I think we read different posts.
AFAICT, the project is going to get the help of an intern at no or little cost, but he got emotional because he opposes attempts to get underrepresented groups involved. His post was purely political, with no concern for what is best for the project.
Absent some expressed inconsistency, you take people at their word. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there's nothing inconsistent with what the LLVM dev has said, and it's fully justifiable from ethical principles. Maybe he is being disingenuous, but that doesn't make the argument itself wrong.
See, this isn't being charitable to those who disagree with you, and your attitude is a big problem with why these issues just get more inflammatory. Consider the fact that people who oppose such efforts aren't your enemy, they simply disagree with your allegedly infallible logic.
Few people are actually against "minorities". In the end, the smallest minority is the individual. This is why discrimination any basis is wrong, because the individual's experience, advantages and disadvantages are not dictated by whatever group they belong to. Privilege is a statistical metric, but individual experience is not causally dictated by such metrics.
Group-specific efforts wouldn't be so controversial if they weren't pushing a narrative that denies this basic fact. This should be obvious from the outcry you'd get from trying to organize, say, a male-only tech event, or an Asian-only tech event. Might seem silly given the demographics in these industries, but you'd get serious blowback just from the effort.
But this is nonsense. How can any reasonable person believe that one's "group" has absolutely no impact on one's life experiences? You're literally saying "one individual's experience as a member of X group has no impact on one's individual experience." Does that really parse in your head?
Look, there's no there there and you can devise silly rationalizations all day. The only thing that matters are the ends. The end goal is to keep those people away, right? The end goal is to make sure absolutely nothing changes, right? People should just be honest about their aims and end goals and we can skip the endless rationalizations.
I find it all a bit too theatrical. Like internships for Pacific Islanders are absolutely harmless. They literally cause zero harm. There are few things in this world absolutely harmless but this is one of them. But here they are being protested as discrimination! It turns out any attempt to be inclusive is decried as some betrayal of "individual experience," whatever that actually means and we get flamboyant resignations in response.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
Don't think anyone said that. Quite the opposite. You read what you wanted to read, and arrived at that conclusion all by yourself.
> I find it all a bit too theatrical.
Yes, and you're on stage.
This is not a charitable way to interpret the actions of others. Because of the unfortunate treatment of certain people in the past, it doesn't justify poor treatment of others now. The ends do not justify the means. To quote Gandhi:
"They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”
Stop reading Rand. Start reading Hegel.
(Other comments are doing a poor job of following the guidelines, too, but this was a degree worse, and you did it again downthread.)
Given this, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that people feel more and more that it's not worth to try and make an effort to stay nice if that's how "the top" behaves.
The user left of his own accord after that warning from dang.
By the way, if you're going to make claims like "you NEVER stand as strong against people who say vile hateful things in nice words", you really need to provide evidence.
It should be easy to prove with examples, and it would signal that you're acting in a good-faith effort to improve the site rather than just trying to attack dang personally.