Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 20:21 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by shmget
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

>it is obviously _not_ better for _everyone_ involved.

>But that is not the case here.

and so on. It would help to explain your perspective rather than just assert.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 21:12 UTC (Tue) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (8 responses)

" It would help to explain your perspective rather than just assert. "

a story about pots and kettles come to mind... the point here was to counter the often asserted claim of 'right thing'

but if you want more details.. Linus already expressed thing quite adequately
in a thread already posted here.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&...

fell free to navigate in the thread in question, most of the point and counter point have been made there already....

If that did not give a hint that what some people here claim is 'The Right Thing(tm)', may not be that a slam dunk, I do not think I can convince you otherwise.

If you care about the more fundamental rooting of my position. In this topic it boils down to my strongly held belief that 'the right not to be offended' is a moronic, impossible to apply concept.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 23:51 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

>If that did not give a hint that what some people here claim is 'The Right Thing(tm)', may not be that a slam dunk, I do not think I can convince you otherwise.

Yes because Linus approach is precisely what some people here disagree with. Pointing to him is not going to convince them.

>In this topic it boils down to my strongly held belief that 'the right not to be offended' is a moronic, impossible to apply concept.

True but irrelevant since noone here has claimed otherwise.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 8:02 UTC (Wed) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (1 responses)

"Yes because Linus approach is precisely what some people here disagree with. Pointing to him is not going to convince them."

Sure, you can decide to ignore the argument, but then you cannot complain that such argument is not given.

I certainly read that 'some people' disagree with it, that does not means that it is not correct, or that the opposing view is ipso facto the 'Right Thing(tm)'

"True but irrelevant since noone here has claimed otherwise."
Of course that has been claimed, many, many times in this debate. It is the core foundation of the argument that speech mush be judged by each and every witness to the speech... not only the one it is addressed too but also real or hypothetical bystander. and that judgement must be based on the level of offense claimed by each and every one of them.
and merely 'feeling uncomfortable' is standing enough to have a cause of action.... iow a 'right not to be offended'
you can tip-toe around the wording as much as you like, but it is still what it is.

An analogy to this ludicrous thing is these people that leave the city to get a house in farmland, and then sue for nuisance the neighboring farmers, because their cows block the road, the roster sing at dawn, the stench in the autumn when the farmer spread manure in the fields, etc... you knew or should have known that this was the reality of farmland...

If you really love so much the hypocritical, passive-aggressive political correctness of Corporate America.. good for you... you already have a huge playing field... stay there and do not try to ruin it for the rest of us.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 12:02 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

I am not ignoring it but letting you know why it is not convincing to point to linus when asked your perspective.

Also you are setting up a strawman. I will stick to the points in this thread.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 2:51 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (4 responses)

There is no right not to be offended. Such a "right" would itself be offensive because it would stifle free speech.

That does not mean it's OK to be crude and offensive. It would not be tolerated in a work environment---a perpetrator would justifiably be fired for creating a toxic workplace---and it should not be tolerated in an open-source development environment. Especially when there's a power imbalance, aggressive behavior can cause real damage.

It's far too convenient for people to behave disgustingly and then say "well, you're the one getting offended so it's your problem." Nope, I don't buy it and neither do most civilized people.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 17:48 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> There is no right not to be offended. Such a "right" would itself be offensive because it would stifle free speech.

I hate all this stuff about "rights". Your "rights" probably infringe my "rights".

Far better - it is your DUTY as civilised person, not to be offensive. As a CONSEQUENCE, you are unlikely to be offended.

I don't like "do as you would be done by" - the obvious problem with this is that lkml, and lwn, and places like that are mostly an "old boys club" and us men are only too happy to treat everyone else here as a bloke - then we wonder why people like Ms Sharp and dskoll find the place very hostile and uninviting ... :-(

At the end of the day, it boils down to respect. And sadly, it seems far too many people have no respect for other people. And yes, that does prove dskoll's point - as I understand, what she has been saying all along is "your behaviour fits the dictionary definition of a sociopath". That's not calling some ONE a sociopath - that's calling someone's BEHAVIOUR sociopathic, and imho she's right on the button. THAT is what needs to be addressed. And that's not a personal attack, that's a technical assault on a problem ...

And, of course, unfortunately we do have a "blame the victim" mentality - we have the thread elsewhere of the "wannabee developer" - HIS behaviour is sociopathic, and when some poor kernel guy blows his top and swears, HE's the guy who gets picked on for bad behaviour :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 19:50 UTC (Fri) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link] (2 responses)

"what she has been saying all along is "your behaviour fits the dictionary definition of a sociopath". That's not calling some ONE a sociopath - that's calling someone's BEHAVIOUR sociopathic, and imho she's right on the button."

No, just no.

She's inflating the degree of stated "I care only about code" to ridiculous extremes (as needed for a clinical diagnosis), instead of assuming reasonableness. She proceeds to label the behaviour with mental illness. (It is sophistry to claim only a behaviour and not the person is being labelled.)

If the deflection was going to be ... "oh, it's only consistent with $illness, not necessarily $illness", hold up. Conflict is "consistent with" genocide too, but it would be manipulative and dishonest to use the extreme term.

So, no. Someone who says they "care only about code" is not meaning literally that. Don't pretend to believe they do. Don't label them mentally ill.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 20:27 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Someone who says they "care only about code" is not meaning literally that.

Exactly, and that's my point. Saying that is ridiculous. We all care about other things.

The only points of contention are (1) the relative merits of good code vs. good behavior and (2) the extent (if any) to which bad behavior is necessary to produce good code. But saying you "only" care about code is shutting down the discussion. People can legitimately have different viewpoints about (1) and (2), but the extremes (only caring about code or only caring about feelings) are ridiculous.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 20:49 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

> Someone who says they "care only about code" is not meaning literally that.

So everyone agrees that someone who cares only about code does not actually exist.

According to Wol, that leaves nobody to get offended. According to fuhchee, if we paint with a wider brush, we can find lots of people to get offended. Both positions seem valid.

That said, a person claiming they 'care only about code' seems just as guilty of sophistry as the person labelling that behavior sociopathic. Both sides are overstating their positions and looking for a reaction.

So why not roll your eyes, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and move on to a less hypothetical offense?