s73v3r_

That was not ideological battle. That was responding to someone that their concern over civility was misplaced.

That is a mountain sized "if".

"politics is something that can and should be kept separate from many aspects of life."

The Trump administration had plans leaked this weekend that stated their intent to change the definition of "gender" so that trans people would not exist to the Federal Government. I'm sorry, but being able to keep politics separate is a privilege.

If someone has stated what they wish to be called by, and rather than respecting their wishes, you choose to go down a tangent on how what you said is not a problem, then that is condescending, whether you intended it or not. Although I would have a very difficult time believing that someone who did that did not intend to be condescending.

Eich's "speech" (his donation to the Prop 8 campaign that would ban gay marriage in California) was telling all of his LGBT employees that he did not believe that they were entitled to the same basic human rights as he was. This is not a simple political disagreement; this is telling those people that he believes they are second class citizens. As a result, many of those employees, as well as other organizations that worked with Mozilla who highly valued inclusion did not feel they could effectively work in such an environment. They wished to exercise their freedom of speech by deciding to no longer associate with Mozilla. Eich chose to step down, recognizing that such actions would be very bad for Mozilla.

The covenant of civility was already broken by those who hold those religious beliefs. They have attempted, repeatedly, to remove a woman's right to control her own body, and to use the force of government to interfere with attempts to exercise that bodily autonomy. That, to me, is the infinitely more uncivil act. That is the incivility that society should be seeking to correct, not the microscopic incivility of calling someone a mean name.

Offhand, I can think of maybe a handful of instances where trouble was made by applying the CoC to someone's behavior, either rightly or wrongly. To me, it's seemed that the "trouble" that comes is when a project decides to adopt a CoC, and several members protest agains the idea of having one.

They quoted the parent, and referred to what they said as being an "insipid attitude". To me, that's close enough as makes no difference.

"The problem is that it is often turned into a politics."

Everything is politics. Politics is part of everyone's life, and affects everyone's life. Some more than others, and some have the good fortune to not have to face that fact every day.

"You dismiss the idea of discrimination of whites and men upfront."

I'm saying I'm not seeing evidence of any.

"This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination."

You're exhibiting just as much bias as you're accusing others of having. You're picking and choosing what you're considering important to worry about, and dismissing other items.

That is flat out not true. Someone constantly attacking your character to others is going to have an effect. Those other people may be influenced by what that person says, and that will affect how they perceive you, which will in turn affect your involvement in the project.

"What if the code was indeed garbage, and it cost a lot of time (super precious asset) and brain power (a precious asset) to evaluate and reject?"

Then do so. If you cannot articulate why it's bad, and suggest ways to improve it, then you do not have any business reviewing the code. Review is just as important as writing the code itself, and if you are unable to give that task the attention it deserves, then delegate it to someone who can.

Usually that's because when claims about discrimination against whites and men are made, there's no evidence that they are actively being discriminated against. Rather, the case is usually that they're not being favored as they were. Which, if you are in the previously favored class, may feel like discrimination, but in reality it's simply giving everyone else a chance as well.

Because they had already stated what they wished to be called. Once someone does that, conversation on the topic should be done; there is nothing more to be said. Choosing to ignore that is a massive sign of disrespect to the person, and should not be tolerated.

"Being politically correct vs getting the job done, I'll always choose getting the job done."

False choice; there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one would ever need to choose between being polite to others and getting the job done.

On the contrary, I think more often than not, people here need reminders like this. Nothing they said was wrong.

"In fact, some people are invigorated by strong words as opposed to being cowed and driven away by them."

Maybe. But I'm going to guess that those that are "invigorated" by seeing someone be told that they should be "retroactively aborted" are not demotivated by not seeing that, and that more people are demotivated by seeing that.

"Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D."

I think that hits the nail on the head as to why a lot of these initiatives are a good thing: If you make things more welcoming overall, more people of all walks of life feel more likely to contribute.

No, you first. You claimed it wasn't a big deal. Explain why it's not a big deal that these large complained were flat out settling the identities of people to make it appear like they had support.

However, given enough negative feedback, an agency may decide to decline to make a rule, or in this case repeal a rule.

Lets turn this around: Why do you feel its not a problem that a company impersonated people in order to stuff the comment box?

When that opinion is that certain people are not deserving of basic human rights, I would hope that it would be considered scandalous.

Problem with that advice is you have to believe they won't do anything, and know that these things are garbage when you decide to start looking for another job. If you don't know that these are garbage, or think that they will try and enforce it, then you're probably going to be dissuaded from looking for other work in the first place.

At the same time, someone who signs it might not know any of that. In that case, the contract does become "valid", because no one is going to challenge the validity of it.

You and I might know these clauses are unenforceable garbage, and we might be able to get a lawyer to send a nasty letter to the former company if they attempt to use it. However, that situation is not common for everyone, and unfortunately the most vulnerable in our society are the ones who get punished because of it.

Probably for good reason: Unless you had capital, capitalism in the Gilded Age was awful to you.

How is that good at all? They should be paying 5x your salary, for forcing you to not be able to provide for your family during that time.

Unenforceable in Court, that is. If you are someone who doesn't have the money to retain an attorney, and you don't have experience with these things, then you very well may believe that it is enforceable, and therefore to you, it is.

Noncompetes, especially ones that seek to limit what you can do after the employ of the company are pure evil, and give absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the employees. They should be unilaterally banned.

What is there to innovate on, design wise? I'm not saying there's nothing, but a lot of people bemoan the "lack of innovation" in mobile device design, but never say what they'd like to see, design wise.

Even when those political activities are them saying that you are not deserving of the same rights as other people?