It's a tempting feeling to get, and a contagious one, but no—the only inconvenience we care about is that of HN readers who don't want to read tedious flamewars tacked like burning barnacles onto the top comment. I'm kind of glad you said that, though, because usually the sinister implication goes the other way, Gitlab being a YC-funded startup and all.
Speaking of convenience, it's not that inconvenient to scroll down to find the flamewar. Seems like a reasonable balance to me.
Definitely not, it was two steps further from the topic.
1) It was talking about a competitor's company, which is fine
2) It was talking about a non-technical aspect of the competitor's company
However I would love to see this topic come up more, just not on gitlab's stuff.
It's gotten to the point where the use of SJW is just shorthand for "I know I'm wrong, I just preferred it when people knew their place"
This distasteful subculture really exists, and - as with anti-vaxxers, birthers, the chemtrail people, white supremacists and other irrational movements - it poses a fundamental threat to the values on which reasonable discourse is built. People who are immersed in SJW culture (as with those other subcultures just mentioned) become increasing comfortable rejecting reason and facts. Imo all thinking people ought to be at least as concerned about today's SJWs as they are about those other movements.
So? 'Racist' is also pejorative. Racists exist and we ought to be able to discuss their existence and harms. SJWs exists and we ought to discuss their existence and their harms as well.
> It means "shut up and stay in your place"
I literally laughed out loud on reading this. Of course SJW doesn't mean anyone should stay in their place. Where do you get this outrageous idea? And what is that place, to you?
> In this particular case, the post I was replying t
I can't speak to the motives and thoughts of this particular speaker, but it seemed to me you were making a generalization about what 'SJW' really means, and making unwarranted claims about what we should be able to reliably infer from the mere use of the term.
What is a SJW?
> I literally laughed out loud on reading this. Of course SJW doesn't mean anyone should stay in their place. Where do you get this outrageous idea? And what is that place, to you?
I literally hope you enjoyed laughing out loud. What does SJW mean to you?
> I can't speak to the motives and thoughts of this particular speaker, but it seemed to me you were making a generalization about what 'SJW' really means, and making unwarranted claims about what we should be able to reliably infer from the mere use of the term.
You can't speak to this particular speaker's motives, but you can to mine? What does SJW mean to you?
I've already stated what SJW means to me, namely, the person using it is stating "I know I'm wrong, I just preferred it when people knew their place"
If you'd like me to expand upon that, I'd be glad to. I just don't understand where you're coming from.
https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/690601512813367297
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/report-anti-white-a...
You should be able to migrate quite easily without losing too much history.
http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects_...
Elaboration : I feel like apologising for the knee jerk reaction. A tweet I would forgive, but that corporate slide in a corporation that aggressively claims to be social, inclusive, community etc. is simply terrible hypocrisy.
But anyway I checked with my PM and my team uses self hosted gitlab and the decision was purely technical :)
It might not be the impact they wanted.
It reminds me of how ardent fans of <anything> (programing language, framework, brand, etc) are usually its worst enemies. But doing what they are doing, they are working for the opposition in fact.
EDIT : I see the links below now.
> Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
>
> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Do you mind explaining this a little bit?
The phrasing of the parent was "You are doing A so that B can happen.", which I thought was presumptive and unfair towards the other party.
I've known a lot of people who participate in the subculture of SJWs, and I'm confident that many of them have no conscious desire to be enablers of hatred and bigotry, not even hatred and bigotry towards white males. They simply don't understand the consequences of their beliefs.
> Caucasians in America have all the power
This does not excuse anti-white racism, and is often mostly irrelevant to situations involving individuals.
Many people, sadly, will use this observation to justify their personal bigotry against white people.
What happened in the world the last 2-3 years? It feels like someone took a shovel, dug up some old corpses from the graveyard of political culture and set them loose on the world again. Suddenly...
...people who call themselves 'feminist' start calling for what can only be described as a war between the sexes, given that they spout the opinion that males - preferably heterosexual, middle-aged 'white' males - are the cause of anything bad in the world. They obviously did not listen to Joe Jackson when, in 'Real Men', he sang 'and if there is war between the sexes then there will be no people left'.
...people who call themselves 'anti-racist' are trying to pull just about any public debate in a racial direction by claiming that it is all caused by the colour of the skin of whomever they're focusing on. Again, if that skin colour happens to be 'white' the person generally did something heinously wrong, while the same deed performed by someone who saw a bit more sun is either 'understandable' or 'justified' or 'caused by society being mean to (person)'...
...people who call themselves something between 'male' and 'female' start claiming that gender is nothing but a social construct and that there are really more than 50 'genders' and with that is it 'racist' to call someone 'he' or 'she' as it could be that person does not consider him/herself as either of those...
Meanwhile the real world is still full of REAL racism - just go and visit any middle-eastern country while being 'black' and you'll soon find out. For some reason the 'anti-racists' don't want to touch this subject, and other who do are quickly labelled 'racist' by them.
Meanwhile the real world is still full of REAL gender discrimination - just go and visit most middle-eastern countries (amongst others) while being female and you'll soon find out. The 'feminists' don't seem to want to speak up about this, instead they label those who do as, you guessed it, 'racist'.
Meanwhile the real world is still full of REAL discrimination against those with non-mainline sexual orientations. Again, just go to one of those middle-eastern countries I mentioned while being openly homosexual and you'll soon find out. For some reason the 'gender-denialists' are quiet about this, instead labelling those who do speak up as, again, 'racist'....
Meanwhile the position of women in the 'western' world is generally on a level with that of men, give or take a few cases of institutional gender preference. This does not mean that all professions have a 50/50 share of both (yes, both, male and female... not 'all 50') genders, eg. where I live (Sweden) nearly all veterinarians are women, nearly all lumberjacks are men, women are under-represented in IT but overrepresented in social functions, etc. Is this bad? Not necessarily, it depends on WHY there is a discrepancy. Is it because men are not allowed in veterinary college? Are women not allowed near computers? Of course not, this seems to be a case of personal choice. Are women incapable of handling chainsaws? No, they are not, but they are generally less strong than men and they don't feel at home in a group of men who talk about their favourite subjects of hunting, fishing and riding snow scooters (to take an example from our local - Swedish - culture). Does that mean those lumberjacks need to go to some re-education camp to learn to talk about more gender-neutral subjects? Of course not. Should women go to re-education camps to learn to talk about hunting, fishing and snow-scooter riding? No! Should there be male quota for vet schools to combat their under-representation in this field? No, if men want to become vets they can go to vet school. Something seems to keep them from doing that, maybe the fact that the field is female-dominated?
Fortunately there is no war between the sexes and men and women still get together to create more men and women. They create 'white' ones, brown ones, 'black' ones, 'yellow' ones, 'red' ones, etc. New humans who come to this world without prejudice about the colour of their skin, and - if they are lucky enough to live in one of those western countries which are largely free of REAL racism - should be able to live their lives to the fullest - unless the 'feminists', 'anti-racists', 'gender-denialists' (for lack of a better word) and other similarly befuddled people are successful in derailing the progress of the last few hundred years and throw us back into struggle and strife.
It is almost as if all these 'isms' (feminism, anti-racism, etc) are worried of becoming irrelevant due to the progress made on these fronts in the 'west' and started looking around for new 'causes'...
Even in context, apparently the background is an article called the "Trouble With White Women" (http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/01/28/trouble-white-wo...). It's hard to take seriously this article when it pretty much begins with the well known "friend argument" used by racists everywhere (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument).
While these people may be discussing some legitimate biases, countering racism / sexism with reverse racism / reverse sexism is completely wrongheaded.
No matter one's ethnicity, one should be against discrimination.