On 09/17/2016 10:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) > <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: >> On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper >>> <sampabloku...@posteo.net> wrote: >>>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 >>>> and >>>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122 >>> >>> i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that >>> esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics. my feeling is >>> that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is >>> not. >>> >>> l. >>> >> >> They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one >> may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that >> sexism/racism/… is OK > > only if you choose to *make* such a deliberate misunderstanding. > >> (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of >> affected people, see bill of rights 3.03). > > if there were any mention of the words "creed" or "colour" or any > other deliberately exclusionary terms, you would be absolutely > correct. however there is not a single term or phrase in the entire > document which may be construed as being *remotely* of the type that > you fear.
I’m speaking of the esr comments in mdn’s first link (see above), not the bill of rights. It directly references skin color, religion etc. and the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective harm. The bill of rights is against harm. My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. Yes, contributions should be judged on (some kind of) merit, but we should acknowledge possible biases – this is all. It is not ethical to participate in smear campaigns against those who say so. > if the connection between ethics and creativity isn't clear, re-read > the definitions. bob uses the terms "truth, love, awareness and > creativity" as synonyms for the same underlying concept, on the basis > that if you reduce any one of them, you reduce all the others as well. > I did not understand that. It makes sense then, even though my terminology is different. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk