ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

You can't run, you can't hide

The SJWs will pursue you and demand inclusivity everywhere you go. You may as well stand and fight them:
Since Go was launched nearly six years ago, our community has grown from a small group of enthusiasts to thousands of programmers from all corners of the globe. I am proud of us; so many great projects and such a helpful and passionate group of people. Sincerely, I consider myself lucky to be involved.

But as we grow we should reflect on how we can improve.

Take this mailing list, for example. While the majority of discussions here are respectful and polite, occasionally they take a turn for the worse. While such incidents are rare, they are noticeable and have an effect on the tone of other discussions. We can do better.

At times we can be overly didactic, meeting opposing ideas with inflexibility. When challenged by a differing opinion we should not be defensive, but rather take the opportunity to discuss and debate so that we may better understand our own ideas.

I'm also concerned by reports of abuse, harassment, and discrimination in our community, particularly toward women and other underrepresented groups. Even I have experienced harassment and abuse myself. This may be common in the tech industry but it is not OK.

We are the Go community; we get to choose what is OK and what is not. It's not a choice but a responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we have neglected too long.

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented. If our community is to continue to grow and prosper, we must make it a more inclusive place, where all are respected and nobody is made to feel dismissed, unwelcome, or unsafe.

To that end, I propose that we establish a Code of Conduct that would cover the behavior of community members on the various Go mailing lists and the golang subreddit, on IRC, in private Go-related correspondence, and at Go events.
It's long past time to start adopting anti-SJW, anti-entryist, anti-inclusivity bylaws and practices in every organization to which you belong, because if you don't, you will soon find your hobby, your volunteer group, your sports team, or your place of employment subjected to the same sort of thought-policing.

And, of course, the Code of Conduct will only be enforced in one direction by the SJWs who wield it as a weapon. They are blatant liars; consider the statement that "the positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented." This is the precise opposite of the truth, which is that diversity destroys and segregates communities.

Here is my prediction: like the Episcopalian and Anglican churches, the new inclusivity policy is going to lead to a precipitate drop in participation in the Go community. Consider the final word in the "discussion".
As the operators of the official Go forums, it is our ultimate goal and responsibility to guide this community toward a healthy and happy future. To do this, we must provide welcoming and safe spaces and a means to protect our most vulnerable community members. A crucial step toward this goal is to specify a standard of respectful behavior in the form of a Code of Conduct.

I hear and respect the dissenting opinions. In particular, I hear the concerns about limiting freedom of expression. Let me state this clearly: the official Go forums are not platforms for free speech. Your participation in them is a privilege, not a right. If you are not able to adhere to basic standards of respectful behavior then you are invited to leave.
Oh, I have no doubt they will. It's also a good idea to excise SJWs from your social circles. Once you have discovered that someone is an SJW, refuse to have anything to do with them and tell them why. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot learn from example, they can only learn from the emotional pressure of personal rejection. So help them learn.

And if your organization has already been taken over, or was created by SJWs in the first place, leave. Create a rival organization; all the people leaving the old one are going to need somewhere to go.

Labels: ,

166 Comments:

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 June 25, 2015 8:11 AM  

Hey, didn't I see that same "speech" in the "Nerds in Paradise" movie?
Or was it the calls for "A NEW civility" after certain US democrats were "discovered", and called out, for reprehensible rhetoric?
CaptDMO

Blogger fisher man June 25, 2015 8:11 AM  

It is really accelerating all over open source. The good thing is projects can be forked.

Anonymous Pravda Zvíťazí June 25, 2015 8:28 AM  

"The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq...

Blogger FALPhil June 25, 2015 8:33 AM  

"The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq...


North Korea, Rwanda, Nigeria, Chechnya, Watts...

Anonymous The Obvious June 25, 2015 8:38 AM  

"The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq...

North Korea, Rwanda, Nigeria, Chechnya, Watts...


Afghanistan....

Blogger Dexter June 25, 2015 8:39 AM  

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented.

Oh bullshit. Repeatedly asserted is all they are.

Anonymous awesome June 25, 2015 8:41 AM  

t's long past time to start adopting anti-SJW, anti-entryist, anti-inclusivity bylaws and practices in every organization to which you belong,

absolutely agree, but what would these bylaws look like? What is effective rhetoric against the effective memes of inclusivity, tolerance etc? Part of the reason these people have been so hard to stop is that there naked grab for power sounds so reasonable to the uninitiated at first. It's only after they are set up as the moral police that people realise the power they have ceded to them.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2015 8:44 AM  

I'm not a programmer but I do look forward to seeing an open source community form where the byline is, "All we care about is quality; leave your social crusades at home, the big boys are working here and if you're good enough you're welcome and if you're not, go somewhere else to cry because WE'RE BUSY GETTING THINGS DONE."

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 8:47 AM  

absolutely agree, but what would these bylaws look like?

I'll post on this within a week or so.

What is effective rhetoric against the effective memes of inclusivity, tolerance etc?

Hit them directly. Is tolerance good? Okay, so you tolerate pedophiles and Nazis. Is inclusivity good? Why do you want pedophiles and Nazis in the organization.

It's about rejecting the terms rather than blithely accepting them. For crying out loud, you can still hear people talk about COMMUNISM, of all things, as a "beautiful ideal". Tolerance is evil. Inclusivity is evil. Do not accept their language.

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 8:48 AM  

All we care about is quality; leave your social crusades at home

It has to have more teeth. Anyone who proposes a code of conduct or engages in social crusading will be warned the first time, and expelled the second time. Period.

Anonymous FriarBob June 25, 2015 8:51 AM  

@awesome

Probably somewhat like the "bill of no rights" jokes that have gone around... "you do not have the right to not be offended" would have to be prominent. And something along the lines of "you have no right to 'feel safe'... facts and reality matter, your feelings are completely useless and unimportant" would probably be in there too.

Blogger Salt June 25, 2015 8:51 AM  

"The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

Sure, if getting what one wants is the sole criteria of a positive. There's also the unintended consequences, if one wants to eventually live in a hell hole and target rich environment. That, too, is well documented.

Anonymous M. Buffalo June 25, 2015 8:56 AM  

And behind the scenes Moldbug is working on his neo-feudalist programming environment. I hope it's worth all the pop-philosophy he's not writing.

Anonymous DanG June 25, 2015 9:00 AM  

Coming soon to your organization if you let it.

OpenID kleinverzet001 June 25, 2015 9:01 AM  

"Anyone who proposes a code of conduct or engages in social crusading will be warned the first time, and expelled the second time. Period."

Now, that is a principle I can work with. In fact, I'm going to apply this in my personal life as well. Thanks for the clarity in brevity, VD.

Blogger Markku June 25, 2015 9:01 AM  

Here's a howler. Note: this is not parody, this is from Rust's actual code of conduct:

if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the
urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained
about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or
unfairly accused, chances are good there was something you could've
communicated better

Blogger bw June 25, 2015 9:03 AM  

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented

While not working for the people in those specific communitites, It is certainly working for the Oligarchy. Or Kakistocracy. Or Cryptocracy. Or Financiers, etc.

Revolution from Above

It has not been a populist, grass roots, ground-up transformation. The money powers have done this.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad June 25, 2015 9:03 AM  

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

There.

That is Tad-speak.

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous cecilhenry June 25, 2015 9:05 AM  

Diversity means divisiveness.

The right to reject others is the basis of any freedom.

Freedom of association always means the right to include and exclude based on free choice.

'Inclusiveness' is a parasite word for 'give us control' and let us dictate your freedom. It is truly contemptible behavior.

First its 'include us' (we envy your status and freedom) then its let us set 'standards to ensure inclusiveness' and then its lets EXCLUDE all those we dont like or can't control.

A parasite never builds his own.....


Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 9:11 AM  

"the positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

Please name 3 other than food and music.

"The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented."

I can give an example of a situation where more diversity was needed, I have even brought it up when discussing dieversecity at work. There was a care home in the UK that only had one RN on duty and that moslem RN let a patient die because he wouldn't interrupt his prayer break to help her. If there was more dieversecity in the RNs present which would require at least doubling the number on duty she would have survived.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9162051/Woman-died-after-Muslim-nurse-refused-to-help-as-he-was-praying.html

absolutely agree, but what would these bylaws look like?

Crying in response to criticism will negatively affect outcome.

Blogger J June 25, 2015 9:15 AM  

I find it interesting how the SA article does spend a paragraph pointing out that it is well documented that an increase in diversity also leads to innumerable social problems, and then simply fails to interact with that body of research in the the rest of her article.

Also curious how the Google fellow just didn't notice that as all, preferring to simply parrot the title of the article.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 25, 2015 9:16 AM  

"we get to choose what is OK and what is not"

immediately followed by:

"It's not a choice but a responsibility"

Blogger Stephen Ward June 25, 2015 9:17 AM  

"absolutely agree, but what would these bylaws look like?"

by illustration:
Let me state this clearly: the official XXX forums are not platforms for free speech. Your participation in them is a privilege, not a right. If you are not able to get the work done because someone called you a cunt, fag, neo-nazi, or white supremacist, then you will be forced to leave.


"What is effective rhetoric against the effective memes of inclusivity, tolerance etc?"

They are false memes. Why don't we include Nazis? Why don't we tolerate serial killers?

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 9:22 AM  

absolutely agree, but what would these bylaws look like?

People will be treated the same based on objective measures.- Not like a white nurse gets fired for a hipaa violation with no actual investigation into the situation to see she looked it up for the patients doctor(she was offered her job back but went elsewhere), while the same hospital lets an ancillary staff member that probably barely passed high school stay on after downloading a virus from a porn site that took down all the computers in the hospital including the OR, couldn't be fired.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling June 25, 2015 9:29 AM  

As a Robert Melton points out in the discussion, there's no place to hide:

Beyond that, you mentioned "in private Go-related correspondence" -- could you clarify the meaning of that? If I email a co-worker about Go, is that a "private Go-related correspondence"? Is that something you believe the Go Code of Conduct should apply to?

And points out being a member of the Go community will become dangerous to your career:

My more deeply held concerns are around repercussions. Because that is what actually matters at the end of the day. Rules and consequences are paired. Depending on the consequences some of the things decided by the "review board" regarding the Go Code of Conduct could be career destroying (or worse), and yet the way communities tend to handle this is to have it "investigated" by a bunch of untrained, biased, personally involved software engineers hearing a subset of the facts then rendering a verdict, which unsurprisingly often finds on behalf of the person they like more or know better.

I can see this having the chilling affect VD postulates; this sort of thing has certainly curtailed my interest in the new Rust language, which is being sponsored by Mozilla, and who's hired documentor is self-described communist Steven Klabnik, a ringleader in the purge of a purely technical talk by Moldbug ... which also probably ruined any possibility of Moldbug's project getting adopted.

Anonymous Alexander, #10 June 25, 2015 9:35 AM  

Cut the crap out of corporate jargon that the company promotes some kumbayah 'global responsibility' and 'establishing an environment of growth and mutual respect'...

Our company Acme Co. exists to produce widgets, manufactured at or above an objective set of standards, as efficiently as possible to be competative in our market and return a profit to our ownership. What employees do, say, believe, think, feel, support, patron in their own time is entirely their own business and our company shall take no action to police these activities, provided those actions do not materially degrade the company's ability to produce widgets.

Anonymous New Right June 25, 2015 9:36 AM  

Our rhetoric and dialectic is the reverse engineering of theirs, and the logical and reasonable antithesis to the insanity and unnatural lies. As often likes to be noted: Just Sayin'

Do not accept their language.

Yes, that's it isn't it? The words are not the thing itself, and may be nothing close to the thing, and are often exactly the opossite of the reality. Perhaps Eric Blair was getting on correctly early on in the behavioural agenda concerning the use of language?

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 9:37 AM  

Again, Alexander, you miss the main point. You need a way to proactively prevent the SJWs from installing their thought-police codes and enforcement groups.

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 9:39 AM  

Markku,

Who is this Rust you quoted?

I used to read the Kobold Press blog, before a series of entry's relating to diversity in RPGs that completely turned me off, and there was a guy there who reviewed books and went by the name Cape Rust. Same guy or someone different?

Blogger Stephen Ward June 25, 2015 9:41 AM  

@James

http://www.rust-lang.org/

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 9:44 AM  

Lol!
I got it now. A programmer I am not.

Thank you

Anonymous Alexander, #10 June 25, 2015 9:49 AM  

VD,

I started a response and then half-way into it something clicked.

You're right - even an explicit statement denying the corporation the right to police employees is not enough, because it protects the SJWs getting into the organization... at which point the rules are rewritten...

All it does at best is delay.

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 9:51 AM  

This argument reminds me of the early Bill of Rights debates:

Some thought that the very act of codifying rights, like Free Speech put speech within the realm of something to be governed.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 9:51 AM  

The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented.

Replace "diversity in communities" with something like "social consciousness for all" and I'd swear that's a direct quote from Atlas Shrugged. The looters are always saying things are "well-documented" and "generally accepted by all forward-thinking people."

It is really accelerating all over open source.

Yeah, this is by no means something organic that's just emerged because ordinary coders are starting to feel like there's a need. It's popped up in multiple OSS projects in a matter of days, with the exact same name and wording. It's being pushed by a small number of SJWs, most of whom have written no code at all or just enough to gain credibility with the group. I don't know if it's organized or just standard groupthink behavior, but that doesn't matter. And most of the targets have no idea what they're in for, because they're just nice guys trying to work on projects they love.

They can be stopped, though, if normal people don't let themselves be shamed. In the past few days, I've watched an exchange that went something like this:

Actual OSS Coder: Do we really need these Codes of Conduct? Let's just get on with coding.
SJW Barely-Coder: I see you follow some #GamerGaters. I've reported you to your OSS community and this will get ugly.
AOC: Huh? I respect your contributions and your right to your opinions. Let's just get back to hacking.
SJW: Fuck off and die, pig.
Normal Humans: AOC, watch out for her, she's out to destroy you. This is what she does.
AOC: Be kind to her; kindness and truth always win in the end. I totally respect her and just want to get along and code.
NH: Dude, you have no idea.
[... next day ...]
AOC: [starting to get it] SJW, if you keep this up, I will give you a fight. Last warning.
NH: And we have his back, and we're not as kind as him.
White Knight: AOC, you're getting awfully harsh there. Why don't you just walk away?
NH: Hey, WK, shut the hell up. She attacked him.
WK: It takes two to fight. He should de-escalate.
NH: It only takes one to start a fight, dumbass. She can stop it any time she likes.
WK: You're getting awfully agressive there, NH.
NH: You ain't seen nothin' yet.
SJW and WK: [silence, add NH to block lists]

Which isn't to say they've given up. AOC and all the Normal Humans are now on SJW's list, and she'll cut them if she gets a chance. And more White Knights and Moderates within the community will surely step up to defend her to show how morally superior and above-it-all they are. But since her target and a handful of others stood up to her, she backed down for now. She's spent years establishing herself in this particular OSS community, so if she fails to remake it in her own image, she can't easily hop along to a different one.

Dealing with SJWs can seem like a game of whack-a-mole, where they just keep popping up no matter how many times you slap them down, but that's not really true. If you really slap them down by ejecting them completely from the organizations they've infiltrated and sought to destroy -- or at least showing that you'll give it your best try -- that ends their power. It's annoying, tiring, and disgusting work, but it can be done.

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 9:52 AM  

even an explicit statement denying the corporation the right to police employees is not enough, because it protects the SJWs getting into the organization... at which point the rules are rewritten...

Bingo. Neutrality is not enough.

Blogger bearspaw June 25, 2015 9:55 AM  

The "operators of the official Go forums" must be located in Oceania.

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 25, 2015 10:02 AM  

@Sullivan! How's it going, man?

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 10:05 AM  

Now that I am reading the original link here, they all sound like our Typical Moderate in action. They seem like I all want to be Reasonable Gentlemen(TM) and just be nice and polite and whatever and they have absolutely no idea what they have just invited in.

Blogger slarrow June 25, 2015 10:05 AM  

Always remember three things about "tolerance":

1) Tolerance entails dissent. You only tolerate things you disagree with.
2) Tolerance is not a virtue. Its acceptability is a function of its subject. A team member at work prefers your sports team's arch-rival? No real biggie. Your cousin gets off on sexual pictures of 8-year-olds? Cut him.
3) Tolerance entails marginalization. By definition, it identifies a grey area of behaviors that aren't accepted but aren't outright prohibited. Anyone who tells you that that we need to include marginalized people because of tolerance is lying to you and/or deluded.

Of course, these are dialectic points. They need some punching up to be effective rhetorical tools.

Anonymous The other robot June 25, 2015 10:06 AM  

Isn't the real problem that Go was started by a Google Employee?

Google sponsors challenge only for women

What was that challenge? Have the smartest baby in the world? Nope.

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 10:07 AM  

Hey Josh! It's going well. I discovered this little isle of sanity a while back I come here regularly now.

How is the hiking going?

Anonymous dh June 25, 2015 10:08 AM  

I think it's great that they are basing their code of conduct on the Django code of conduct, a project which is hopelessly, unfixably, totally broken, and is for all intents and purposes dead.

Funny how Go is part of Google, with Google being built on the success of Linux as a platform and development system.

Given that Linus' code of conduct is roughly "fix your shit, do what I want, or get the fuck out".

Anonymous 360 June 25, 2015 10:08 AM  

This is really starting to hit home for me. I work in the welding industry (after fleeing academia) and just yesterday had one of our new Customer Service reps come in and complain about the pizza our boss bought for their group. She "jokingly" asked if there was any kosher pizza. Then said that she felt bad for any Jews who worked here. All joking of course. I must add that she is an overweight (ding!) gay (ding!) woman (ding!) who constantly comes in and complains (ding!) about her new position.

After she left I proceeded to lecture my fellow coworkers on entryism and how this is only the beginning if we let this fester. Education is half the battle. We must inform to prevent, then we must act.

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 25, 2015 10:16 AM  

Now that I am reading the original link here, they all sound like our Typical Moderate in action. They seem like I all want to be Reasonable Gentlemen(TM) and just be nice and polite and whatever and they have absolutely no idea what they have just invited in.

I've come around to the conclusion that moderates isn't really the right term for them; appeasers is more accurate. Repeatedly comparing them to Neville Chamberlain; mocking their claims back at them as "Peace in our time," etc. tends to get them to pipe down and shut up.

It's hard to train yourself to get into the habit of attacking people for trying to talk reasonably; especially considering that they're probably relatively clueless and don't necessarily mean anything harmful by it; so until you start to get used to it a bit, it kind of makes you feel like a jerk.

But I've come more and more to see it as necessary. Not being a jerk, but being very direct, very blunt, and making no bones about how stupid and terrible of an idea their supposedly reasonable suggestion really is.

How is the hiking going?

Leaving in just a few days for 2 weeks backpacking in the Rockies, actually. Anyway; good to see your name pop up again.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2015 10:16 AM  

Laws and rules are worthless if you don't enforce them and don't draw a line in the sand to defend them.

Certain groups, including far leftists, love to argue an issue to death to find a weak spot. Your enemy looks for loopholes, so shut them down. Even with no loopholes, if you allow the enemy inside, they will subvert them.

They are the outgroup, but present themselves as the ingroup, deserving of the special protections. Once inside, they work to deny you those very same protections.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 10:17 AM  

Anyone who proposes a code of conduct or engages in social crusading will be warned the first time, and expelled the second time. Period.

Warning??

That's like warning a zombie that if he eats brains "just one more time there will be serious consequences, mister!"

Anonymous Ain June 25, 2015 10:17 AM  

"When challenged by a differing opinion we should not be defensive, but rather take the opportunity to discuss and debate so that we may better understand our own ideas.
.......
The positive effects of diversity in communities are well-documented. "



I doubt this person would like to discuss and debate the quoted naked assertion of theirs.
Any statements of disagreement or disbelief would likely be included in his portfolio of the internet victimizing his feelings.

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 25, 2015 10:18 AM  

After she left I proceeded to lecture my fellow coworkers on entryism and how this is only the beginning if we let this fester. Education is half the battle. We must inform to prevent, then we must act.

That's the real solution. We're hampered, if you will, by the success of Western Civilization. We expect people to be reasonable, respectful, express their opinions, but otherwise leave people alone. And as much as I mock "awareness campaigns" in general; that's exactly what is needed here: a much greater awareness that the reasonableness façade is just a façade; underneath it, these SJWs are control freak, totalitarian, heartless bullies who will screw with you for no reason other than to assuage temporarily their own feelings of worthlessness, and that the only solution to them is to not put up with it at all.

Anonymous dh June 25, 2015 10:20 AM  

The best community policing I've ever seen was Fat People Hate on reddit. It was very well done. The rules were basically: "Don't be fat", and, "No Fat Sympathy".

You had to be verified as not-fat. And then, no sympathy. Why? Because the moderators knew, they knew, that any wedge can corrupt the message.

So you'd see a post, "I went to thanksgiving dinner with my family, and god, Uncle Al is so fat, it's just sad".

One warning. Then, "Banned for fat sympathy".

Before the purge, there were 150k in that community. And it was really strong.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 25, 2015 10:21 AM  

By law suggestions

Were you on Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during your formative years?

90% of spree shooters were and we don't feel like taking chances.


That should weed out 60% of the SJWs.

Are you a CCW permit holder? Should take of the rest.

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 25, 2015 10:27 AM  

There are ways to do a reverse Gramsci. Ironically, with the SJW occupying the power structures now, the same tactics that got them there are even more effective.

I am all for making a safe place for non SJW, but remember they are as vulnerable in some spots as we are.

Blogger The Deuce June 25, 2015 10:29 AM  

What they need in their Codes Of Conduct is a policy stating that attempts by any contributor to get another contributor removed over political opinions results in an automatic removal from the project yourself.

Anonymous Fred2 June 25, 2015 10:32 AM  

So I'm mildly curious about this GO thing, what exactly brought it on?

I participate in a discussion forum where the owner has stated " Keep it clean and polite" and where the community reacts quite quickly to ban users/delete comments of those who insult, post sexual content and general "excessive crudity". I'm ok with that.

So I'm curious, how in a programming forum it gets to the point where there needs to be these rules at all. It's programming forum, your sex, skin colour, and orientation are irrelevant.

I could see someone saying, "you are are an idiot programmer", which I'd object to, unless said target was just being relentlessly dim and loud, but basically since I do no hang on those boards all that much; I'm trying to imagine what sorts of words were slung that this topic even came up, and that it couldn't be handled by a general:

"Dude that was not necessary please edit or delete your post without the invective." Or: "Off topic, please remove."

Dude or dudette, does, problem solved. They do not, their post get's canned by a moderator. They continue, they get banned.

What did I miss? I'm confused by SJW's are getting their knickers in twist, or why this can't be handled by a very general "keep it civil and on topic" statement or policy.








Anonymous The other robot June 25, 2015 10:33 AM  

The problem is Google itself, it seems to me. It is full of SJWs and has a very strong women-only policy in STEM.

Anonymous Ain June 25, 2015 10:34 AM  

dh: It was very well done. The rules were basically: "Don't be fat", and, "No Fat Sympathy".

But fat people make some of the best fat jokes!

Anonymous The other robot June 25, 2015 10:35 AM  

What did I miss? I'm confused by SJW's are getting their knickers in twist, or why this can't be handled by a very general "keep it civil and on topic" statement or policy.

The problem is the preemptive taking of offense by SJWs. Eg: As a person of color I do not feel welcome here as there are no PoC role models :-)

Anonymous Stephen J. June 25, 2015 10:37 AM  

"What employees do, say, believe, think, feel, support, patronize in their own time is entirely their own business and our company shall take no action to police these activities, provided those actions do not materially degrade the company's ability to produce widgets."

The problem is that it assumes widget quality and productiveness is the sole or even dominant factor in the market decision to purchase widgets. If what an employee publicly says on their own time antagonizes half your market, that employee will damage your profits without doing a thing to weaken your product.

The SJ genius has always been at conveying the impression, usually bolstered by a few highly-publicized successes and aided by general risk aversion at higher corporate levels, that their condemnation will amount to a much greater market share loss than it actually will. The Internet's ability to make a small but vocal contingent of advocates appear much more numerous and powerful than they are has contributed immensely to this.

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 10:44 AM  

I've come around to the conclusion that moderates isn't really the right term for them; appeasers is more accurate. Repeatedly comparing them to Neville Chamberlain; mocking their claims back at them as "Peace in our time," etc. tends to get them to pipe down and shut up.

Let's just refer to them all as Neville in the singular and nevilles in the plural.

That's like warning a zombie that if he eats brains "just one more time there will be serious consequences, mister!"

If I didn't do warnings, you wouldn't be commenting here, Porky. And there are clueless people who would innocently propose a Code of Conduct because Everybody Else is Doing It.

Always give a warning. And if they don't take it seriously, that just makes it that much easier to take them out with the following headshot.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 25, 2015 10:50 AM  

"What did I miss? I'm confused by SJW's are getting their knickers in twist, or why this can't be handled by a very general "keep it civil and on topic" statement or policy."

Because aggressive or vehement disagreement in itself, even if kept within formal bounds of politeness, is often taken ipso facto as bigotry-motivated hostility. Heck, even absence of enthusiastic agreement or attention can be taken that way as evidence of an "unwelcoming community".

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2015 10:51 AM  

@ #14 re: JPM's pushing gay on all employees:

TBTF is an unsustainable condition in nature, and this axiom is just as true when applied to large organizations of people (both nation-states and firms.)

Massive Scale is now visibly a source of internal rot, of festering gangrene (for thought-police diversity and submerge-your-conscience inclusiveness are NOT good for business no matter how often the lie is repeated.) We are near apogee; take a moment to drink it all in and savor (if that's the word) what the end of a long, long trend feels like. This one's roots are planted in the mid-1800's with the rise of the Progressive Era.

The process of moving from Too Big to Much Smaller promises pain, hunger and very likely blood.

Anonymous JohnnyLightwave June 25, 2015 10:57 AM  

"You can't run, you can't hide:" Apple removes civil war games with Confederate Flag:
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-civil-war-games-confederate-flag/

Anonymous Daniel June 25, 2015 10:58 AM  

There are two types of faux-SJWs who respond very well to 1st warnings - the Fearful; who are under the mistaken impression that everyone is SJW, so that's the social currency (see also subsectors of college campuses) and the Opportunist; the sort who have identified a specific material advantage in SJW ideology (such as power or *shudder* women). The first has a courage problem, the second a character problem, but they convert the second they are made aware that the strong horse is against the SJWs.

Anonymous Sevron June 25, 2015 10:58 AM  

Slightly OT, but what about hiring policies?

I've actually started an engineering/technical company with a friend, and we just signed our first contract with a customer. I think we have lots of potential to grow, and I have thought a lot about how to choose new hires. We're at least a year away from there, but forethought is forewarned.

- No women. Colleges bend over backwards to attract and keep women in the engineering programs. They get extra time with the professors, they are granted extensive leeway like turning in homework late, and are granted special privileges like the Women's Engineering Group keeping copies of all tests so they could study from them, even though the university's general rules said this was illegal. Because of this, it is only logical to conclude that any woman holding an engineering degree did not earn it, at least certainly not to the degree that a man would have had to.

- No LBGTOMGWTFBBQs. That's not to say I'd fire you if I found out you were gay, but if I have to know that at the interview, no chance of being hired. The people for whom being gay is super important and has to be celebrated and expressed in EVERYTHING they do are SJW, and can fuck off.

- Minority men can be hired with extensive experience and as good of a background sniff check as I can manage. The ones straight out of college are under the same suspicion as the women. A good question might be "what's your daily carry?"

- I am trying to think of a perfectly banal question trap in the interview. It needs to basically be "What social causes are you involved in?" But more subtle. Any answer besides drinking, shooting, family/women would get you axed. SJWs can't shut up about the frivolous bullshit they waste their lives on, it should be no problem to get them going on it.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 10:58 AM  

And there are clueless people who would innocently propose a Code of Conduct because Everybody Else is Doing It.

Right. There are plenty of Nice People who don't know what's going on, who will pipe up with, "Hey, I heard this other project created a code of conduct to prevent hurtful behavior. It seemed like a good idea, so I started writing one up...." If that's a normal person trying to be nice, then when you tell him to drop it, he'll drop it. If he's an SJW, he'll keep trying, and then you cut him.

Anonymous Alexander, #10 June 25, 2015 10:59 AM  

What they need in their Codes Of Conduct is a policy stating that attempts by any contributor to get another contributor removed over political opinions results in an automatic removal from the project yourself.

No, that's where I tripped up too.

The time for live-and-let-live is gone, because it can only exist if all parties agree to go by it. We are now at the stage where it's a game of who gets to be the face and who gets to be the boot.

In this particular case, your rule makes it impossible to get rid of the SJW who is outed, and in fact punishes those outing the SJW. The SJWs, once a majority, will not respect the protections you granted them in while they were the minority.

The rule isn't 'don't let politics into the company', it's got to be 'don't let the wrong politics into the company'.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2015 11:00 AM  

When Mr. Market finally springs his trap and turns most of the wealth people harbor in their minds to tear-filled memories, the willingness to pay one iota of attention to all this SJW crap will follow it into the rearview mirror.

People will have much more visceral and immediate concerns confronting them. I only wish I could see one of the innumerable early responses, when some PoC, Womyn or transidiot with a whining complaint steps into the face of a man with a purpose, who promptly pounds half the life out of the former before getting on with his larger purpose (food, shelter or safety of his family.)

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 25, 2015 11:00 AM  

Always give a warning. And if they don't take it seriously, that just makes it that much easier to take them out with the following headshot.

Warnings are good, because most likely you really don't have any quarrel with these people, who are naive enablers, not conniving, plotting evil-doers in their own right. And they're usually salvageable if you can make them understand the likely course of events, and are willing to take the time.

But sometimes they need to be looked straight in the eye with a grim, humorless smile and told that just because you don't have any quarrel with them doesn't mean that you're going to hold your fire if they're so foolish as to continue to stand in front of the enemy.

Anonymous Fred2 June 25, 2015 11:03 AM  

Number 59

"Because aggressive or vehement disagreement in itself, even if kept within formal bounds of politeness, is often taken ipso facto as bigotry-motivated hostility. Heck, even absence of enthusiastic agreement or attention can be taken that way as evidence of an "unwelcoming community".

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. Got it.

Apparently I've been leading a sheltered life. _Those_ people.

The thing that amazes me is that they even get traction at all, and aren't just ignored. "Shush, adults at work, go away."



Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 11:08 AM  

If I didn't do warnings, you wouldn't be commenting here, Porky. And there are clueless people who would innocently propose a Code of Conduct because Everybody Else is Doing It.

I suppose it would depend on what the proposed Code of Conduct would be.

Even Vox has his own Code of Conduct for this blog. It's one of the reasons this blog used to be the best blog on the internet.

Maybe instead of a warning, we should ask directly what "Codes" they imagine should be in the Code of Conduct. Any mention thereafter of the words "equality", "shaming", or "safe space" should result in immediate tarring and feathering.

Anonymous jamsco June 25, 2015 11:13 AM  

"You are expected to be polite to your fellow commenters. Take your best shot, by all means, but attack the idea, not the individual."
"This is not a democracy. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right."
"It is also not the typical Internet cesspool where you can expect to get away with spouting factual nonsense or blatant illogic with impunity."

- From the rules of this blog. A Code of Conduct like this would be okay?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 11:17 AM  

So I'm curious, how in a programming forum it gets to the point where there needs to be these rules at all.

It doesn't. It goes something like this:

- A new person joins the project, maybe contributes a little code, but then decides that all the pronouns in the documentation need to be gender-inclusive or something and makes that her mission. So the changelogs get cluttered up with that, which is annoying.
- Regular coders notice the new person isn't just changing the pronouns, but inserting editorial comments about inclusiveness into everything, maybe quotes from Maya Angelou in the headers, who knows.
- The SJW starts cluttering up the communication channels (mailing lists and such) with natter about making the project more inclusive, how to attract more girls, making Diversity! the theme of the next conference, how the logo is too phallic -- anything and everything but the code.
- A coder who's contributed about 1000 times more code than the SJW gets annoyed and tells her to cool it, maybe reverts some of her annoying changes. But there's no policy in place to prevent what she's doing, so he's out on a limb.
- The SJW claims not to feel welcomed, perhaps even microaggressed.
- Clueless guys in the project White Knight for the SJW, telling the indispensable coder to stop being mean, and pointing to the SJW's 12 commits as evidence that her opinion is just as important as anyone's.
- After much natter back and forth -- during which little code is being written -- someone suggests a Code of Conduct to prevent such conflict. Of course, the code specifically allows everything the SJW wants to do while preventing any criticism of her, so now the SJW rules the project and can remake it in her image.

That's how it used to work, anyway. Now they seem to be trying to jump straight to the last step: "Hey, I was thinking of contributing to this project, but it doesn't look like I'd be welcome here, so you have to adopt this Code of Conduct or I won't play with you mean boys."

Blogger Rabbi B June 25, 2015 11:19 AM  

"A Code of Conduct like this would be okay?"

The "Code of Conduct" here is enforced and and the commenters here are held accountable.

I posted a few excerpts of MacMillan's Code of Conduct in another post yesterday. Are they (MacMillan) going to use it to bring action against Tor employees? I think they should, but will they? If not, what's the point of a Code of Conduct if no one is going to be held accountable for their conduct?

Setting the tone at the top is critical. Everyone around here understands the tone at VP and conducts themselves (for the most part) accordingly.

Blogger James Sullivan June 25, 2015 11:20 AM  

Sevron,

I think that's an interesting question. I did a Google search and (yikes!) it sent me to the OKCupid blog (amongst other places). Ignoring some of the social commentary there, one question was interesting:

Do You prefer the people in you life to be simple or complex?

According to their source, people who prefer complex are Liberal by 2:1. People who prefer simple are conservative by 2:1.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/

Blogger Karl June 25, 2015 11:34 AM  

Mashable was originally a tech/gear news site. Then it became a broader news site with clickbait. Now it is basically SJW central. Constant harping on SJW causes. And then, this on twitter today.

You may think your discussion list or board is about Ruby on Rails, but it's going to end in dino-humping.

https://twitter.com/mashable/status/614074124030377984

Mashable ‏@mashable 1h1 hour ago
Why you should consider a velociraptor in your next relationship. http://on.mash.to/1J6at2T

Article title is
13 reasons you should dump your girlfriend for a velociraptor

Anonymous clk June 25, 2015 11:34 AM  

"what "Codes" they imagine should be in the Code of Conduct"

“I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”

Anonymous WillBest June 25, 2015 11:37 AM  

Anybody that uses the phrase "the advantages of diversity are well documented" should be forced to present that documentation. Because as far as I am aware it has never demonstrated an increase in productivity while controlling for other variables in any objective metric.

Anonymous dh June 25, 2015 11:41 AM  

"- I am trying to think of a perfectly banal question trap in the interview. It needs to basically be "What social causes are you involved in?" But more subtle. Any answer besides drinking, shooting, family/women would get you axed. SJWs can't shut up about the frivolous bullshit they waste their lives on, it should be no problem to get them going on it."

I helped a friend with business plan. Every new employee got a $500 allowance once per employment for a firearm, only. In the interview process, right as you are about to make an offer, ask them what type of weapon they'd be buying.

Blogger Quizzer W June 25, 2015 11:45 AM  

#72 James Sullivan: What the heck does that question even mean? Isn't everyone "complex"?

Sevron, what you want will greatly depend on what country you are in and how many employees you are going to hire (at least in the USA it does). I don't know the limits, at some point the EEOC *will* pay a little visit and might notice some stuff, which will go away assuming you pay a large enough fine. Maybe.

Good questions: Should the person with the best qualifications get the job?

There are other good ones, I'm sure, if you rifle through SJW banned phrases. Here is a starting point, at least.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/ucla-now-bans-faculty-from-saying-america-is-land-of-opportunity-its-too-offensive/

Anonymous Bz June 25, 2015 11:50 AM  

Sevron, also check what you're permitted to ask or not with respect to the various US laws and regulations.

However, if I were you, I'd bypass the whole issue and just go for hiring only people recommended by people you trust to begin with. You can, I hope, ask your friends the tough direct questions about the prospective hire if need be.

Leave the walk in SJWs for later, if at all.

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 25, 2015 11:51 AM  

I suppose it would depend on what the proposed Code of Conduct would be.

I imagine the only Code of Conduct that would actually accomplish what they claim to want is the Code Duello.

Blogger Corvinus June 25, 2015 11:51 AM  

Even Vox has his own Code of Conduct for this blog. It's one of the reasons this blog used to be the best blog on the internet.

..."used to be"?

Anonymous Sevron June 25, 2015 12:04 PM  

dh,

The gun allowance idea is brilliant. I will remember that.

Quizzer,

I believe that limit is 15 employees. It would take a long time to get there, and I imagine we could use contractors as much as possible to stay under the limit.

Bz,

Of course we'll go by personal recommendation, but recall that the entire school, media, and entertainment systems are set up to implant SJW ideology. Perfectly normal-seeming people can have those ideas. A personal recommendation isn't enough.

Blogger Brad Andrews June 25, 2015 12:04 PM  

The right to reject others is the basis of any freedom.

Oh they do reject others, those they accuse of badthink.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 12:13 PM  

..."used to be"?

It's still in the top 100.

Anonymous Sheila June 25, 2015 12:16 PM  

dh - Now that is clever.

Vox:" Oh, I have no doubt they will. It's also a good idea to excise SJWs from your social circles. Once you have discovered that someone is an SJW, refuse to have anything to do with them and tell them why."

I did this in 2008 when I kept hearing "I'm not yet certain whom I'll vote for" from Nevilles. I quickly laid out a few pertinent facts about D'won. Any response other than immediate horror and rejection of said candidate resulted in a cessation of communication from me. When they attempted follow up, I wrote a courteous but to the point letter. I cut a formerly very good friend out of my life back then. I've cut out family members (the only reason I'm still in contact with my mother is to honor God's commandment. I don't recall any such one regarding siblings, so I haven't spoken to either in years now). Claiming principles is easy. Living by them is rare. Take no prisoners.

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 12:17 PM  

Even Vox has his own Code of Conduct for this blog. It's one of the reasons this blog used to be the best blog on the internet.

Always with the passive-aggression. Do you truly never tire of it? Anyhow, there are always rules everywhere. But when someone who is NOT the proprietor proposes a new code of conduct out of the blue, or altering the existing one, the chances are very high that you are dealing with an SJW entryist.

A Code of Conduct like this would be okay?

It is insufficient for a larger organization. I can, and will, kick out the occasional SJW. But larger ones need a structural impediment to entryism.

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 12:19 PM  

Claiming principles is easy. Living by them is rare. Take no prisoners.

And yet surprisingly rewarding. Living life without putting up with obnoxious idiots in your social circle is like breathing fresh mountain air after leaving a smog-filled city.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 12:19 PM  

@Sevron,
Your ideal question would look like an SJW question.
Something like "Describe your ideal workplace."

One key to remember is that SJWs often function as normal humans in a workplace until given a little bit of authority. So asking them to talk about workplace experiences is useless. Asking them about ideals, however, that's certainly within bounds.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 12:31 PM  

[Hire] No women.

This is the main thing. Not that all SJWs are women, of course; but women are usually how the camel gets his nose in the tent. It'll be a woman who starts suggesting SJW ideas, or SJW-ish men suggesting them on a woman or women's behalf. In a male-only space, that stuff's less likely to get started and much easier to slap down.

You might still get a guy saying, "Um, I don't think we should have that poster of Farrah Fawcett on the wall because it objectifies women and might offend a female client who comes in." But if a man says that and there aren't any women in the place to white-knight for, the other men will be able to respond appropriately with scorn and noogies. With a woman in the room -- even if she's not on the side of the complainant -- they're apt to turn noble and make it a Thing. A lot of entryism comes down to, "Be nice to me/her because I'm/she's a girl," even though they never put it that way.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 25, 2015 12:32 PM  

Western Civilization is the Bruce Banner of intolerance. Like anger, intolerance is a part of the human condition. Previous bloody, traumatic events(Protestant Wars, Crusades, Inquisitions) have driven us to try to forsake our intolerant ways and tame the savage beast within...

But humanity is as it always has been, and there inevitably come those who refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others. Intolerance must be met with intolerance. They won't like us when we're intolerant.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 25, 2015 1:00 PM  

"This is the main thing. Not that all SJWs are women, of course; but women are usually how the camel gets his nose in the tent."

Women cry when you criticize them. Then they ruin you.

I agree with the advice to hire by word of mouth. "Why, no, I wasn't planning to hire anyone but we happened to cross paths and decided to make room to bring him in. That's why I didn't post the job opening in public and unnecessarily expose myself to frivolous diversity lawsuits by people who don't know what a compiler is." It's a time honored tradition to inoculate one's tribe from unwanted scrutiny.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 1:02 PM  

Always with the passive-aggression. Do you truly never tire of it?

Ffs, then don't take passive-aggressive swipes like comment 58 if you don't want rule 1 invoked.

Jesus.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 1:08 PM  

[Hire] No women.

A buddy of mine's worker got pregnant, took 6 months maternity and then started calling in sick frequently. He got tired of losing accounts so he replaced her.

End result: lawsuit, bankruptcy, and one entrepreneur who will never, ever hire a woman between the ages of 16 and 50.

Blogger Rabbi B June 25, 2015 1:14 PM  

"So, just go away, this isn't an appropriate venue for you to work out your personal issues for our entertainment."

A shame. I am going to miss Porky . . .

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 1:20 PM  

Porky, you ignorant slut, you're projecting again. And apparently incapable of determining what's passive aggressive.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 1:21 PM  

On topic: when your enemies play who/whom, you must respond in kind.

What time is it?

It's who/whom time.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 1:33 PM  

Porky, you ignorant slut, you're projecting again. And apparently incapable of determining what's passive aggressive.

Oh shut up you ignorant bootlicker. It's the very definition.

Anonymous BGS June 25, 2015 1:43 PM  

Article title is 13 reasons you should dump your girlfriend for a velociraptor

The velociraptor might be more feminine than most American women. Sometimes I will see a chump being harassed by his harridan I will yell out "Hey man you can do better"

Blogger VD June 25, 2015 1:50 PM  

Ffs, then don't take passive-aggressive swipes like comment 58 if you don't want rule 1 invoked.

It wasn't passive-aggressive at all. It was pointing out the inconsistency between the policy you were recommending and the treatment you have received. It was directly calling you to account.

You don't seem to understand that I am in complete control here, Porky. You exist here only at my sufferance. So settle down and learn to accept criticism without resorting to your pointless self-defensive reactions. I find them tedious. So do many of the commenters.

Now drop it.

Anonymous Porky June 25, 2015 2:30 PM  

It wasn't passive-aggressive at all. It was pointing out the inconsistency between the policy you were recommending and the treatment you have received. It was directly calling you to account.

Except that I am not an SJW. I am not an entryist. Nor have I ever tried to tell you how to run your blog, or suggest any new codes of conduct. I have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject we were discussing.

Ergo, your swipe was simply unrelated, offhand, unwarranted, and passively-aggressive. I just responded in kind.

Now drop it.

Consider it dropped.

Anonymous dh June 25, 2015 2:50 PM  

One key to remember is that SJWs often function as normal humans in a workplace until given a little bit of authority. So asking them to talk about workplace experiences is useless. Asking them about ideals, however, that's certainly within bounds.

This is really dangerous. I did quite a bit of research on this researching a business idea last year. There are many states with various rules to protect political affiliation. You don't want to allow that discussion to creep in, and then deny them a job.

What you want is a proxy question. A question that can stand-in for "what is your political affiliation?", reliably, but still have a separate legitimate basis that can pass the smell test, and not be seen as a constructive way around the rules.

There's lost of ways to get there, but whatever you choose, you have to be careful not to illicit an un-requested advisement of a protected class membership.

Even with the gun question, a legal eagle SJW would say something like: "Well, as a proud gay man believing in the theory of evolution, I would select a 1911 reproduction so that I can protect myself from conservatives, should the need arise".

Blogger luagha June 25, 2015 3:16 PM  

"I am trying to think of a perfectly banal question trap in the interview. It needs to basically be "What social causes are you involved in?" But more subtle."

I was asked, "What are your hobbies? And don't say computers. That's what you do for a living. You must do something else that's not computers."

I said that I teach martial arts on the side, Filipino stickfighting and bladefighting. I got the job offer. (It helped that the boss's boss at the interview was a former Marine.)

Blogger Bard June 25, 2015 3:26 PM  

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

Pretty on point

Blogger Bard June 25, 2015 3:33 PM  

How about "How do you feel about the confederate flag?"

Anonymous Bz June 25, 2015 3:41 PM  

Sevron,

"A personal recommendation isn't enough."

That sounds like a terrible situation and I'm sorry to hear it. Well, I have no telling question to provide, but perhaps you can tell your prospects that company attire is always a sober dark suit and tie with no casual friday, and see which ones stay on.

Best of luck.

Anonymous patrick kelly June 25, 2015 3:43 PM  

@8. dc.sunsets: " "All we care about is quality; leave your social crusades at home, the big boys are working here and if you're good enough you're welcome and if you're not, go somewhere else to cry because WE'RE BUSY GETTING THINGS DONE.""

How bout' "Programming MF'er!!" : PMF

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 25, 2015 3:56 PM  

I helped a friend with business plan. Every new employee got a $500 allowance once per employment for a firearm, only. In the interview process, right as you are about to make an offer, ask them what type of weapon they'd be buying.

What would be disqualifying answers?

Blogger Eraser June 25, 2015 4:04 PM  

Like some other commenters here, I'm interested in the Rust language. One day several weeks ago, I'm looking for documentation and come across this:

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/diversity-on-the-governance-teams/2048
(and I almost feel like this link needs some sort of "trigger warning")

The worst offender there is an obnoxious guy named skade, pointing fingers and blaming everyone and everything for a "lack of diversity" in Rust. Even worse is that in the end nearly everyone agrees with him. This is Mozilla all right.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling June 25, 2015 4:16 PM  

Eraser: Yow. But I am not surprised, as I'm not that self described communist and proud purger of Moldbug from a technical conference Steven Klabnik is the most visible figure in Rust, hired by Mozilla to do documentation.

More for the benefit of others, I'd like to point out that Rust isn't just any new language, but a very hardcore systems language, the sort of thing you write the lowest level code in. It's the first to attempt memory safety without garbage collection, and is not easy to program. It's very much in the category of language that are least attractive to all but the hard core.

Anonymous MendoScot June 25, 2015 4:44 PM  

RoE /= CoC

Anonymous Jassi June 25, 2015 4:55 PM  

I've been pondering the suggestion offered in your last paragraph here to leave friends of the SJW kind behind. It has weighed heavily on my mind for almost 2 years now, and as sad as it is to accept, I think it is right.

Were I as vocal about my opinions as they are about theirs, I'd be ostracized, so it's better to simply cut it off myself. With a few I've given them a chance to read up on some relevant topics from a more conservative point of view, but all have refused to even look at the information I've supplied. They have an unwillingness to learn.

There really is no hope for SJW's, here or in the hereafter, and attaching myself will likely only hold me back from anything and everything good.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 6:47 PM  

You know, Vox, you go on about how SJWs thought police and suppress ideas they don't like all the time, but everyone on your side does this too.

Roosh for instance ruthlessly bans people who criticize game or even support game and disagree with him on his website, yet you are a strong advocate of his.

Back when I was young and stupid and believed in game, I politely voiced some disagreements on Roosh's site - asking for clarifications, really - while making clear I overall supported game. I was instantly banned.

Everyone does what SJWs do just from their own point of view. Very, very few sites actually have the courage and honesty to hear dissenting viewpoints and people and groups you are affiliated with are not conspicuous for being among them.

I'm not saying its OK to ban dissent, I think its despicable and cowardly, I'm just saying that people "on your side" do it just as much, fully just as much, as the SJWs yet you lambast only them.

Blogger rycamor June 25, 2015 6:53 PM  

16. Markku June 25, 2015 9:01 AM

Here's a howler. Note: this is not parody, this is from Rust's actual code of conduct:

if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the
urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained
about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or
unfairly accused, chances are good there was something you could've
communicated better


Poor Brendan Eich. He's a founder, possibly the originator of Rust, and while he is theoretically still involved, it's obvious that certain people have taken pains to remove any reference of him from the Rust website and documentation, and of course have begun their campaign to bring everything in subjection to the PC police.

If any of you are interested in a modern open-source language that has not yet been corrupted by the SJWs, take a look at Chapel*. So far they have avoided the limelight, and thus haven't been an SJW target. Join their group and help resist the idiots if they try to encroach.

*Note, the name Chapel itself connotes classic Western culture. Help them out.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 7:00 PM  


I'm not saying its OK to ban dissent, I think its despicable and cowardly, I'm just saying that people "on your side" do it just as much, fully just as much, as the SJWs yet you lambast only them.


We don't care.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 7:02 PM  

Everyone does what SJWs do just from their own point of view. Very, very few sites actually have the courage and honesty to hear dissenting viewpoints and people and groups you are affiliated with are not conspicuous for being among them.

What time is it?

It's who/whom time.

Anonymous Bz June 25, 2015 7:09 PM  

"I'm just saying that people "on your side" do it just as much, fully just as much, as the SJWs yet you lambast only them."

I find that rather unlikely. Though we get hotly criticized when we do it at all.

Blogger Julie Dyal June 25, 2015 7:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 7:40 PM  

Bz, believe it, dude.

I'm not an SJW at all and support many things the people on this site do, yet I've been banned from more anti-feminist manosphere/game sites than I can count.

Intolerance for dissent, a cowardly inability to deal with disagreement is widespread and not at all a special feature of SJWs.

Whats fascianting to me is that in the old intellectual tradition, the one that seems to have died out, banning people for disagreeing with you would have been seen as displaying your weakness, lack of courage, and lack of good argument skills - in other words quite aside from a question of honor, honesty, or morality, it would been seen as publicly SHAMEFUL, yet today people have absolutely zero shame in banning people left and write who disagree with them or policing and suppressing thought in any way from their point of view.

Part of what moved me away from Game was seeing the cowardly way Roosh handled dissent (really a request for clarification). I realized right away this man has no advice on how to be strong. Rather the opposite. After leaving him a bad review on his book Bang, he emailed me begging me to change it.

People are all the same - pathetic - whether they are SJWs or anything else.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 7:42 PM  

@Aaron
You understand the difference between kicking losers, aspies, concern trolls and foreign agents of influence from one's own blog and trying to utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with you, right?

Blogger overcaffeinated June 25, 2015 7:47 PM  

Remember that SJWs have short attention spans. Does anyone still care about the Redskins or Chic fil A? Not really. Nor will anyone care about the Confederate Flag once the next target is identified.

So, one way to stop something like this is to delay it long enough that it loses support. Or if it does eventually get approved, at least you've made them work for it by wasting their time.

How do you do that? One way would be to ask a lot of questions about nebulous terms like "diversity," "offensive," and "safe." What precisely is "diversity?" Who determines what is "offensive?" What exactly are the standard to determine "safe?" Don't accept evasive answers, but don't be sarcastic either. I for one would sincerely like a SJW to explain what "diversity" really is. I think it would be quite illuminating. (You might try being cheeky and asking if "diversity" includes "diversity of programming ability" or "diversity of political belief," but be careful.)

If someone suggests that it isn't important to have a mathematically precise definition of "diversity," ask them why they think diversity isn't important. This sort of thing should work pretty well on coders since they are susceptible to being led into the weeds of technical details.

If you can be tedious enough and waste enough of their time, you should discourage enough people such that there is no longer a critical mass in support of the code of conduct.

Blogger Stephen Ashby June 25, 2015 7:55 PM  

I am trying to think of a perfectly banal question trap in the interview. It needs to basically be "What social causes are you involved in?" But more subtle. Any answer besides drinking, shooting, family/women would get you axed. SJWs can't shut up about the frivolous bullshit they waste their lives on, it should be no problem to get them going on it.

I recommend asking something along the lines of "Do you do any volunteer community support work?" Sane people are likely to answer with something practical like serving food to the homeless or umpiring for the local sports teams or similar. SJWs will probably talk about how they protested the government to provide better support for the homeless, or pushed for the sports teams to adopt a code of conduct.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 8:01 PM  

Danby, of course.

Do you understand how these labels can be used to unfairly sqaush dissent?

Cowards are rarely up-front. They rarely say oh I can't handle the fact that you're disagreeing with me so I'm gonna bad you. They use moral language and other self-justifying language. It's the way of cowards.

Genuine trolling is clearly distinguishable from honest dissent to anyone who wishes to make that distinction.

Of course, ANY disagreement can be called 'trolling', and then banned.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 8:22 PM  

One reason I raise an eyebrow at the claims that Millennials are less susceptible to the diversity cult is that it seems like the younger and hipper a programming language or software distribution is, the faster it falls to this stuff -- and in some cases, comes with it baked in from the start. If you participate in a C or Lisp project, you're far less likely to deal with SJW entryism than if you're working in Ruby or Python. The BSDs have been around forever and started in Berkeley of all places, yet they're only now starting to run into this problem; while a younger Linux like Ubuntu was given an African name meaning something like "a bond connecting all humanity" to show how it embraced diversity. It doesn't surprise me at all that a language which appeared on the scene five years ago already has a SJW Code of Conduct.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong about Millennials; but if they don't believe in this stuff, they sure are good at acting like they do, even in situations where they don't have to.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 8:32 PM  

@Aaron
Fairness is like a theoretical sub-sub-sub atomic particle like strings in string theory. It's impossible to discern from the evidence, indeed, there is no evidence it exists at all. But it makes all the other theories work out so well, it would be so cool if it did exist, that some people believe it MUST.

So, you got banned at some blogs for violating their standards. Now your butt hurts and you want to call them the worst thing you can think of, which is whatever they set themselves up against. Cause they're UNFAIR!.

And you want to appoint yourself political officer, so you can read out of our movement anyone you don't like.
Fuck you.
We don't care.
I'm the fucking political officer, and the only time time we fire on our own side is when we see some candy-assed pussy trying to distract us from the firefight. I don't care for Roosh. I think he's a scumbag and I would never associate with him. But if he's firing on the enemy, and you're firing on Roosh, well, that makes you my target.

We Don't Care
about your butthurt or your finely nuanced balanced sneering at only our side of the debate. Do you go over to File770 and tell them that they're exactly like us because they dislike your faggotry? No, because they don't listen. for some reason you think we will.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 8:35 PM  

Ubuntu is actually an Africa-based distribution. So using an African name is not an SJW stunt.

Blogger Russell (106) June 25, 2015 8:48 PM  

Concerned troll is concerned.

Ban him.*


*Note to the humor impaired: Vox doesn't ban unless the subject truly earns it.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 8:48 PM  

Danby, you're just a partisan, like everyone else - you recognize no objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality and merely wish to use naked aggression to support your cause, whatever it may be, rationality be damned. If that means banning someone who politely, intelligently, and honestly disagrees with you using logic and evidence, then rationality and fairness be damned.

I can't respect that, but its human nature. I hold myself to a different standard of conduct than you and I am willing - I even feel I owe it to myself as someone with courage, strength, and nobility - to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

I'm not saying treat an enemy who has shown himself to be weak, scummy, and dishonest with rationality and honesty. Roosh, for instance, who has shown himself to be weak and dishonest, would simply be ignored by me.

But when I ban people for politely disagreeing with me I show MYSELF to be weak and pathetic. But this is an older tradition of thinking and feeling that seems to be dying out in the world, to be replaced by a tradition better fit for emotional weaklings like Roosh and those incapable of self-discipline.

Good luck.

Blogger overcaffeinated June 25, 2015 8:51 PM  

Danby, Canonical, Ltd. is legally based in the UK. The owner, Mark Shuttleworth, has dual South Africa / UK citizenship. As you can probably guess from his last name, he isn't black and most likely does not speak whatever language the word "ubuntu" is from. We all know that it's called "ubuntu" and not "unitas" because black people are considered cool. The man can call his distro whatever he wants, but let's not pretend it isn't an obvious "diversity" ploy.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 9:02 PM  

I hold myself to a different standard of conduct than you and I am willing - I even feel I owe it to myself as someone with courage, strength, and nobility - to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

So when the SJWs come for your job, what will you do? When they come for your children (as if you could con someone into breeding), what will you do? When they come to destroy your life, your career, to erase your words and works, your very place in society, what will you do?

You'll argue with them, calmly, rationally, while they burn your house and steal your children. While they destroy your business and your reputation. Don't tell us they won't because they do it every day. I know a man who got sent to prison and lives as a registered sex offender for the crime of crossing the wrong SJW.

That's who we're up against. this is not some sort of debating society where it's all words and gentlemen can agree to disagree. So take your "code of rationality" and shove it up your ass. This is war, you fucking retard, and putting yourself above it all does not take you out of the line of fire.

And you're still butthurt about being banned from Roosh's place? What a fucking pussy.They banned you because moderates are enemies wearing the wrong uniform.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2015 9:30 PM  

Ubuntu is actually an Africa-based distribution. So using an African name is not an SJW stunt.

I didn't mean it was a stunt; I'm sure they meant it. The point was, when they were deciding to put together a new distribution and were thinking up a name, they thought, "Hey, what would convey our commitment to bringing the world together in peace and love through great software?" (By the way, I like Ubuntu fine; I'm running Xubuntu on my secondary system right now. This isn't a criticism; it's an observation of different viewpoints.)

Compare that to older distributions with names that were dull acronyms like SuSE or random names like RedHat -- or the ultimate Gen-X name, Slackware. Or BSD, which just said where it came from. It didn't occur to any of them to pick a name that promised a moral viewpoint about anything beyond software being free. People think about that much more now than they used to. That makes it hard for me to believe Millennials aren't bought into it.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 9:33 PM  

You're not understanding me, Danby.

I'm not saying I won't fight SJWs if they came to fight me, and I'm not a moderate. In fact I'm something of an extremist. I believe in heavily disproportionate responses to provocations because my antagonist does not get to set the terms of the conflict.

None of this has to do with my belief that by banning someone who politely and intelligently disagrees with me - often in minor ways - I would be revealing myself as weak, lacking in courage, and lacking in confidence in my arguments.

Again, what's so puzzling is that this isn't seen as "bad public relations" among people today - to me, banning a polite disagreer immediately brands you as weak, quite aside from the sheer dishonesty and pusillanimity of the thing, but apparently people today are accepting of it and don't seem to find it shameful.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 9:53 PM  

"You're not understanding me, Danby."

No, I understand you perfectly

"I'm not saying I won't fight SJWs if they came to fight me"

Of course you would, if they targeted you directly. But when they target others, like the people who ban you, that's great. No, you've declared war on Roosh, and anyone who won't denounce Roosh. SJWs are not even on the target list.

"None of this has to do with my belief that by banning someone who politely and intelligently disagrees with me - often in minor ways - I would be revealing myself as weak, lacking in courage, and lacking in confidence in my arguments."

You're still butthurt that you get banned. Banning people from fora is the real crime.

"Again, what's so puzzling is that this isn't seen as "bad public relations" among people today"

Banning you and people like you is GOOD public relations. That's why vox' is the best in the internet, so many fewer retards and pussies to deal with.

Anonymous MendoScot June 25, 2015 9:57 PM  

Did you understand RoE/=CoC, Aaron?

If not, you're too short for this ride.

Anonymous Aaron June 25, 2015 10:05 PM  

Its probably an inter-generaltional conflict, Danby. I'm just not on board with the way you young uns do things, although I'm only in my early 30s.

Human weakness and patheticness never ceases to shock and amaze me. I retain the capacity to be naive, for which I'm thankful.

Still, my point stands. SJWs have no monopoly on trying to police thought and squash intelligent, polite dissent. Its a universal human tendency very much in evidence among people Vox vociferously supports, and much of the social shame that used to attach to such obvious displays of weakness has disappeared.

If I had a blog - and I will soon - people can disagree with me all they want, as long as they are polite. I would never be so pathetic as to be threatened by that. I leave that to "moderns".

Blogger overcaffeinated June 25, 2015 10:21 PM  

Aaron, sadly, the left only understands blunt force. They are uncivilized. Perhaps one day we will be able to communicate with them through words. For now, we have to communicate with them in the only way they understand. The blunt application of power. That is all they understand. That's on them.

I used to work at a publisher of Latin textbooks. The president, an older man from Eastern Europe, often referred to "technologically competent barbarians" as the ascendant force in the world today. That is who we are dealing with here: barbarians.

If a gang of "youths" approach your property making threats, is your response to engage them in debate? That is the same situation we are in online. They are not interested in debate, at all. Your carefully constructed arguments and noble adherence to principles of free speech are only so many points of weakness for them to exploit.

This is where VD and I perhaps part ways, because it is the liberal Protestant state that has created these barbarians. (And Orthodox tsarism did no better.) We need to tell them that error has no rights, and that, yes, we mean to create a Catholic state in which they are second class citizens, much like "racists" are today.

Blogger automatthew June 25, 2015 10:46 PM  

Aaron: "Do you understand how these labels can be used to unfairly sqaush dissent?"

You really don't belong here, boy.

Blogger Danby June 25, 2015 11:43 PM  

Its probably an inter-generaltional conflict, Danby. I'm just not on board with the way you young uns do things, although I'm only in my early 30s.

You have no f'ing clue, do you? You're younger than my older children.

Read this, think on it for a while. You pride yourself on reason, understand it:

They want you dead. Not defeated, dead. They want you and everything you hold dear including reason itself destroyed utterly.

Placing yourself above the fray does not remove you from the line of fire. The moment that their fashion changes, your carefully parsed sentences will be called badthink, and you will be unpersoned, and if possible, destroyed.

If they are not stopped, it will end in re-education camps, dictatorship and genocide. It always has and always will.


What you want to do will not stop them. It never has and it never will. They are immune to reason.

Anonymous dh June 25, 2015 11:53 PM  

Ubuntu is based on Debian, and Debian has one of the most progressive ideologies of software behind it, while being run as a totally apolitical, totally close knit, totally focused group of beardy white males you can imagine. It is basically the best of the Berkley ethos without the SJW cruft.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 1:58 AM  

I'll post on this within a week or so.

I'm anxious to see what Vox has. Here are the general outlines of how we attempted to insulate an organization we created a while back:

You need people with the time and energy to do the work, and sooner or later, you will find yourself out of necessity turning to someone you were not able to adequately vet. SJWs, being mostly useless or worse, often have a great deal of free time as nobody has any use for them, so they are common volunteers, and SJWism uses this as an entriest tactic. Yes, you'll be on the lookout for them. No, you won't spot absolutely every single one. Sooner or later one will slip through and be in a position of authority.

So, we have an executive board that handles day-to-day operations, and a larger (~15 person) group of Voting Members that elects the Board. The Voting Member's only required duties are:

1) electing the executive board each year.
2) voting on any proposed any changes to the by laws,
3) Approving new Voting Members when needed
4) Expelling any Voting Members when needed.

The board is responsible for everything else. Our 15 person Voting Membership is our core ballast - they are the people we are most confident have the right vision, values and goals. They have the ultimate authority for all long-term decisions, and we limit the other demands we put on their time so that we are never forced to make compromising in our Voting Membership because of time and energy constraints. When we find someone with the right vision, there are very few obstacles to them accepting our invitation.

As far as invitations go, it is far harder to be voted into membership than expelled out of it. It requires a three-fourths vote of the existing VMs to be invited in, but only a majority to be voted out. That makes it difficult for a small group of entirests - should they ever get in the door - to bring in more, and easy for the rest of us to boot them out once we identify them. So far, we haven't had to use this as we haven't made any mistakes - yet. But we will some day, and this is our contingency plan for when we do.




Anonymous Bz June 26, 2015 3:45 AM  

Well Aaron, let me recommend that along with your belief in honour, courage and non-pusillanimity, you also avoid the elementary error of attacking those who could be your allies. It is a common mistake among your kind, one which we for some reason have seen quite a lot of in recent months (or perhaps longer than that). Simply because you can comment here and many listen while some respond does not mean this is a platform for you to fulminate about how shameful we are. Add humility to your virtues.

If you are a 'pox on both your houses' guy, begone. If you're an 'honourable loser' guy, begone. If you're a false flag troll, return to the hell whence you came (you will, eventually). If your heart is in the right place, go instead forth and strike against your actual enemies, without faltering. Otherwise: the abyss.

Blogger rho June 26, 2015 4:30 AM  

or the ultimate Gen-X name, Slackware

You'll never fully know the Linux gestalt if you've never downloaded floppy disk images of Slackware over dialup. They were dark days, where you had to source ISA SCSI cards from swap meets until eBay came along.

Ubuntu is based on Debian, and Debian has one of the most progressive ideologies of software behind it, while being run as a totally apolitical, totally close knit, totally focused group of beardy white males you can imagine. It is basically the best of the Berkley ethos without the SJW cruft.

I hung my hat early on the BSDs and RedHat/derivatives. The BSDs were almost clinically academic, and the RedHat/derivatives were expressly corporate. They may have been annoying, but they were annoying in predictable ways.

Social Justice Warriors infiltrate Open Source projects with ease because Open Source projects are based on altruism. Altruism is a second order effect of societal success. When you're fighting for survival you don't have time or energy to spare. If you survive, you will acquire lesser qualified followers. This process continues until you acquire followers with no qualifications, but many complaints.

Ironically, ESR's maxim "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," eventually becomes "given enough eyeballs, somebody's gonna bitch about who wrote the code."

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2015 6:17 AM  

You'll never fully know the Linux gestalt if you've never downloaded floppy disk images of Slackware over dialup.

Ah yes, the floppy disc sets, had a briefcase full of them. Good times. It's almost too easy to be fun now. Recently I wanted to install Linux on a system that had an existing Windows 2000 partition taking up the whole disk, and I wanted to save some data from the Windows system. I went to some trouble to get the thing connected to a network so I could dump the data through samba. Then I boot the Xubuntu disc and it says, "Hey, there's a partition on here, do you want me to resize it and setup dual-boot?" That used to be a tricky manual process where you could easily destroy your data with a wrong move. Too easy now.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2015 6:32 AM  

SJWs, being mostly useless or worse, often have a great deal of free time as nobody has any use for them, so they are common volunteers, and SJWism uses this as an entriest tactic.

Yes, I was digging into an SJW's background recently. Her name was on many bug reports, so at a glance it looks like she was contributing. But when I actually pulled up reports, most had the same pattern:

She claims a bug report.
Nothing for months or years.
Someone else claims the report, or the bug is closed because the software moved on and it became irrelevant.

But most people don't look that closely; they just see the SJW happily claiming tasks that no one else wants, and they appreciate her "helpfulness" and give her the benefit of the doubt ever after. If you point out that she never actually helped, and may have hurt by tying up bugs someone else could have been fixing, they'll jump on you for being mean -- she was doing her best. I did finally track down some commits with actual code, but we're talking about dozens, maybe a few hundred lines of code at most, and mostly a few years old. Yet the SJW has parlayed that into a career as sort of a mascot for the project, where she's proven almost impossible to dislodge no matter how many people she attacks.

So yes, the nature of the process makes them very difficult to keep out. You need to do that as best you can, but you also need methods in place to get rid of infection.

Anonymous Aaron June 26, 2015 3:27 PM  

Overcaffineated, I agree with much of what you say, however, either squashing dissent is a pathetic, despicable thing that shows cowardice and rationality, or its a legitimate "tactic".

If its legitimate, then you look stupid for criticizing SJWs for doing something that is not only legitimate but something you do as well. If its a pathetic thing indicative of cowardice, then raising an outrcy when SJWs do it but not when your own side does it, permits cowardice and patheticness on your own side and calls into question your own fitness for leadership and value as a person.

I believe squashing polite dissent shows fear, cowardice, lack of rationality, and I would not support or respect anyone who did it, and call it out when I saw it reagrdless of who does it.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with fighting your enemies who the utmost force, even brutality, at your disposal.

Bz, I do not wish to be allies with people who are cowards and of little worth. Roosh for instance I find pathetic from top to bottom, the quintessential nervous, weak man obsessed with how others see him, especially how women see him, but even if I saw him as a potential ally, the fear, cowardice, and lack of rationality I saw from him would make me question any alliance with him and expect cowardice, betrayal, and patheticness from him.

What you perhaps don't understand is that if WE display fear, cowardice, and lack of rationality (by intolerance for polite dissent), we merely show that we have little value. I have no wish to be associated with fearful, cowardly men.

If you do, good luck to you.

Blogger Danby June 26, 2015 5:32 PM  

@Aaron, you ignorant slut,
Bz, I do not wish to be allies with people who are cowards and of little worth.

Then go back to your loathsome hole. We find you of zero worth, and we do not wish you to be our ally.

I believe squashing polite dissent shows fear, cowardice, lack of rationality, and I would not support or respect anyone who did it, and call it out when I saw it reagrdless of who does it.
Run your own blog for more than 5 minutes. You'll change your tune. I have been moderator on a couple of moderately popular blogs. You would not believe the sludge that people post. Like obsessively complaining about a different blog, totally unrelated to the one that they're posting on, constantly whining about their severe butthurt over being banned, and how UNFAIR it is.
And it's "quashing" not "squashing".

What you perhaps don't understand is that if WE display fear, cowardice, and lack of rationality (by intolerance for polite dissent), we merely show that we have little value.
What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?

I have no wish to be associated with fearful, cowardly men.
Then stop acting like a woman.

Blogger Danby June 26, 2015 5:36 PM  

@automatthew,
I know this guy is basically begging you to ban him, so he can go back to whatere SJW warren sent him, feeling self-justified and superior to us cowardly irrational types. Thanks for leaving him here for target practice.

Anonymous Aaron June 26, 2015 6:20 PM  

Danby, I understand that you support suppressing people who are insulting and impolite, but do you support suppressing a politely worded difference of opinion?

If you do, then you support policing of thought, and you cannot be upset that SJWs do it. If you do not, then you shouldn't support people on your own side who do it.

If Vox mocks SJWs for policing thought, and then goes on to strongly support Roosh who is notorious for policing thought, this is something that deserves to be pointed out and addressed. The level of vitriol I am subjected to for bringing this up is what you'd expect from unprincipled partisans who can't see beyond a threat to their position.

The obsession with "strategy" people have on this site, the narcissistic desire to "manipulate" others and so think of yourself as clever and powerful, rather than develop a set of principles, otherwise called a BACKBONE, and firmly stick by them, is making you unable to answer a simple question of value.

Do you think suppressing a politely worded difference of opinions shows fear, or fearlessness?

Do you think suppressing a politely worded difference of opinion shows strength, or weakness?

People obsessed with strategy and how clever and powerful it makes them feel typically become weak and lacking in backbone, and lose out to principled enemies. The great nation that fell into this trap most was China, which was obsessed with strategy and the feeling of superior cleverness it gave them above all, and was successively conquered by rude barbarians of simple, but unyielding, principle, first from the steppes, and then from Europe.

Its easy to see why. An excessive concern with what is "effective" above principle will make you pliant, yielding, and without independence, as you have no firm principles to adhere to. It destroys your backbone and teaches you to study what others like and give it to them, since "effectiveness" is all, not principle. Its why guys who do "game" end up presenting and appearing so weak, insecure, and unimpressive, as we saw in Roosh's recent television appearance

Blogger Danby June 26, 2015 8:09 PM  

I understand that you support suppressing people who are insulting and impolite, but do you support suppressing a politely worded difference of opinion?
Politeness has nothing to do with it.

If you do, then you support policing of thought, and you cannot be upset that SJWs do it. If you do not, then you shouldn't support people on your own side who do it.
You don't understand what a blog is. It is not a public forum for the equal use of everybody. It is private property, for whatever purpose the blog owner puts it to. You have no more right to comment on this(or any) blog than you have to enter my living room. The blog owner has every right, and is right, to remove your posts if they do not further the goals he has for his blog. You seem to think a blog is a debating society built explicitly for everyone to make whatever comments he likes, so long as he is "polite". If you want that type of blog go make one yourself. Blogger is free, Wordpress is free. There are a dozen other free blogging platforms. But that's not what you want, what you want is to exploit the community that Roosh (or Vox) has built up over many long years.

If Vox mocks SJWs for policing thought, and then goes on to strongly support Roosh. ...more idiot verbiage

Roosh is not policing thought. He is policing expression on his own forum. It's a completely different thing. The fact that you refuse to see that means either that you're stupid (I doubt that, but it's possible) or you think you have a right to use what others have built for your own purposes. That's arrogant and womanly at best, and an indication of manipulative dishonesty at worst. The level of vitriol is because you're a dishonest tool.

The obsession with "strategy" ... dishonest characterization of this blog....unable to answer a simple question of value.

We don't care. Take your self regard and go pleasure yourself. That's all you're doing anyway.

Do you think suppressing a politely worded difference of opinions shows fear, or fearlessness? Do you think suppressing a politely worded difference of opinion shows strength, or weakness?
It shows a difference in objectives.

People obsessed with strategy... more idiot verbiage...by rude barbarians of simple, but unyielding, principle, first from the steppes, and then from Europe.

Win a couple of battles before you start dispensing strategic advice. You're neither as smart nor as rational as you think you are. We are winning a battle here, for many of us, it's the first successful foray into the culture wars that we can recall. You want to tell us why that's a bad thing, and how we're doing it wrong. If you want to fight a battle differently, go do it. stop lecturing us about how much better we would do if we just listened to you.
And your reading of history is as illiterate as your understanding of what is going on here.We are the barbarians.

Its easy to see why. ...Blargh, more nonsense,... as we saw in Roosh's recent television appearance

And back to Roosh. Why don't you just go back to his forum and confess your earnest desire for his manhood. He doesn't swing that way, but maybe he will change for you.

Aspie, butthurt, Gamma, and obsessed with another man is no way to go through life, son.

Blogger automatthew June 26, 2015 8:48 PM  

Danby,

It's more fun when they maneuver themselves into a rule-breaking corner.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 12:53 PM  

Danby, its not a question of "rights". Of course a blog owner has the "right" to do as he pleases with his private property, just as the mainstream media has the "right" to ruthlessly suppress any viewpoint they disagree with by disallowing an outlet for the dissemination of those views. And we are all worse off when they do it.

And there is a difference between merely forbidding disagreement on your own blog and hunting out thought elsewhere to suppress. But it would be foolish to claim that they are utterly unrelated phenomena - the difference is largely one of degree and power.

Those who forbid disagreement - mere disagreement, often minor, not expressed abusively - on their own fora display a basic desire to police thought and only a lack of power is what's limiting them from trying to suppress thought elsewhere.

And - it shows fear, and thus weakness. Rational criticism isn't an "attack" - it is a shedding of light on the foundations of your position. And who would be afraid of having light, merely brightness, expose his foundations?

Either way, if you ridicule others for weakness - as is just - see that you yourself aren't pathetic.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 1:24 PM  

@Aaron
So anyone who bans you or, or spams your comments, for any reason, is a coward? Have you any idea how crazy that is? I can think of a hundred reasons to ban you, and all of them start with "You're a whiny, self-important bitch." If I were moderator here, I would have already banned you, about 4 posts ago.

So you were banned. Figure out what you did that got you banned You still haven't actually done this. Not "Roosh is a coward." Not "I'm too awesome for those losers." Not "Roosh,.." well anything really.

You need to stop protecting your self-image. Figure out what you did that annoyed or pissed off the people running the blog (BTW, Roosh probably had nothing to do with it. That's what moderators do.)

Once you have a handle on that, you can decide whether you want to change your approach, your wording, your content, whatever. Or you can skip it, and go on being despised wherever you go.

You have it in you. You can stop being a whiny bitch. But it won';t happen unless you do some self-assessment.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 27, 2015 3:37 PM  

Help us out here, Danby. Or maybe Vox can write a post on it. I've read this exchange and I can't see for the life of me what about Aaron has people responding with so much hostility. Is there some history that I don't know about? Is it that you get angry at people just for disagreeing with you? Or that you quickly resort to personal insults even though you aren't angry?

Or is it the way he writes? I'm interested in this one particularly because Aaron seems to write a lot like I do, and I seem to have a talent for setting people off when I'm trying really hard not to. The problem isn't the personal insults and hostility (it's not like I really care if some faceless person on the internet writes "mean" things to me), the problem is that I had some purpose in commenting in the first place, perhaps to persuade or to get information, and the angry replies show that I have failed in my purpose.

So is there something about his tone that makes you describe him as a "whiny bitch"? Or it is just the very fact that he is arguing that something should not have been done and you disagree with him? Is anyone who argues that a mistake has been made a whiny bitch to you if you don't agree with them?

Or is it the fact that he ignores the personal insults against him? Does that make him seem weak and gamma and therefore worthy of contempt? Is it your belief that a non-gamma person would not be willing to ignore personal insults?

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 4:40 PM  

He's whining. He's a bitch.
He's here to complain about being banned at RoK, and to try to recruit us to his side, which seems to be "Anyone who bans commenters is a coward."

No-one here accepts his thesis. No-one cares that he was banned on a different site. No-one thinks it's cowardly to ban bitchy faggots.

And, more importantly, he's trying to "tone police" the forum. He wants to tell us what to say, how to say it, and how to react to his logorrhea.

No enemies on the right. That's an important rule, and he keeps insisting on violating it. The few here who might denounce Roosh would do so on the basis of his sexual behavior, not on whether he bans commenters.

short version, no one cares. He insists that we care. We don't care. We're busy saving SF.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 4:59 PM  

Doc Rampage, I too for a long time was bewildered by the way my innocent queries and comments making people fly off the handle in such bizarre ways. You correctly note that I neither engage in crude personal insults nor respond to them.

I think its that these men are heavily invested in this notion of themselves as dominant and alpha, and they have been challenged in a way that wasn't hesitant and groveling, but unafraid, simple, and honest. I posited myself an equal while disagreeing - that cannot be tolerated.

Being heavily concerned with being "dominant" and "alpha" is actually a huge weakness, maybe the biggest weakness men are prey to. You have to invest huge effort into maintaining a fragile self-image that is easily challenged and everything becomes about defending your position rather than operating from an objective code of principles, and honesty and rationality.

Women know this weakness about men and use it to exploit us left and right. The man concerned with being "alpha" is putty in a woman's hands - she sniffs out his weakness and uses it as a level to manipulate him.

I personally don't care what reaction I elicit or whether I get banned - I do what's right, act out of an objective code of rationality, honesty, and fairness, and if that gets me banned, so be it.

But if you wish to avoid the kind of fury I seem to have provoked, when challenging someone who is heavily invested in being "dominant" and all that good stuff, do not posit yourself as an equal just because you think logic and argument should be the arbiter - approach on hands and knees, and you will avoid the lightning.

Not everyone has the self-discipline to subordinate personal ego to rationality and fairness. Good luck.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 5:08 PM  

"So anyone who bans you or, or spams your comments, for any reason, is a coward?"

No, but someone who bans me for politely voicing a disagreement, or for politely pointing out a contradiction, is weak, yes.

There are obvious rules of civil discourse that when violated will get you banned. The problem is when people ban you even though you adhere to the rules of civil discourse but merely disagree.

That is my code, and I believe it used to be far more common before WW2, but then men were different then, less concerned with ego and more concerned with what's right. You have a different code - one that is common today. Fair enough.

Still, my original point, that its absurd for Vox to criticize SJWs for something that his side does as much, stands, and has remained oddly, and notably, unaddressed.

Peace.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 5:34 PM  

@Aaron,
Your code is setting you up for consistent failure. Your code was not common anywhere at any time, because it's the code of losers. Your understanding of history is pathetically narrow and engaged in mostly for self-justification.

Sea-Lioning is not now and never has been considered a polite tactic, no matter how polite the words.

Your original point is obviously false, so why would anyone bother to respond?

You know, when you get a reaction you really don't understand, as you profess, maybe you should take the time to actually read the words people are using. It's not like anyone here is shy about what they think. Instead of trying to assign motives and figure out why anyone says what he says, read the words and see what exactly he is saying. It's actually pretty consistent.

As for my reaction, I'm trying to help you out here. I realize you're seeing my advice as crude criticism and vulgar insults, but that's your ego-defense reaction. I realize that's unlikely to change without massive pain on your part, but I'm trying to give you some insight into this confusing reaction you fail to understand. I like you actually. You remind me of me when I was young and self-absorbed and oblivious.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:31 PM  

"Your code is setting you up for consistent failure."

I understand that that is the most devastating criticism you can think of leveling at anyone's code, but that merely means you do not understand what a "code" is.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 27, 2015 7:58 PM  

Aaron, although I still don't see what set them off originally, I will say that your response to me where you discussed the failings of the other commenters in terms of their self image and manhood actually was pretty bitchy. Your theory is also highly unlikely since I've run into this sort of hostility on blogs where the word "alpha" is never used. On the other hand, that sort of pseudo-psycho-analysis--discussing the alleged psychological and personality flaws of people who disagree with you--is pretty common on this blog so I can't blame you as much as I normally would for that.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 8:07 PM  

Fair enough, Doc Rampage, I am far from perfect, and I may have gotten that completely wrong. And you're right, I've also gotten that response on blogs where there does not seem to be - obviously, at least - a preoccupation with being "alpha".

I still feel that "ego" must have something to do with it - what else can it be? I don't insult, I simply state my opinion, and if you look at Danby's response to me on the other thread you will see that he seems offended that I don't approach with the proper marks of respect and obeisance to the prevailing tone.

The only sites where I haven't gotten this response - despite departing severely from the prevailing "tone" - are the MGTOW sites, and they are unique in disciplining their egos, as part of their entire approach to life.

If you yourself have any other ideas I'd be happy to hear them - it is an interesting question.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 8:35 PM  

Also, Rampage, don't be so ready to think its "you", it might very well be "them". It's not an illegitimate hypothesis that the majority of the human race is pretty fucked up, and unable to discipline their egos and act honorably, and are incapable of rising above aggressive power graps.

Plug in to an objective moral code, and as long as you are being civil, don't be afraid to think it's "them", and it may not be worth it to adapt to their expectations, which may not be honorable and legitimate.

I see an overreaddiness in you to self-blame - you can't very well expect Danby to come out and say he just can't handle being criticized. He'll come out with other reasons. Its for you to objectively judge.

That's my opinion for what its worth - feel free to reject it.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 27, 2015 11:15 PM  

Well, I'm really not concerned with assigning blame, I just want to understand what is going on. There is something about the way I communicate that ticks people off and I don't know what it is. If I knew what it was, maybe I would try to change and maybe I wouldn't. It would depend on what it is. Being liked isn't really something that concerns me a lot, but it's better than being disliked.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 11:47 PM  

I just want to understand what is going on.

I don't believe you. But if I did, I'd ask: do you get punched in the face a lot in real life? Because people who talk like you and Aaron get punched a lot. If you don't, then ask yourself why that might be; what's different about the way you talk in real life and the way you engage people online.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 1:48 AM  

I'm being perfectly honest. Seriously, what would be my percentage in trying to attract hostility towards myself?

As to your question: I did get attacked quite a bit as a teenager. Since then, I haven't really been around the sort of people who throw punches but I have, on several occasions, gotten people purple-faced angry at me without understanding what they are angry about. So I seem to have the same issue when I'm not online.

Anonymous Jim Milo June 28, 2015 5:55 PM  

It's also a good idea to excise SJWs from your social circles. Once you have discovered that someone is an SJW, refuse to have anything to do with them and tell them why. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot learn from example, they can only learn from the emotional pressure of personal rejection. So help them learn.

Truth.

Anonymous Jim Milo June 28, 2015 5:59 PM  

It has to have more teeth. Anyone who proposes a code of conduct or engages in social crusading will be warned the first time, and expelled the second time. Period.

As a Friend of Bill W. I'd say look up the 6th and 10th Traditions of AA. Don't re-invent the wheel. Works for us.

Anonymous Jim Milo June 28, 2015 6:50 PM  

Sevron: make your hiring policy contingent on a CCW. If employers can do that with drug testing, they can do it with concealed carry. Make up some vague but plausible excuse for "security" for the lawyers.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts