Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 17:38 UTC (Mon) by scali23 (guest, #104768)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by dskoll
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

> Showing such disregard for people's feelings in relation to some selfish goal is something I'd expect from a sociopath or a psychopath.

Are you wearing a pair of trousers? Or maybe using a smartphone / PC? Do you happen to know the suffering that went into that shiny piece of technology / cloth? Did you when you were deciding to buy it?
Far for me saying that every choice has the same ethical implications (on the contrary), but addressing someone as psychopath/sociopath might be a step too far.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 7:00 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (7 responses)

> Far for me saying that every choice has the same ethical implications (on the contrary), but addressing someone as psychopath/sociopath might be a step too far.

Actually, my though was exactly like dskoll's. "I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but there it is.", too. It *does* match the pattern.

> Are you wearing a pair of trousers? Or maybe using a smartphone / PC? Do you happen to know the suffering that went into that shiny piece of technology / cloth? Did you when you were deciding to buy it?

The ethical ramifications of our consumerist culture is whole another Pandora's box, but I would say that most of the people buying clothes and electronics are simply not aware of the abuse of workers (and environment) that enables our enjoyment of low prices - it's not [usually] willful ignorance or explicit neo-Darwinian, orthodox-Capitalist, mechanistical approach to other people(s) ("they're weak so they deserve to be oppressed by the strong", "it's just the market forces at work", etc.). I don't think anyone can say at this point that they're not aware of these issues in the kernel community.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 15:29 UTC (Fri) by aristeu (subscriber, #35826) [Link] (6 responses)

> Actually, my though was exactly like dskoll's. "I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but there it is.", too. It *does* match the pattern.

Someone does something technically stupid and a developer replies classifying said work as "idiotic" which also "does match the pattern" of what "idiotic" means and that's horrible and unacceptable.

But, since it's now trendy and socially acceptable (by some) classifying people as "psychopath", "sociopath", "misogynist", "racist" and whatever to as quickly as possible label someone as something that is known bad as form of winning the discussion, that's ok to perform a psychological evaluation based in a comment or two. It's like Godwin's law, but you look smarter too.

But hey, that's ok, "I'm sorry if this sounds harsh" was used before it.

In your culture doing something "idiotic" is way more offensive than being pointed as "psychopath" in a public forum. Did you ever consider if the person on the other side shares the same standard?

I for one see the Linux kernel as a project where I'm not there to make friends (if I do, great!), but to contribute. A refuge where true meritocracy (or as close we can get) exists and doesn't matter who you are, who you know or where you're from. In such a place, people try to understand where's the technical point behind whatever form of expression, broken english, understanding that people come from different cultures, backgrounds and their main reason behind patches are, you know, code. Thanks to that, people that agree with Sarah will still have their patches accepted if they're technically correct, despite Linus or anybody else disagreeing with these people's personal views. If enjoying being part of Linux kernel development as is and enjoying the fruits of meritocracy "does match the pattern" and makes you think I'm a "psychopath/sociopath" too, well, have fun.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 12, 2015 20:38 UTC (Mon) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (5 responses)

More generally, any argument resting on a faux-psychiatric[0] characterization of the opponent is a piss-poor argument. At most such a thing could be made as an act of petulance, or tacit admission of defeat. Yet `dskoll' went on for a while before finally claiming to have only been pretending the idiot.

As usual, the Linux community is far too reluctant to just say "oh fuck that shit, and fuck you too". And so you get played for sport, your efforts wasted in arguments with the west-coast touchy-feely tar-pit. Even the classic move of turning the discussion from being about a topic external to all participants, to being about one of the participants themselves[1], seems to have moved no-one.

[0] unless actual, degreed and licensed professional physicians are now giving unsolicited statements over the Internet -- and eschewing any chance of payment, too!
[1] for example, by speculating about their motives and then instead of justifying that speculation, passing judgement on the person[2].
[2] in this case, a variation of "you're so selfish (to not obey at once)", with a couple of freshman-tier power words tacked on because (and I speculate) that's what the other cool kids do, too.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:02 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (4 responses)

Please note that I did not psychoanalyze anyone. I merely said: The following behavior is what I'd expect from a psychopath: The pursuit of selfish goals above all else including other people's feelings.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:39 UTC (Tue) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, deny an accusation that wasn't made, and that would be at most peripheral to the argument. Because that sure changes everything.

Good day.

Second request

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:44 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

Please...let's bring this to an end. The useful part of the discussion is past, and I'd just as soon do without any more of this kind of stuff.

Second request

Posted Oct 18, 2015 12:01 UTC (Sun) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (1 responses)

Yo. Yo!

Which part of "good day", to you, doesn't indicate that the branch of discussion is at an end? That I'm dropping the mic, tapping out, refusing to keep wrestling the pig?

More pertinently, where were you when the kindergarten-tier arguments of "that's what a sociopath would say" were ringing out, seemingly for as long as it need go? Does this just-about-readiness to close the discussion only come out when it moves out of the designated circlejerk? When the new political class gets told? When an Incontrovertible Holy Minority of Antioch requests assistance over private channels? But I repeat myself.

Articles concerning touchie-feelie topics always have a great big shitstorm in the comment section, with seemingly limitless catty abuse hurled at those who would refuse an emotional argument, or worse still, argue from evidence and reason to any conclusion besides the pre-chewed one we're expected to swallow. This is true also of articles concerning systemd; we've seen your comment section's finest politruks drive away technologists just for being "on the wrong side". What's your plan concerning this phenomenon, beyond an instinctive supplication to the best passive-aggressives that good-boy points can hire?

Is it truly the beardies alone who're at fault, here? It's certainly so if one asks the opponent: they do have naught but hatred for wrongthink, after all. "Listen And Believe", as they say: there never was any "Unix Philosophy", basic human rights as recognized by the UN are subordinate to the self-stated need of Sacred Minorities and their Not At All Chauvinist Spokespersons, and we've always been at war with Toxic Rape Apologists. Or what?

Though I could be wrong here, certainly. You could be addressing the rest of the thread by posting at one of its tails, and not my comment in particular. If that's the case then do forgive me for reading your comment as it was posted; I had no idea.

Second request

Posted Oct 18, 2015 13:39 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Which part? Maybe the part where you have to get the last word in no matter what?

Look, my desire was to close down the conversation as a whole, I said as much; I was not speaking to any single specific person.

That said, I am now speaking to you. This comment was aggressive, the one attacking Matthew Garrett rather more so. You have moved quite firmly into the realm of personal attacks, and you need to stop now.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 14:24 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (4 responses)

Are you wearing a pair of trousers?

Well, a skirt actually, but your point is taken. A lot of our consumer goods are produced under appalling conditions and the only reason we ignore that is that the companies producing the goods go to enormous lengths to insulate us from what's going on. This distancing is the only way to get us to continue our behavior because it blunts our natural empathy.

And I would say that the system of exploitation that gives us ultra-cheap consumer goods at the expense of people's lives is in fact sociopathic. And just because we all participate in this system, it doesn't mean it's acceptable to allow nasty behavior on a mailing list. Just because we can't fix all of the problems in the world doesn't mean we have no responsibility for fixing any of them.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 17:48 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

A lot of our consumer goods are produced under appalling conditions and the only reason we ignore that is that the companies producing the goods go to enormous lengths to insulate us from what's going on.

It's also extremely difficult to avoid because almost all manufacturers are participating to one extent or another. Just try finding modern consumer goods- or commercially produced foods- that weren't produced by exploiting vulnerable workers. Unless you're willing to more-or-less drop out of modern society, you're benefiting from exploitation.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 6:25 UTC (Wed) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link]

> Just try finding modern consumer goods- or commercially produced foods- that weren't produced by exploiting vulnerable workers. Unless you're willing to more-or-less drop out of modern society, you're benefiting from exploitation.

Actually it is no longer that bad in many areas. The main issues are becoming aware of the problem (and one can be aware of some aspects without being conscious of others), finding out where to get said products and learning to accept the price premium that often but not always goes with it. Though I think computer products are still a lot harder to do ethically than food and clothing.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 18:38 UTC (Wed) by dashesy (guest, #74652) [Link] (1 responses)

Just because we can't fix all of the problems in the world doesn't mean we have no responsibility for fixing any of them.

So is it fair to start with the easiest target?
Yes, there are people enslaved to give me this shiny phone but no one will listen to my rants. So lets rally against this genius who gave the world Linux because he acts like a grumpy grand dad on mailing lists, or the other genius (who is a noble prize winner) just to make a point. It does not matter that this technology has empowered many of the poor all over the world, has real impact on global economy, and has made the world a better place for billions of people. They are easy targets because they are decent and respectful human beings, while attacking hard targets (with real human rights violations) will result in soaring oil prices which is inconvenient.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 10, 2015 7:37 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> So is it fair to start with the easiest target?

It's called bikeshedding BTW. Looking at the length of this page...

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 11:28 UTC (Wed) by jwakely (guest, #60262) [Link]

I agree the sociopath/psychopath suggestion is a bit over the top, but I agree with dskoll that "I only care about the quality of the end product" is an immoral position. I don't need a tangible benefit to me to want other people to be treated fairly, and I put my money where my mouth is by buying products like https://www.fairphone.com/ and http://subscribe.adbusters.org/products/blackspot (which are certainly not the highest quality goods available, but they are definitely good enough and they are produced more fairly).

Make a difference with your choices. You don't just have to accept products that are made at other people's expense, and I certainly can't agree with people who actively choose products that cause suffering just because the end result is a bit shinier.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 15:08 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

You might want to look up the phrase non sequitur.