That's a very official sounding restriction, but has it ever been tested in court? Because it seems pretty absurd to think you can tell users "you can download our data, but if you don't delete it again right away, it's illegal".

I'm going to say that you're a robot which interprets everything it reads in the most literal way possible.

I see that you have produced 4 quotes, only 2 of which are actually relevant to the idea that women are better than men (a.k.a. sexism). Based purely on these quotes (though I'm meant to believe that "there's tons more") you claim to have accurately represented the entirety (or at least "the bulk") of feminism, and the many differing schools of thought and movements which make up "the feminist movement".

Why make such generalizations? If those quotes piss you off, why not hate the people who said them, or the people who agree with them? Why instead put words into the mouths of a huge group of people who don't hate men, nor think women are any better? Why equate feminism with misandry? My guess - and that's all it can be - is that you hate feminism for other, unrelated reasons. That when women are assertive, uncompromising, and demand respect and recognition, it feels threatening. It feels as though they must hate you and all other men, because otherwise they wouldn't be so disruptive and annoying. So you make assumptions about their motivations. Because it's much easier to dismiss people who simply irrationally hate you than people with legitimate points to consider and discuss.

You describe an extremely antiseptic environment, where nobody ever talks about anything not directly related to the code, and they only talk about it in a bland tech-manual style. That's not reality.

Reality is that people in the FOSS community enjoy FOSS, but they also enjoy community. Community often involves informal discussions, jokes, etc. and as you mention, interaction outside official channels. And that's all fantastic, and a big part of what keeps people engaged and excited about a project. Even something as simple as being informal and silly in the way you comment your code or explain your algorithm on the dev list can make the project more fun and satisfying, less like corporate work.

The problem is that the very community so many men enjoy is currently alienating for the vast majority of women. Because currently, some of those jokes, discussions and silliness are misogynistic. So while women technically can participate in the coding, the "reward" of getting to be part of a fun community and getting respect from peers is worthless or undesirable to them.

That's an interesting point, but sometimes, you have to draw attention to a particular kind of "bullying" because most people don't even realize it's going on. Maybe they're not even doing it on purpose, they just never stopped to think. For example, if I'm American and so are all the other coders I know, we're not necessarily going to notice if we're doing things in a way that are inconvenient or annoying or offensive to people from other cultures or parts of the world.

Often, we don't fully get these things even when someone mentions it. We're just like "Huh." and move on to the things that actually affect us directly. It takes a pretty high-profile and involved community discourse to a) get enough attention drawn to the problem and b) work out as a community how we should respond to it.

There is a place for playing the "passive victims of police violence", and that strategy has worked at certain times in the past and sometimes still in the present. But I ask: did you see any significant coverage of passive victims of police violence in the corporate media? Because there were a lot of such victims. I mean a lot: uninvolved college kids just trying to get around their campus being beaten, sprayed with chem weapons, tackled and arrested, and they just took it. They wandered around helplessly, being abused by police, pleading for them to stop.

Where was that coverage? It's largely a myth that passive victims of police violence are mediagenic. We think of such things as the perfect story, the perfect thing to arouse public sympathy, mostly because we were raised on the powerful images of the civil rights movement. But it happens all the time these days and nobody hears about it, let alone cares.

People like you say that the reason is that we're not getting passively abused enough, but we've been doing this for decades now. At what point do we look at the old strategies and say "this isn't working anymore"? At what point do we straighten our backs and have enough self-respect to defend ourselves when attacked?

Oh, it happens. The ACLU or NLG brings lawsuits during/after many major protests like this. And sometimes they even win (years later). I've actually heard of more cases where people successfully sue for damages than where people successfully convict cops on criminal charges.

A cynic might say this is because criminal charges actually have a significant negative impact on the police department and would force them to change their policies, wheras civil damages are just a minor inconvenience.

Your alignment: Lawful Neutral.

...and then the courts say "Yes, what the police did was illegal. They must now pay $X in damages and say they're sorry." And so the police department gets some money from the city government, or dips into its "lawsuit slush fund" (public tax dollars, either way) and hands out the dough, a bullshit apology statement, and then turns around and buys more weapons for the next protest.

Large summits like the G20 have a security budget, and you can often see a significant amount of money factored in for "legal settlements and costs". This is money they set aside in advance for the fines and damages they know will have to pay for violating people's rights.

"Black bloc" anarchists originally developed as a response to police violence against peaceful demonstrations. Activists got tired of their people getting attacked all the time, and so they organized their own group of black-clad militants who were prepared to protect the crowd with barricades, shields, and physical force.

These so-called hooligans have been responsible for keeping less-organized protesters safe from brutal police many, many times. Of course, it doesn't work out that way, some groups of militant anarchists have had negative effects as well. But it's not as simple as just disassociating from anyone who has the courage to stand up against the cops.