On 01.10.2018 07:28, taii...@gmx.com wrote: Hi,
> On 09/27/2018 05:11 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >> I'm that Social Justice Warrior that you don't like. > > I can almost guarantee you aren't. > > There is a big difference between being for social justice which any > reasonable person is, and being a SJW. I can follow this way of thinking ... we should be careful not get into conflicts by just different interpretation of some terminology. I've seen a lot of self-declared 'social justice warriors', who finally did more harm than anything useful. Those who really did many good things, tend to not calling themselves that way. These CoC issues remind me to things happening in other (eg. the political) field. For example here in Germany (in other European countries, too) certain movements try to establish certain CoCs to most areas of daily life, that just shall prohibit them from speaking their mind, eg.: * people against abortion shall be banned/silenced, as they're discriminating women. * people against gay marriage shall be banned/silenced, as they're discriminating gays. * people against child marriage shall be banned/silenced, as they're discriminating certain religions / cultures. * people who speak about crimal immigrants or refugees shall be banned/ silenced, as they're discriminating them * people who speak about costs of immigration shall be banned/silenced as they're discriminating immigrants * people who differenciate between immigrants and refugees shall be banned/silenced, as they're discriminating refuguees Those demands usually come from 'leftist' groups (mostly beaurocrats, who never contributed anything actually useful, heavily sponsored by multi-billionares) who try to take over the whole society (smells like a 2nd wave of the 68'ers, who turned our schools into indoctrination camps). And the very same people applaude to officials and party leaders who openly spill anti-white or anti-German racism - eg. the "bomber- harris-do-it-again"-faction" (remember: Arthur Harris was a very brutal war criminal, who deliberately slaughtered at least a million civilians) With that background, things like 'CoC's make my alarm bells ring very louldly. Of course, I don't believe that any of the kernel maintainers belong to those groups. But it feels they might be somewhat under some 'social pressure'. A practical look on the actual text: * they're trying to introduce a kind of legal system into a tech project * the text is so extremly vague, that it just isn't usable for any serious legal purpose. given enough phantasy, one can interpret anything into it. therefore: great chance of failing the original good intent, and high risk of abuse And the argument, the maintainers will take good decisions anyways, isn't pro the CoC - actually it's a very strong con. Because, if it's really the case (IMHO, indeed had been so for the last decades), this codex isn't needed at all - it's been obsolete decades before it's inception. Instead it's just introducing new, completely unnecessary conflicts. The whole purpose of any codex is a formalization of social rules, that aren't followed automatically the responsible people, and are neutral on the personal views of the individuals who're subjected to it or have to execute/enforce it. Just intended to control those individuals who do not inherently follow the unwritten moral rules. Anything else would be just destructive bureaucracy or even a social/legal weapon. If these FOSS projects really wanted to establish a properly working CoC, they'd also need to establish their own complete legal system, including lawmakers, courts, police. Is that really the goal ? --mtx _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
