You and everyone else (myself included) was warning him about the corporate troon squad, he never cared, not only that but he keeps shilling them or defending them.
Being this clueless about the problem is part of why I don't shill him nearly as much as I used.
Even though I disagree with these specific comments that you highlighted here I don't mind that these comments are included in the report. I find the report to be very objectively written highlighting comments from all sides about various different things.
I think it's very transparent and good to acknowledge that people exist that think like this.
Also it's not like this survey is an official vote that will decide the direction of the project.
@hfaust What dumbass is autistic enough to want to actively use guix but not autistic enough to do the mildest amount of due diligence to discover nonguix?
But seriously I'm also really fucking done with your stupid transphobic rants about "being forced to accept idealogies" and the fact that gender expression is even mentioned being called "anti-scientific and sexist".
Go misgender people somewhere else, nobody wants to see your stupid shit on their mailing lists anyways.
Yes, their transparency is appreciated. I don't see any of my responses, but they may have been too long or rant-y.
I'd certainly want them to stick to GNU principles, and play well with the FSF, but I have an unrelated issue, which is their CoC. It deceitfully forces you to accept ideologies that are anti-scientific and sexist.
I remember when they did the survey. I responded in great detail, but I doubt there's many ex-contributors with a similar position, so they're not gonna care. Most people just quietly accept the CoC, not realizing what it's about. Similar to people who blindly accept proprietary licenses. In this case, it's a "social contract" instead, but it's just as deceitful and limiting to personal liberties.
To be honest, I don't really care any more, except that I get triggered enough to go on a rant of course, as you see. #Guix could win me back as a contributor if they ditched the CoC, but they're not gonna do that in a thousand years, so whatever. If I really wanted to use it and absolutely needed some patches applied, I'd just run a fork. If it's extra package recipes one needs, one can just store them in files. I avoid their community and refuse to contribute, although I might use the software if I have a use for it. Just like I avoid paying for proprietary software, but may use it anyway if it's useful to me.
I've been thinking of becoming a paid FSF member, but contributing to projects with freedom-restricting (anti-)social contracts is out of the question. Now that I think about it, I worry that my donations to the FSF may go to projects like Guix, so maybe I *don't* want them associated with the FSF any more, I'm not sure.
If you need a document to tell you how you're supposed to be a decent human being while collaborating with other people without making everyone involved suffer you shouldn't be working together with other people in the first place.
How to have a respective social interaction is supposed be common sense and the fact that some people feel the need to write this down is frankly embarrassing.
And I'm saying this as an autistic person who has always had trouble with interpreting social cues and the like.
I am not opposed to contributing to projects that have a CoC, but I usually never read them and this has never been a problem for me because I'm a decent human being who doesn't need to be to told that "being racist is bad actually". No shit
> I usually never read them and this has never been a problem for me because I'm a decent human being who doesn't need to be to told that "being racist is bad actually". No shit
This is very similar to: "I don't mind mass-surveillance laws because I don't have anything to hide. If you're so bothered about Apple and Google automatically scanning your image galleries, just don't have CP or terrorist propaganda in them, duh."
Just because it's not been a problem for you, doesn't mean it's not been a problem for others. Just because it's not gone overboard and been abused this year, doesn't mean it won't be the next year. (Though I would say it already has.)
The CoC-pushers and the Stallman-haters are the same group. (Also see: gnu.tools aka the "GNU Assembly" who tried to create an anti-FSF splinter group using the name of GNU. Most long-term Guix maintainers are in there: https://gnu.tools/en/people/ ) You've seen how absurdly the CoC-pushers misrepresent things RMS did and said, and how uncharitable they've been to him. That's the type of behavior that CoCs stand for. I'm glad we at least agree that they're stupid and unnecessary, but I wish you'd see how harmful the *culture* they bring with them truly is.
But I do agree that this type of document (but not the specific versions used by either the GNU project or the GNU Guix project), can be used to abuse power, especially if they are not properly worded. That's why I would also prefer to avoid them in the first place.
I don't know exactly what you did that got you in trouble in the project, but considering the asinine shit you say on here sometimes you've probably not been a positive influence on other contributors on the project.
Especially your general unreasonable obsession that makes you feel like you have the right to misgender people because "muh biological facts" definitely would make other people stop contributing if nobody put a stop to that.
Also the GNU Assembly is not an anti-GNU group. It is simply a group to organize things between GNU projects in a less top-down way which some people prefer and in my opinion they should have the right to organize like this if they wish to do so.
Although as far as I can tell the GNU Assembly has not never really taken off considering the last update to this website was in 2021, their mailing list archive is empty and their "Governance" has still work in progress.
So this failed attempt at decentralized organization can probably be considered a moot point anyways.
No misgendering, no insults, no sarcasm, nothing. Just pointing out that it's wrong to write a CoC in such a way that it lists every single human characteristic under the sun that one could suffer discrimination for, yet intentionally leaving out sex.
And for that, of course, I'm a "transphobe" because all that "transphobe" means now is "sinner" or "heretic" or "difficult person" who dares to point out issues that shall not be talked about.
I used to be a LOT more patient. I've lost all of it, because of the assholery and bigoted zealotry I've faced every step of the way.
And I'm still staunchly left-wing and progressive; most young people who haven't thought about this much just see a bunch of authoritarian assholes trying to control them, and pivot to right-wing politics as an escape. THAT is a big part of the reason why every fifth German is now voting for a far-right party, and why Trump won the U.S. election. Not necessarily *the* reason if you ask me, but definitely a significant part of it. The "vibes" of the left are simply off, and "wokism" is among the primary culprits for why that is so. The left is now seen the way religious zealots and puritans were seen 30-40 years ago, from what I can tell (I'm 31 what do I know about that).
You're dead wrong. If you're not going to bother reading, why jump to wild conclusions? It's all publicly archived, so you don't need guesswork, you can just look at it and see what really happened.
Calling people "TERF" is no better than calling people "tranny" or "faggot." It's just a bigoted insult used to dehumanize someone so you don't have to treat them like a person or consider their point of view.
> whether she is confused about other people's gender or not
At this rate I'm gonna start being confused about my own gender because posting from @feministwiki.org keeps making people assume I'm female, understandably I guess. :blobcat-joy:
Here's a summary of my "confusion" about gender, by the way:
>Especially your general unreasonable obsession that makes you feel like you have the right to misgender people because "muh biological facts" definitely would make other people stop contributing if nobody put a stop to that.
There is no right to not be misgendered by other people.
ie @taylan does have that right and is welcome to contribute in all of my projects whether she is confused about other people's gender or not.
and generally: if people are going to bring gender politics into software development like this, it's going to slow development down as we draw cycles away from actually important things into this
Hey doesn't that mean I'm doing it right? :blobcat-joy:
Not like those "male feminists" whose main interests in "feminism" are legalizing prostitution, de-stigmatizing BDSM, and ensuring that as many just-turned-18 teenagers as possible become "empowered OnlyFans content creators." :blobcat-nauseated:
The feminism I support is based on auntpilled wholesomemaxxing.
(I have a really wholesome aunt who's a Terre des Femmes member. I love her, even if she believes in climate-engineering nanochip-clouds spread by crop dusters and 5G nanobots in vaccines.)
CoCs are tools of power and control. my intuition is that this makes them incompatible with the notion of freedom in free software.
the only way to make them barely compatible would be to make not only the formulation of the CoC, but also its enforcement, a instrument of self-control by the community, with consensus legislation and random-juri enforcement. it often comes from a vocal and pushy subgroup, which may or may not be a problem in itself, but that's already suspicious to me. it seems that whenever it assigns positions of power for evolution and enforcement, it attracts power-hungry people, who tend to be authoritarian (a big minus for me) and that sooner or later end up corrupted by power (because power corrupts, and that's another minus for centralized power, and a plus for keeping power dispersed in the community). it's basically a poor recipe to try to solve a real problem, that rather than ceasing discrimination, ends up redirecting it, and creating other problems. all in all, it seems to be a power booster rather than a freedom booster.
@SuperDicq The GNU KCG is nothing similar to a CoC (which come with reprecuations, while the KCG does not).
But notion that a CoC is "incompatible with the notion of freedom in free software" is absolute nonsense. Free software is four simple things, how you run your project is entirely something else -- which is where _policies_ come into play, and not rights and ethics.
That @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br does not get this basic meaning must be a joke.
@SuperDicq For example, @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.brargument is that of control.
The GNU project is controlled by a single individual, it would be absurd to argue that the GNU project is "incompatible with the notion of freedom in free software". Maintainers, and projects have been kicked out because of "policy" reasons.
@lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom goes on with exertion of power, and concentration of power, when he himself sits in such a position within the GNU project. Absurd nonsense.
kindness guidelines seem to be a lot gentler to me, in that someone who happens to make a mistake is expected to be kindly brought back into the community-agreed norms, rather than shunned and ostracized. this is the most fundamental distinction to me.
I also see that, particularly in communities of coders, codes are taken as ultimate truths, and go into details typical of software engineering, which is not kind on people, and tends to bring about triggers and negative reactions from people who are sensitive to such unkindness, so it ends up inviting rather than avoiding undesirable conducts.
and then, there's the issue of lack of clarity that neurodivergents like me often experience and occasionally describe, of rules that seem to be applied inconsistently, which leads to a lot of anxiety (and often exclusion) to people who strive to abide by rules strictly (numerous neurodivergents do), and even to cynicism as we perceive the sea of differences between the rules as written vs the rules as applied. the CoC and the way it has been applied in the Guix community are the primary reason why I don't feel welcome there. which is unfortunate, because I find it a very interesting project. alas, I'm too much like people who have been shunned, ostracized and victims of discrimination and hatred there, for reasons that I know to be unfounded, resulting from misunderstandings that I'm too likely to trip myself (and have tripped as recently as this week, in contexts unrelated to the project). so I self-exclude, so as to avoid disrupting the project; it's not like I'd be able to make significant contributions anyway (-ENOTIME), but it is somewhat disappointing.
my previous reply was long enough, but then I was brought to the OP of the thread, and noticed that a very unkind term was used there.
in CoC-enforcing communities, that could lead to swift action and immediate ban from participating in any community activities or even from contacting community members.
in GKCG communities, I'd expect the community to let the poster know that this behavior is unkind and thus not conducive of the sort of community we wish to maintain.
but whether or not the person ends up moderated or even removed from fora, contributions from that person are not banned. nothing stops someone from accepting or even seeking submissions from this external contributor. I personally find this opportunity for accepting external contributions a feature, not a bug, when it comes to advancing the project while preserving its community and protecting its most vulnerable participants, and it is in line with my thinking of separating the author from the contributions. I think society suffers significant losses out of throwing away works and ideas without consideration, over indirect associations with other deeds (real or imaginary) by their authors/proponents. but I know others feel just as strongly about this in opposite ways, and I don't feel that imposing one way of thinking over the other would be in line with my way of conceiving of freedom.