “diversity movement” to ensure the incidents were followed by sufficient outrage across the movement. Prominent diversity activists who are not subscribed so such nefarious methods could therefore present a problem.

Despite widespread discussion in the industry of the explosive claims on Raymond’s blog, and the stature of Raymond within software development, other tech news outlets – normally champing at the bit to report on diversity issues – have so far been curiously silent on this story. Breitbart Tech is, thus far, the exception.

What’s happening should not be surprising, as the attempts of SJWs to destroy technology through social justice convergence is the entire objective of the “diversity in tech” movement. It’s not about improving technology at all, it is about forcing a white male stronghold into the same sort of submission to which other industries have been subjected.

This is exactly what action to seize the cultural high ground looks like. We just haven’t seen it before up close and personal because it happened elsewhere.

Reject “diversity in tech”. Reject “girls who code”. Reject every single initiative being put forth by the SJWs, no matter how innocuous they sound, because every single one of them has an insidious and destructive purpose.

ESR warns that SJWs aren’t merely using weaponized codes of conduct to try to take over open source software projects these days.

I received a disturbing warning today from a source I trust. The short version is: if you are any kind of open-source leader or senior figure who is male, do not be alone with any female, ever, at a technical conference. Try to avoid even being alone, ever, because there is a chance that a “women in tech” advocacy group is going to try to collect your scalp.

IRC conversation, portions redacted to protect my informant, follows.

15:17:58 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I’m super careful about honey traps.  For a while, that’s how the Ada Initiative was trying to pre-generate outrage and collect scalps.                            
15:18:12          esr | REALLY?                                   
15:18:22          esr | That’s perverse.                          
15:18:42 XXXXXXXXXXXX | Yeah, because the upshot is, I no longer can afford to mentor women who are already in tech.
15:18:54          esr | Right.                                    
15:19:01 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I can and do mentor ones who are not in it, but are interested and able           
15:19:21 XXXXXXXXXXXX | but once one is already in…  nope
15:20:08 XXXXXXXXXXXX | The MO was to get alone with the target, and then immediately after cry “attempted sexual assault”.
15:23:27          esr | When the backlash comes it’s going to be vicious.  And women who were not part of this bullshit will suffer for it.
15:23:41 XXXXXXXXXXXX | I can only hope.                           
15:25:21          esr | Ah. On the “Pour encourager les autres” principle?  I hadn’t thought of that. Still damned unfortunate, though.
15:26:40 XXXXXXXXXXXX | Linus is never alone at any conference. This is not because he lets fame go to his head and likes having a posse around.     
15:26:54 XXXXXXXXXXXX | They have made multiple runs at him.      
15:27:29          esr | Implied warning noted.                     
15:27:34            * | XXXXXXXXXXXX nods

Interesting to see that technologists are having to adopt the same policy as Billy Graham and other Christian pastors; SJWs not only always lie, but apparently they always resort to the same tactical set as well. It’s also interesting to note that women connected to the Ada Initiative are known to have been engaging in these tactics for some time now.

In any event, you’ve been warned. I find it a little ironic that there is any concern whatsoever for the hypothesized effect on “women who were not part of this bullshit” because that’s simply not important. If they want to work in tech, they can still do so, they simply won’t have the benefit of the expected hand-holding.

At any rate, it should be apparent to even the most dubious moderate that SJWs in tech are a serious problem and they need to be rooted out.

Rosarior beats back and exposes an SJW entryist attempting to impose a Code of Conduct on the Awesome-Django project:

great project!! I have one observation and a suggestion. I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour). As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct (http://contributor-covenant.org) to ensure everybody’s contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general. D.

A few things about this. First, the name is generic. Second, this comment is literally the SJW’s first “contribution to the project. Third, while the SJW uses the correct terminology, he offers no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Fourth, his claim that the people whose pull requests were rejected are People of Colour are likely false considering that he doesn’t know that the individual he is addressing is Hispanic, not white.

Fortunately, rosarior recognizes the nature of the stealth attack. While he politely addresses the nominal suggestions, he makes it clear that this project is not a soft target and shuts down the SJW’s line of entry

The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn’t been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

I’m not white and please don’t make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

I already work on several projects that hold inclusion as one of their primary goals.

I’m closing this issue based on the explanations given.

The wording allows just a little more wiggle room than is ideal, but it is a strong and effective response, particularly the implicit statement that “inclusion” is not a primary goal of this particular project. Perhaps due to the wiggle room, the SJW tries again.

You seem to have taken personal issue with well the issue 🙂 I opened
this issue not to attack you or your decisions,but to help improve a
part of the project in which it seemed lacking. Most projects on Github
have adopted the Contributor Covenant or a variant of it. It is a
very straight forward document that protects all parties,I don’t
understand your negative attitude towards that philosophy. You may not
be “white” [ in your profile picture you sure seem white 🙂 ] but you
are not a woman or a trans-gendered person so you can’t possibly
understand what they go through (harassment,exclusion,threats) and why a
code of conduct is necessary. Even the Django Software Foundation has
adopted one to protect it’s future,for me it’s very obvious Django
related projects would naturally follow suite and adopt the same if not
similar Code of Conducts. I urge you to reconsider for the good and
future of this project 🙂 Thank you

Now the rhetorical gloves come off. The SJW tries to play on rosarior’s insecurities and emotions, then throws out an appeal to the herd animal instinct before issuing an implicit threat. The code of conduct is now declared “necessary” in order to protect the future of the project, which is twice mentioned in a threatening manner. Notice that the SJW doesn’t even address the fact that his original claimed concerns were addressed, thereby negating any need for the requested code, he simply moves the goalposts and moves on to more high-pressure rhetorical tactics. This is why dialectical arguments are totally useless; the SJWs simply ignore the effective ones.

This response could be described as overly long and dialectical; rhetoric has ZERO informational content so responding to the feigned issues serves no purpose unless one is doing it to expose pseudo-dialectic on behalf of any onlookers. However, expecting a programmer to not respond in a systematic manner to the issues raised is rather like expecting sight hounds not to chase running rabbits, so it’s harmless. What is particularly important, however, is the way rosarior calls out the SJW for his implicit threats and requests clarification; in doing so he causes the SJW to unmask completely and show his fangs.

I really have no idea why you are responding the way you are! Really!! Code of Conducts are not JUST about conduct,they cover all the spectrum of behaviours expected from civilized human beings that are more and more absend in the software industry. You are evading the topic at hand and I can only wonder why,why deny equal opportunity for all to join and contribute to your project Roberto?

That you have not “seen” harassment doesn’t mean it is not happening all around us. And turning a blind eye makes it worst. I was not threaning you,but your reaction is a projection of your feelings and now I feel threated by you. Reading the links you posted I only have one thing to say to you:reevaluate your actions,you are becoming a toxic individual who is harming the Python and Django communities and haven’t even realized it yet. You are a member of the Django Software Foundation and are supposed to be setting the example. I will be forwarding the content of this issue to the Chair to evaluate your continued presence in the DSF. best regards.

It’s all there. Threats, point-and-shriek, playing the victim, false accusations, and the inevitable appeal to the amenable authority. In the interest of Social Justice Convergence, the SJW demonstrates that he will try to destroy the project rather than permit it to continue if it cannot be captured and forcibly submitted to the SJW Narrative. Rosarior’s response was the best one I have seen in technology yet, as he not only defeated the assault, but exposed the SJW for what he is in the process.

This is not a joke. These people are genuinely dangerous and will destroy everything they touch. Resist them. Expose them. Seek them out in your own organizations, hunt them down and root them out. SJW delenda est.

It’s time to go on the offensive. If your group or organization has a Code of Conduct, start the campaign to get rid of it now. There is a reason the SJWs are so intent on imposing them everywhere; that is how they intend to institute their thought policing.

And since you know the SJWs are going to be coming after him, show the man he’s got support behind him. If you’re on Twitter, follow the man.


“Those who can code do, those who can’t write code of conducts.”
– Roberto Rosario

The dubiously named “Geekess” explains the process of social justice convergence in open source projects:

There’s been a lot of discussion in my comment sections (and on LWN) about what makes a good community, along with suggestions of welcoming open source communities to check out. Your hearts are in the right place, but I’ve never found an open source community that doesn’t need improvement. I’m quite happy to give the Xorg community a chance, mostly because I believe they’re starting from the right place for cultural change.

The thing is, reaching the goal of a diverse community is a step-by-step process. There are no shortcuts. Each step has to be complete before the next level of cultural change is effective. It’s also worth noting that each step along the way benefits all community members, not just diverse contributors.

Level 0: basic human decency
In order to attract diverse candidates, you need to be known as a welcoming community, with a clear set of agreed-upon social norms. It’s not good enough to have a code of conduct. Your leaders need to be actively behind it, and it needs to be enforced.

Level 1: on-boarding

The next phase in improving diversity is figuring out how to on-board newcomers. If diverse candidates are only 1-10% of newcomers, but you have a 90% fail rate for people who try to make their first contribution, well, you can’t expect many diverse newcomers to stick around, can you? It’s also essential to explain your unwritten tribal knowledge, so that diverse candidates (who are more likely to be afraid of upsetting the status quo) know what they’re getting into.

Level 2: meaningful contributions

The next step is figuring out what to do with these eager new diverse candidates. If they’ve made it this far through the gauntlet of toxic tech culture, they’re likely to be persistent, smart, and seeking a challenge. If you don’t have meaningful bigger projects for them to contribute to, they’ll move onto the next shiny thing.

And it just gets worse, until the whole thing is run by non-white women, food served at conferences is vegetarian, drinking is banned, and the code of conduct explicitly acknowledges the spectrum of privilege. And while she left out literal self-flagellation, there is no doubt that the metaphorical form will be expected of any white male contributors that remain.

I am beginning to wonder if Microsoft and the other software vendors are behind this open source code-of-conduct campaign, because nothing short of special ops assault teams could destroy their OSS competitors more effectively.

Led by the meritocratic example of Linus Torvalds, the Linux development community successfully defeated an attempt by an SJW entryst to impose “civility and professionalism” i.e. a weaponized code of conduct, on the community:

A prominent Linux kernel developer announced today in a blog post that she would step down from her direct work in the kernel community, saying that the community values blunt honesty, often containing profane and personal attacks above “basic human decency.”

Sarah Sharp, an Intel employee who until recently was the maintainer of the USB 3.0 host controller driver, wrote that she could no longer work within a developer culture that required overworked maintainers to be rude and brusque in order to get the job done. She continues to work on other open-source software projects, but says that she has begun to dread even minor interaction with the kernel community….

Sharp has publicly locked horns with senior Linux kernel developers including Torvalds in the past over issues of civility and professionalism, and has, arguably, been more responsible than anyone else for pressing the community to consider those issues more critically in recent years.

But even relatively minor moves to curb bad behavior have met with angry resistance from some kernel devs – a meekly worded “please be respectful” policy adopted as a kernel patch earlier this year provoked furious commentary on mailing lists and Reddit discussions, even if Torvalds himself lent the policy some cursory support.

Good riddance. That is exactly what a successful anti-SJW defense looks like. If the entryist is whining and crying and angrily decrying the mean antediluvian neanderthals who won’t cater to her feelings, you can be sure that the community she is attacking – and which she only cared about insofar as she could attempt to control it – did the right thing by refusing to give in to her.

This is good news for Linux, as the flipside of the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence suggests that those organizations that resist social justice incursions will be considerably more likely to remain focused on their primary functions.