Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:APorsche Self-Drive? (Score 1) 204

Strangely, Porsche has few posers among their owners. Sure, there are some, but they really are few and far between. Most Porsche models don't actually cost enough to be "in" with the true poser crowd. Rather, they are usually owned by people who love to drive and love to drive a good car.

Well, Porsche also make a dumbass SUV-like vehicle, which is only going to drive as well as an SUV. I believe these types of vehicle are a legal alternative for warning other drivers for when you don't want a bumber sticker reading "I'm a complete and utter plonker".

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 659

But the other side of the coin is people feel they have a right to a "safe space" and should never have to see/hear anything that's only offensive to them personally, then going after people that fall somewhere in between for not complying 100%.

Those are two different things. I don't see why people don't have a right to a safe space: no one has the right to force others to hear their speech. But that's different from making the entire world a safe space.

The CoC is introduced, discussed and merged into a project in less than a day before anyone, that doesn't know it's being talked about, can have any input.

In other news, people in charge of a project/community set the rules. The members can like it or lump it. Naturally everyone else is free to cheer them or or call them idiots. The members of that community got just as much of a say about the CoC as members of the Linux kernel community did about Linus' anti-CoC or whatever he called it. Do you also call that underhanded?

I have no issue with a CoC, but why are they even necessary?

Because apparently "be excellent to each other" is too hard an instruction for many people to follow.
Even without ill intent, people often don't even realise that something they're used to doing is, in fact, un-excellent.

They're the worse people to be arguing for tools to hold people responsible for actions outside of dev projects.

I don't really have a problem with that. Many people have IMO this really weird opinion that online life and off line life are somehow separate. They are not. There is only one life. You may try to separate them but ultimately things you do online and off have one very strong thing in common: you.

If a person acts as a raging asshole in an off-line community, that person is still an asshole. Being in an online community doesn't make the assholeishness vanish. They're still an asshole. I think it's 100% resonable for a community to kick out assholes.

But then I have oddly and unusually strong views along the idea that people should damn well take responsibility for their behaviour.

TL;DR - People on both sides, overly offensive and overly offended, are a menaces and justify then feed each others existence.

Yeah, neither overly offensive nor overly offended are good.

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 659

Your help was, to put it bluntly, not helpful.

You specifically claimed that AmiMojo said that men (or more specifically people assigned male gender at birth) could not be victims of sexism.

I'm still not seeing that anywhere. You linked to some quite long threads. No where did AmiMojo ever say that someone assigned the male gender by birth (you presumably?) couldn't be a victim of sexism.

By the way disagreeing with you and/or pointing out your experiences might not be universal (no matter how much they suck) is not the same as saying that you can never be a victim of sexism.

Comment Re:Real liberals need to stop this (Score 1) 659

There should be no "consequences" to speech other than having your ideas and opinions criticized. If you have to take a "risk" and must fear "consequences" in order to express yourself, then you don't really have freedom of speech.

Ah so you want to suppress freedom of association then.

One consequence of saying things other people don't like is the shun you, i.e. won't associate with you. If you want to eliminate consequences then you have to force those people to keep associating with you. Freedom of association is every bit as important as freedom of speech.

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 659

First you say this:

I find your speech offensive in that you believe that it's not possible for somebody assigned the male gender at birth to be a victim of sexism.

Which is something AmiMojo has never claimed, and then you say this:

because I am not the gaslighting asshole managers people like you keep mistaking me for who is chasing women out of tech.

So no gaslighting eh?

I can well believe you're not a manager, but since you're gaslighting in this very thread, excuse me if I don't believe your claim that you don't engage in gaslighting.

Comment Re:Brazil, 1984 (Score 1) 659

On the outside Academia may look like 1984, but on the inside it looks more like Brazil. Curiously enough, in 1984, Brazil was ruled by a (capitalist) dictatorship.

No, actually, it's more like "the 10 commandments". You know that famous scene with the slaves building the pyramids and with random floggings etc? Perfect depection of postdocs.

Comment Re:And you're being exceptionally ignorant... (Score 1) 659

Because Hitler was not a real Fascist

By the modern definiton, he was a fascist. Citation: use a dictionary. In other news, historic use of words is not the same as modern use.

Quote: Usually characterized as a form of fascism

As a matter of fact, I do believe that if SJWs got their way, most Americans would find being ruled Mussolini to be preferable to them because Mussolini was closer to Ron Paul than the average SJW in his need to micromanage every aspect of life in Italy.

I now understand where your misplaced pedantry comes from: you're a complete and utter smeg-head.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 659

Archetypal does not mean "original". Hitler was not the original fascist. I agree Mussolini was. Hitler however by modern definitions of the term is an archetype of fascism.

On a side note I don't believe the party name of one of the three WWII axis powers is in any way shape or form archaic.

I meant to say anachronistic, not archaic. My bad.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 659

This conversation would make Orwell's head explode.

If the drift in meaning of words over time would make Orwell's head explode, then it would have exploded in 1948. Language has always been subject to drift. Simply looking in a dictionary will confirm that the term "facism" is commonly accepted to be much broader than the rather narrow original definition.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 0) 659

The problem is that people are (intentionally I thing) trying to confuse the idea of not having the right to not be offended with the idea that it is reasonable to be a reprehensible human with no consequences.

The former is a serious free speech issue. Stopping people being raging douchebags on FOSS project mailing lists is very much about the letter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson