There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article. [LWN.net]

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 18, 2013 10:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article. by jsorensen
Parent article: On kernel mailing list behavior

Linus totally missed the point because Sarah was not playing the "victim card". Just because she's a woman making this point doesn't mean she's complaining about sexism. The point she's making is that there is a difference between saying "this patch is unacceptable" (or even "this is an idiotic idea") and shouting "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" and she was complaining about the latter, not the former. And it's not the f-word she's objecting to either.

to post comments

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 18, 2013 11:08 UTC (Thu) by jsorensen (guest, #83220) [Link] (1 responses)

Again you're missing the point. I deliberately did not make any references to the sexism comments, because that has *nothing* to do with this discussion. Unfortunately this is the first thing some people pull out, the moment a female raises such an issue.

The point is that there is no universal set of rules that are applicable across the set of cultures we are covering and Sarah is pushing for her set of rules and playing the victim card as Linus correctly pointed out!

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 18, 2013 11:34 UTC (Thu) by simosx (guest, #24338) [Link]

> Again you're missing the point. I deliberately did not make any references to the sexism comments, because that has *nothing* to do with this discussion. Unfortunately this is the first thing some people pull out, the moment a female raises such an issue.

You twist rsid's reference to 'sexism' which is not fine. His point is not about 'sexism' and I think it is evident enough.

> The point is that there is no universal set of rules that are applicable across the set of cultures we are covering and Sarah is pushing for her set of rules and playing the victim card as Linus correctly pointed out!

There is a fallacy here. It's the one that you set the goals so high as a way to accept no action to be taken.

Being civil is something that many people can achieve, and there are smaller free software projects that can do this, and they thrive. Actually, for smaller project, if they can be civil is the only way for success. Linux is so big that collateral damage is not a problem yet.

Think about disciplining children. Many people would still consider smacking a child is the most cost-effective method of discipline. There are other ways, parents simply do not know them and they suffer [just to be preemptive, I am NOT conflating that the Linux kernel issue is a father-child issue].

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 19, 2013 10:19 UTC (Fri) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (2 responses)

> Linus totally missed the point because Sarah was not playing the "victim card".

Linus intentionally missed the point.

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 20, 2013 7:54 UTC (Sat) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link]

You see, this appears to be a contended point..

There is unfortunately a fundamental point missing in this article.

Posted Jul 20, 2013 7:55 UTC (Sat) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link]

You see, the fact whether Sarah played the victim card or not is a contended point..

Judgements vary.