May want to ask Brendan Eich about this.

Eich didnt just have an opinion. He materially supported a successful campaign to make his opinion the law of the land. This was widely known while he was still CTO of Mozilla, but nothing came of it until he was promoted to CEO.

So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. Got it. Does that apply to everyone, or only people whose opinions either are now or will some day become unpopular?

If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.

> So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it.

You can do that, too.

OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action.

Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.

I am a mozilla.org cofounder (full list: https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 - note no one currently at Mozilla). We were not “ideological” in the standard political-religion sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). If you are arguing that the Mozilla Foundation, swimming in NFP/NGO seas, has become ideological since founding and spinout from AOL, I agree. But it was not always or necessarily so.

FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.

It applies to everyone. This idea that conservatives are uniquely penalized is a fantasy. In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them.

Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."

And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia.

> If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.

Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried.

If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?

> The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them.

And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.

> "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."

NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad").

> the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world

Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.

> except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia

And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble?

> Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him

And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.

> Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions

Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get.

> using company political contributions

Eich used his own money, didn't he?

> then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class.

Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.

> And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for.

Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand.

> It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.

No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.

> I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?

Sorry, I couldn't understand anything from the above. DSA positions are certainly not "centrist" in any serious meaning of the word, unless you think the center begins on the left of the Democratic party. And DSA is being embraced by the most mainstream press outlet we have here in the US. And some of its rank members openly brag about being communists (btw I never heard about a Republican openly bragging about being fascist...).

> Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.

No, it is not - not nearly enough compared to the seriousness of the problem. When we have countries that are still unsure if it's OK for a woman to leave home without a male relative following and completely sure any woman showing her face in public should be jailed (or worse), and that anybody gay should be just put to death, then mentioning it once a month in the "curiosities of the world" section of the paper, next to gardening tips, is not reporting. At least not if you want to make an impression you take the matter seriously. Nobody is quashing this reporting but the fear that serious discussion would be called cultural imperialism, racism, islamophobia, etc, - which is exactly what happens.

> Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.

Whether you personally discussed anything with him is immaterial for the point unless you had any key role in hounding him out of Mozilla. There was no discussion leading to that event, there was an attack and Mozilla folded and Eich was out. The fact that you privately discussed anything with him doesn't matter as that discussion did not have any weight in the events that followed.

> His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.

Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.

> Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."

Again, given the above, I am pretty sure "treating you as less than human" is wildly inaccurate description of what is actually happening. More accurate description is probably "they disagree with me, and that offends me a lot, so I would claim they dehumanize me, because this shifts the focus from the matter of disagreement to them being bad".

> Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.

That sounds as you are saying CoC is not needed for the purposes of preserving "basic civility", inclusiveness and so on, and "you just need to behave" is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project. Which is exactly confirming the original complaint. I guess we got some kind of the consensus here? Or did you mean something else and if so, what?

> There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."

I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. US government does a lot of terminally idiotic things, hundred times more plain stupid things, and more things that are outright evil that I would care naming here, to not make this unbearably long comment twice as large. And I mean any goverment, none excluded (of course Trump's too). I think you exaggerate a bit (actually, a lot). But, I don't see how it systematically terrorizes you - could you explain what you mean by that?

> You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people.

I do not. I know some people vehemently disagree with the government and its policies, and that's normal and OK. I disagree with it too all the time and on many issues. However, I don't see anything it is doing - excepting some classes of people that can legitimately claim being a target of systematic government persecution, such as illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, drug users, and some other classes like that - that warrants descriptions that you are using. If you mean any of these classes, please point out which one, otherwise it's very hard to understand your complaint.

P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand you.

> Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand

Ah, we're at this stage of discourse.

> Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.

Not only did I not say that (but because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie), but you're clearly implying that you think there are policy grievances that fall to voters and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible. You're acutely aware of the complaint and even use it in the construction of your post, but then suggest you never implied or even imagined it?

Yeah. Okay Sure.

It's also worth noting you're at the phase of tactical retreat where it's important to start casting mental credibility into play. This will make it easier for you (either in a personal sense, or within the flow of the dialogue) to disengage with the proclamation, "I have determined that you lie, so therefore everything you have said must not only be untrue, and probably the exact opposite is true!"

Observe:

> Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.

Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC and pushing conservative ideology as if the two are linked.

They aren't, actually. What is linked is the CoC denial and the worst sort of behavior that festers in the US conservative communities. It's not unique to the US, even. But what's remarkable is that throughout this you've gamely accepted a tacit link between all three of these concepts, never even really stopping to question this.

This is the part where I apologize for being slightly disingenuous with you. I didn't do this accidentally. I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, but having read a bunch of your material before engaging, I figured you'd simply accept this. The result is a conversation about written standards of professional conduct leading to statements like,

> No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.

False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.

But at least you get back to the core of your argument, "The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, who have been violating these while insisting they haven't for decades."

> [that] is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project.

The Linux CoC does indeed take away the power to be abusive and unprofessional. If you were not doing those things (out of, I dunno, some kind of higher moral principle), then you've lost nothing. Indeed, it'd be "another hollow SJW victory" as SoA says.

To you, this is about power and control. I agree, but that power has always rested in the majority of the linux contributors, as proposed by their leadership. Now that their leadership has decided on this minimal course change. That you perceive the written standards of conduct as a power loss reinforces the need for it.

I'll repeat it, for emphasis: You view a policy that condemns public abuse in a professional context as a power loss. This argument is only consistent if you felt the need to violate the CoC. No spurious arguments from final consequence, no slippery slope, no absurd category errors or examples of rules being abused can shake this single, simple fact.

> I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you.

I didn't say they were terrorizing me. I'm fortunate that I'm not on the top of the list. But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist. We see similar reduction in legal protection of gay and lesbian people.

> P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand.

Please stop misrepresenting your actual intent, it's annoying and part of etc etc. Please stop using your refusal to fact-check nearly anything as a basis for discrediting me, it's annoying and goes against the spirit of a fair debate. Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, it's annoying and the stakes are much higher than this conversation... in many cases it's a violation of workplace law. But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.

Please be aware, I'm not going to reply anymore. I suspect the mods will lock this thread soon, so I'll not invite any further trouble on their doorstep.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 - I quote him, "I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law", a position soundly refuted in basis of history and fact via "dragonwriter" here. I confess I was so taken aback by the audacity of the claim I did a poor job responding to it.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migr...

[2]: http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analy... and I quote, "Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;" Nevermind that under Article 6 of the constitution and our participation in the UN Genocide Convention (counting as an international treaty) the president is in direct violation of a constitutional law that supercedes his authority in all cases its been examined.

I actually did, on this very website. Know what he did? He tried to suggest his actions were actually in the best interests of LGBT people.

Pretty gutsy.

> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences

Yeah but when you and your kin are the self appointed constables of inflicting said consequences, that's just a euphamism for "freedom of speech justifies jungle justice." I believe freedom of speech should be freedom from consequences for all but the most egregious forms of speech. I don't kick athiests off my projects even when they openly lambaste beliefs I hold dear on Twitter. I don't kick anti-vaxxers off my projects even though they openly spread misinformation. In the context of my project, code is king and as long as everyone is treating each other with respect, that's all that matters. I expect the same courtesy from other project maintainers if people disagree with (off-project) opinions.

> I get pushback for not being cis straight every day

What you mean by pushback? Demands for you to be removed from a project because you are not cis? Organized boycotts of the projects you participate in because you're a member? Could you give an example of the pushback like that?

> Being a minority component of society is no fun, huh? Believe me, I know.

I believe you. But if you believe that gives you justification to do to the other people the injustices that have been done to you - you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Your suffering is real, but it's no excuse to create more suffering for others.

> I actually did that once.

You should not be proud about it.

> the top post here is about a group of conservatives adopting the very strategy you're decrying

Nobody actually adopted this strategy yet, but even if anybody did, they are talking about CoC in their project, dealing with the code they personally implemented, not throwing people out for off-project disagreement.

> What you mean by pushback? Demands for you to be removed from a project because you are not cis? Organized boycotts of the projects you participate in because you're a member? Could you give an example of the pushback like that?

People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others. They've contacted senior management at various employers. They've registered spurious conduct complaints against me. When I owned a company, I narrowly avoided several disasters I don't even want to talk about involving physical security. I've been doxxed, threatened, and had threatening physical mail left in my mailbox. In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human.

I'm genderfluid, but spend most of my experience feeling asexual. No one has ever seen me present as female in public. I can only imagine how much more insane it is for folks actually presenting across their assigned gender line. And I live in San Francisco.

So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project. I hear you. It sounds rough, and I wish you luck. But I've been driven to the brink of suicide by harassers, my partner has only fared a bit better. I'm offering to switch positions if you'd like. Or maybe you could police your communities the way I'm obligated to police mine.

> But if you believe that gives you justification to do to the other people the injustices that have been done to you - you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Your suffering is real, but it's no excuse to create more suffering for others.

I think transparency and equal exposure IS a form of justice. I'd love to live my life in public without fear. It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity. So I'm afraid your complaint has fallen on ideologically deaf ears, you think something is axiomatically bad and I think it's axiomatically good. If they don't want the judgement of their peers, then they shouldn't live that life. Just like folks tell me. It's surely a choice to act that way.

> You should not be proud about it.

You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions, which is the fundamental thesis of nearly everyone's complaint in open source conduct standards these days.

> , they are talking about CoC in their project

But this is a lie right here, isn't it? It isn't "their" project. It's community owned and they could fork it, couldn't they? This would not even be possible if it were not accepted by the majority and the leadership.

Let's not pretend that this is some minority forcing its will on the majority. Quite the contrary, the proposal of a "kill switch" is exactly the tactic adopted by a minority hoping to hold what they see as a point of leverage. They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority.

Another thing I note. The disgusting trolls that called you pervert etc. did so anonymously. Because they knew if anybody learns who they are, there would be very real negative consequences for them. People that demanded (often successfully) silencing and banning others for disagreement with them do so proudly and openly, because they know that while they may have suffer an attack or two from the same despicable trolls, they won't be fired for it, they won't have lynch mob attack them on the street or in a public place, they won't be disinvited from conferences, they would not lose all social media presence because of it, their company would not face a mass boycott for employing them, their business would not be removed from the Internet because their provider doesn't like them, etc. etc. Somehow there's a difference. Even though the trolls - while undeniably despicable - appear to be pretty powerless to do anything, while the people I described above can really ruin somebody's life. I think there's maybe some asymmetry going on...

> People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others.

This is terrible, and I hope your employer is sane enough to ignore those cooks.

> In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human.

I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it.

> So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project.

No, I never wrote anything of the sort to you. You seem to be a person capable of controlling your thoughts and basic reasoning, I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner.

I never said it is "sad" that I might need "to behave myself". I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy, or a lynch mob is going to get you. If that what you mean by "behaving" then this would not happen. And I would expect yourself, as somebody who has been attacked exactly as somebody doing things in your life not in an orthodox way, may appreciate why it is sad.

> It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity.

There's nothing wrong with anonymity. You may prefer not being anonymous, but some other people might prefer otherwise. People harassing you is terrible. So is harassing other people, including because of things they disagree with you. I am not talking about making threats and harassment - if somebody attacks other person, exposing them is a good thing. But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong.

The folks that are getting hurt by the lynch mob are predominantly not the anonymous trolls that mar yours and mine lives online. They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough.

> You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions,

I am not proud about it, because I have never defended such opinions. Not a single one. I did defend the right of people to hold variety of opinions, even those that you oppose. I hope you can distinguish between supporting the right to have an opinion and agreeing with each opinion that I think people have the right to hold.

> It isn't "their" project.

It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would.

> they could fork it, couldn't they?

They could, but that's not the point. The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you?

> They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority.

You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, and if you have the majority the minority can shut up and their concerns do not matter. Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority? I would think that as somebody who has been in a minority and had suffered from people that thought being in majority means being right, and you can dismiss concerns of people in the minority and silence their voices and disregard their wishes, you would appreciate how this point of view is incorrect and can cause harm?

> I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it.

Which slurs do people use when they call your employer and neighbors? What strategies did you employ when someone threatened to swat your workplace describing you as the gunman?

> I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner.

I attribute to you the behavior you're exhibiting AND the behavior you're willing to stand up for and defend. You've taken the position of owning both here.

Why do I do this? Let me quote an example of what you invoke without any actual ties to the CoC or the discussion at hand:

> I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy,

Really. Even an "iota" of veering from "the dominant orthodoxy." See: you can't have this both ways. You can't restrict the conversation when it's suitable but continue to throw these little zingers in there. If you know how to "behave yourself" then this CoC is meaningless to you. A codification of rules you find reasonable. But you consistently invoke the specter of being penalized as a serial harasser, so you're offering to defend that position even if you don't exhibit those behaviors here.

> There's nothing wrong with anonymity.

Not when used responsibly. I believe this argument is used with guns as well? And we're told to blame people, not the tools? And part of that blame and penalization mechanism is a revocation of privileges for bad and abusive actors.

So what are you actually complaining about?

> But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong.

Ahh yes. "I'm very sorry these people are doing awful things to you that I say are wrong, but that has nothing to do with me. And I don't believe you when you say it happens because these people you accused deserve the benefit of the doubt even in an anonymous fashion, so I won't condemn them even as I condemn you for being too mean."

Sure, they suffer minor inconveniences and immediately forgiven career setbacks and I suffer threats to my life, physical intimidation and property damage but isn't it all the same in the end?

> They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough.

Which is a overwhelmingly a polite euphamism for, "A joke casually dehumanizing someone, implying they're not entitles to the full rights of citizens, or invoking a dark history of oppression and genocide." You know, things you're invested in laughing about.

> It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would.

And it has been rejected as a cruel minority who's contributions do not outweigh their harassment. We all know this. They voted, they lost. Fork Linux.

> The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you?

Actually, "go work on another project" has been the solution for women, LGBT people and introverts interested in that project. This is simply a shift in the window of acceptable behavior. This is how Linux governance is DESIGNED to work, and in the absence of finite property rules as per land consumption, it's literally the game theoretic optimal.

What you're actually defending is harassers having control of the resources and attention of the Linux project, of course. I get that.

> You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority?

The way I know you're not arguing in good faith is that you compose these smallworld arguments in the isolation of a paragraph or two, often losing the larger plot. I'm an non-binary individual who likes Bayesian statistics and Haskell. I'm acutely aware that a being in a minority group can hold a valid but rejected opinion. Obviously.

But it's rhetorically convenient to suggest that I'm allied with some oppressive, uncaring majority that has historically oppressed your people. And it's nonsense in the context of the Linux CoC, because it is an ideal democracy. You can always win the vote by forking the community and the primary incentive of aligning with the majority is to pool resources.

The truth is that more resources (in both humans and dollars) will go to the project with these changes, and that more people will be happier there. And that's why it's going to work. And that's why folks like ESR are trying to use threats and violence and galting to stop it.

I didn't do this because I am upvoted or appeciated. I contribute on HN almost exclusively so I have the karma to burn in situations like this. I consider threads and stories like this as one of my most important contributions to this website.

𐑚𐑰𐑦𐑙 𐑝𐑦𐑟𐑦𐑚𐑳𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑞𐑺 𐑲-𐑤𐑲𐑯, 𐑩𐑟 𐑕𐑳𐑥𐑢𐑳𐑯 𐑢𐑦𐑔 𐑒𐑮𐑧𐑛𐑦𐑚𐑦𐑤𐑦𐑑𐑰 𐑯 𐑝𐑷𐑤𐑘𐑵𐑥, 𐑦𐑟 𐑒𐑮𐑦𐑑𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑤 𐑑 𐑒𐑰𐑐𐑦𐑙 𐑞𐑰𐑟 𐑐𐑰𐑐𐑳𐑤 𐑷𐑓-𐑚𐑨𐑤𐑩𐑯𐑕. ;)

I vouched for this one. At the very least it's a sincere perspective worth discussing and disagreeing with vocally; not flagging to death. It didn't strike me as a troll.

KirinDave: I think this mentality is somewhat destructive. Your feelings on the matter are justified given your situation but to some degree you're just being the same kind of asshole you're mad about too.

> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.

Yea, so? Those consequences aren't free from criticism. Whether they're disproportionate is perfectly topical. Public mob retaliation is notoriously so.

I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too.

I appreciate the vouch. Some folks on twitter sent me some screenshots of folks coordinating on both IRC and a Discord to bring more accounts in to flag and downvote my posts. One of them was specifically defending ESR.

This entire thread and article is not about the terms of the CoC. The article has no real complaints about its specific clauses or content. People here do not claim content greivances either, they claim it's part of "identity politics" (as opposed to non-identical-based politics which totally are white men's politics) down their throats, and talk about the final consequences and slippery slopes they vaguely threaten to invoke.

This article and this discussion are about cutural control. The Linux leadership has made a decision and specific people who promote bias-white and bias-male identity politics are looking to threaten a challenge for that control.

> I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too

I don't think this is about being an asshole, or civility. For many people this about the right to live, or the right for essential human rights, or the right for redress for centuries-long policies of inequality and destruction.

The fact that folks want to paint the simple act of being open about political contributions (which used to be required) as a bias in and of itself is telling.

Let's have this debate in public. With our real names and faces, and even stakes for everyone.

> If I have to endure constant harassment for being genderqueer in public

No one gives a shit.

Can you write good code? Yes, cool awesome welcome to the project. Do you write bad code? Then piss off.

We don't need a useless CoC because of non-relevant issues you face in your personal life.

I give a shit, and I'm highly incentivized to make you give a shit too.

And others are thus highly incentivized to publicly block your attempts for politicizing FOSS project.

See how that works?

>I give a shit

Then go cry in the corner, instead of being an asshole on the internet.

If you only care about the code, why do you even care about the CoC, it's not a .c, .cc, .h, .s, .mk file.