I'm glad this is getting a lot of push back. The FOSS community should be a welcoming collaborative space, but such an environment is not possible when bigotry is is tolerated.
There is no "push back" from most developers, not in the direction you're thinking anyway, which is what the microblogtard is calling "apathy", as people grew tired of the moral imposters, who happen to (very randomly) align with corpos when it comes to target lists btw (they are "GNU bad" and "Stallman bad" mobs).
Most developers, when they have their developer hat on, are not bothered by the constant hormonal brainless unhinged Find a Nazi under the pillow campaigns of the microblogtard sphere and its echo chambers when they leak outside, and that's exactly the right positioning.
Some of those developers may even be more "radical" than the microblogtards themselves. But they have the ability to contextualize, and have the assuredness, mental stability, and impulse control not to feel the need to moral posture and find mob targets 24/7 to feel good about themselves.
Great read. I learned through this about the Mullvad controversy, and I think I'll stop using their services, which sucks because I think they were really ahead in the game when it comes to their privacy features. Oh well.
I'll be happy for the day people stop believing foss is a story of ethical philanthropy and instead understand its macroeconomic value to consortiums who need technology that isn't owned by a monopoly.
Open source isn't counterculture anymore, sorry but it has gotten too big to fit in your backpocket.
I understand you disagree with some of the people using and writing it now... but if that's the case, perhaps communities using a different kind of license would be better suited for you if you cannot get along with them?
I feel like the author is trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy while also feeding into one themselves... if open source was supposed to be for everyone, well, that includes people you don't like. And you're not going to change their opinions any more than they can change yours.
I’d argue that GPL is still counterculture, it’s just that permissive licensing is more common these days and both are conflated into single umbrella of free software. Permissive licensing culture made way into traditional free software spaces like Linux and we’re seeing results of that now.
You've fallen for the paradox of tolerance, OSS version.
The author, and you, were mistaken: OS is not for everyone. It's not about whether I or anyone else "likes" them. Nazis and corpos don't come to software communities with honest intent. They lie and mislead to gain power and control. Then they consolidate power and exploit their control for personal gain.
That isn't "political" it's predatory, and people who treat it like politics are running cover for the exploiters whether they know it or not.
I don't want to change their shitty opinions. I want them banned from our communities so their corrosive influence can't cause further harm.
The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."
I want them banned from our communities
So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don't like? The irony is downright wild.
To reiterate what Karimov said:
people have different personal opinions. You believe in your heart that DHH is evil, that you have the moral high ground, and that nothing will change your mind. However, not everyone believes that. It is not fair to claim a monopoly and ostracize team members who might disagree with you.
So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don’t like? The irony is downright wild.
You've missed something.
The tolerant want as much tolerance as possible.
If the tolerant decide to tolerate the intolerant, then eventually you end up with no tolerance.
So to have as much tolerance as possible, the tolerant must tolerate everyone except the intolerant.
But doesn't that mean that the tolerant are no longer tolerant / are now intolerant?
This is the paradox of tolerance.
But it stops being a paradox once you understand that tolerance can be ordered by degrees of tolerance.
I'll demonstrate it with game theory:
Each game starts off with 5 players (named 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) working on a shared project.
Players can vote to remove other players from the game.
The game ends when the game state stops changing.
Ending with a higher score is better.
Team A: The percentage of players working on the project is the score. (These are the tolerant)
Team B: The percentage of players working on the project who are in Team B is the score. (These are the intolerant, they cannot tolerate Team A)
Game 1:
Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
Team B contains Players 4 & 5
Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
Turn 3: Players 4-5 follow through with threat and leave
Team A score: 60%
Team B score: 0%
Game 2:
Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
Team B contains Players 4 & 5
Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
Turn 3: Players 4-5 withdraw threat
Team A score: 100%
Team B score: 40%
Game 3:
Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
Team B contains Players 4 & 5
Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
Turn 2: Players 2-5 vote and Player 1 is removed.
Turn 3: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 2 is not removed.
Turn 4: Players 3-5 vote and Player 2 is removed.
Turn 5: Players 4-5 vote to remove Player 3.
Team A score: 0%
Team B score 100%
Game 4:
Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
Team B contains Players 4 & 5
Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for players 4 & 5 to leave, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Players 4-5 removed.
Team A score: 60%
Team B score: 0%
Game 5:
Team A contains Players 1, 2 & 3
Team B contains Players 4 & 5
Turn 1: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 1 is not removed.
Turn 2: Players 1-3 vote for Player 1 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 1 to leave. Remain vote wins.
Turn 3: 4 & 5 threaten to leave the project if player 2 is not removed.
Turn 4: Players 1-3 vote for Player 2 to remain, Players 4-5 vote for Player 2 to leave. Remain vote wins.
The same 4 turns repeat, the game hangs
The game can continue at one of:
Game 1 turn 3
Game 2 turn 3
Game 3 turn 2
Game 4 turn 2
Team A score: 60% + 100% + 0% + 60%, over 4 games averages to: 55%
Team B score: 0% + 40% + 100% + 0%, over 4 games averages to: 35%
That is the simple version of the game: Player 3 leans tolerant, so they're on the tolerant side.
The other simple version of the game has Player 3 leaning intolerant, but that results in only one path of players 3-5 remove player 1, then player 2, then 4-5 removes 3, then the game is stuck in stalemate since player 5 can't remove player 4 since there is no tiebreaker, or there is only player 5 and the project stalls out.
The complex version of the game has player 1 as the most inclusive and player 5 the most exclusive with player 3 is on neither team and randomly voting with team a, team b, or abstaining from voting. It's too long to fit in a comment here (since there's a lot of games to write out), but you end up with the same verdict as player 3 being on the tolerant side.
Verdict: It is always better to be on the more inclusive team rather than the more exclusive team.
Now back to the current issue at hand.
The "Chuds" (as the original post has called them) are the exclusive team. Their members have stated things like removing non-white people from the UK, removing trans people from projects, shooting Romani people (which would obviously remove them from participating in projects), etc...
The "non-chuds" team are the inclusive team. They want to include as many people as possible (non-whites, trans, Romani, etc...).
When the "Chuds" team tries to remove someone, it is in the best interest for the "non-chuds" team to prevent the person from being removed, even if it leads to the "chuds" breaking away from the project, or if it leads to the "chuds" needing to be removed from the project to stop the stalemate.
The "non-chuds" removing the "chuds" doesn't make them intolerant. It's the option which preserves the most tolerance when the "non-chuds" don't withdraw their demands.
15 Comments
Hugh@programming.dev · 14 pts · 21h
I'm glad this is getting a lot of push back. The FOSS community should be a welcoming collaborative space, but such an environment is not possible when bigotry is is tolerated.
NotFrenchJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 2h
There is no "push back" from most developers, not in the direction you're thinking anyway, which is what the microblogtard is calling "apathy", as people grew tired of the moral imposters, who happen to (very randomly) align with corpos when it comes to target lists btw (they are "GNU bad" and "Stallman bad" mobs).
Most developers, when they have their developer hat on, are not bothered by the constant hormonal brainless unhinged Find a Nazi under the pillow campaigns of the microblogtard sphere and its echo chambers when they leak outside, and that's exactly the right positioning.
Some of those developers may even be more "radical" than the microblogtards themselves. But they have the ability to contextualize, and have the assuredness, mental stability, and impulse control not to feel the need to moral posture and find mob targets 24/7 to feel good about themselves.
xpey@piefed.social · 10 pts · 20h
Great read. I learned through this about the Mullvad controversy, and I think I'll stop using their services, which sucks because I think they were really ahead in the game when it comes to their privacy features. Oh well.
CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12h
I switched from Mullvad to AirVPN and it works great, however I do miss some of the privacy features.
ratjefe@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 19h
I'll be happy for the day people stop believing foss is a story of ethical philanthropy and instead understand its macroeconomic value to consortiums who need technology that isn't owned by a monopoly.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
The problem is idiots keep "raising awareness" which just lets chuds know who to donate to.
As long as that keeps happening, people will keep making these shitty distros/programs/whatever.
They just need to make a shitty fork, say some bigoted shit, and then rack in the donations
We "solve" it, by not giving them all this free advertising.
90s talk show TV gave them a microphone and drastically increased their numbers, this is the modern day equivalent
drmoodmood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 11h
Good read! Thank you very much for writing this! :)
refalo@programming.dev · -7 pts · 19h
Open source isn't counterculture anymore, sorry but it has gotten too big to fit in your backpocket.
I understand you disagree with some of the people using and writing it now... but if that's the case, perhaps communities using a different kind of license would be better suited for you if you cannot get along with them?
I feel like the author is trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy while also feeding into one themselves... if open source was supposed to be for everyone, well, that includes people you don't like. And you're not going to change their opinions any more than they can change yours.
misk@piefed.social · 8 pts · 18h
I’d argue that GPL is still counterculture, it’s just that permissive licensing is more common these days and both are conflated into single umbrella of free software. Permissive licensing culture made way into traditional free software spaces like Linux and we’re seeing results of that now.
codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 18h
You've fallen for the paradox of tolerance, OSS version.
The author, and you, were mistaken: OS is not for everyone. It's not about whether I or anyone else "likes" them. Nazis and corpos don't come to software communities with honest intent. They lie and mislead to gain power and control. Then they consolidate power and exploit their control for personal gain.
That isn't "political" it's predatory, and people who treat it like politics are running cover for the exploiters whether they know it or not.
I don't want to change their shitty opinions. I want them banned from our communities so their corrosive influence can't cause further harm.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 12h
Isn't it part of the definition that it is?
https://opensource.org/osd
codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 5h
Licensing is not community, quit defending Nazis.
refalo@programming.dev · -5 pts · 12h
The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."
So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don't like? The irony is downright wild.
To reiterate what Karimov said:
spartanatreyu@programming.dev · 0 pts · 3h
You've missed something.
The tolerant want as much tolerance as possible. If the tolerant decide to tolerate the intolerant, then eventually you end up with no tolerance. So to have as much tolerance as possible, the tolerant must tolerate everyone except the intolerant.
But doesn't that mean that the tolerant are no longer tolerant / are now intolerant?
This is the paradox of tolerance.
But it stops being a paradox once you understand that tolerance can be ordered by degrees of tolerance.
I'll demonstrate it with game theory:
Game 1:
Game 2:
Game 3:
Game 4:
Game 5:
That is the simple version of the game: Player 3 leans tolerant, so they're on the tolerant side.
The other simple version of the game has Player 3 leaning intolerant, but that results in only one path of players 3-5 remove player 1, then player 2, then 4-5 removes 3, then the game is stuck in stalemate since player 5 can't remove player 4 since there is no tiebreaker, or there is only player 5 and the project stalls out.
The complex version of the game has player 1 as the most inclusive and player 5 the most exclusive with player 3 is on neither team and randomly voting with team a, team b, or abstaining from voting. It's too long to fit in a comment here (since there's a lot of games to write out), but you end up with the same verdict as player 3 being on the tolerant side.
Verdict: It is always better to be on the more inclusive team rather than the more exclusive team.
Now back to the current issue at hand.
The "Chuds" (as the original post has called them) are the exclusive team. Their members have stated things like removing non-white people from the UK, removing trans people from projects, shooting Romani people (which would obviously remove them from participating in projects), etc...
The "non-chuds" team are the inclusive team. They want to include as many people as possible (non-whites, trans, Romani, etc...).
When the "Chuds" team tries to remove someone, it is in the best interest for the "non-chuds" team to prevent the person from being removed, even if it leads to the "chuds" breaking away from the project, or if it leads to the "chuds" needing to be removed from the project to stop the stalemate.
The "non-chuds" removing the "chuds" doesn't make them intolerant. It's the option which preserves the most tolerance when the "non-chuds" don't withdraw their demands.
Edit: Formatting
zbyte64@awful.systems · 3 pts · 8h
This isn't about "disagreeing with people " so much as tolerating intolerance .