Stackoverflow got a new Code of Conduct, most downvoted post ever

[Null]

their CoCs penetrate the brains of their subjects

Also I'm now having flashbacks of the hentai manga that I recently saw that involved the female characters in the Pokemon franchise getting fucked by Charizards/other giant sized Pokemon until they split apart, so thanks for that.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

@Cerbera Oh, I couln't take credit for those Hentai. I find your analogy somewhat fitting, though - human interaction being the female characters there.

 

[rohezal]

I am on the left and was a member of several left wing organisations. I am using the term SJW to speak about people who act like if they are left, but are in fact religious / totalitarian / just want to look or feel like they are fighting for a good cause. I have never seen one of them at a demonstration for refugee rights or donating for a ship to rescue people from the mediteran sea. SJW is a great term to talk about a problem. Bad actors who do terrible things and claim to be the new left. We need to get rid of them before they ruin more left wing political groups. This people are trying to infiltrate Fridays For Future in my town and create some formal rules. It is a sad thing to watch from the outside.

 

[Klumpen]

I am on the left and was a member of several left wing organisations. I am using the term SJW to speak about people who act like if they are left, but are in fact religious / totalitarian / just want to look like they are fighting for a good cause. I have never seen one of them at a demonstration for refugee rights or donating for a ship to rescue people from the mediteran sea. SJW is a great term to talk about a problem. Bad actors who do terrible things and claim to be the new left. We need to get rid of them before they ruin more left wing political groups. This people are trying to infiltrate Fridays for Friday in my town and create some formal rules. It is a sad thing to watch from the outside.

Can confirm, here they've infiltrated basically all punk, vegan, feminist and green circles, undermined them and turned them against their own most active/productive members until the last ones were assimilated into their hate cult or left.

 

[levi]

I honestly have no idea, where the term SJW comes from / who coined it. Those referred to by SJW, independent of who refers to them by SJW, are still bullies to me.

You referred to people as SJWs. I'm suspicious of anyone who uses such language myself, as I became aware of that particular TLA during that whole gamergate debacle, where it tended to be used against anyone who wasn't being a dick about someone or something else. It makes me wonder how you came to be using that term, and makes me re-read whatever you're posting trying to iron out whatever subtext you're trying to imply.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

You referred to people as SJWs. I'm suspicious of anyone who uses such language myself, as I became aware of that particular TLA during that whole gamergate debacle, where it tended to be used against anyone who wasn't being a dick about someone or something else. It makes me wonder how you came to be using that term,

I couldn't say, where I picked up that term. I'd guess on youtube, but no idea in what exact context. I'm not familiar with the term gamergate, so I guess, I don't know it from that context. I haven't picked it up with a significantly bad connotation, either. Until your reaction yesterday, I actually thought, that's what they call themselves.

and makes me re-read whatever you're posting trying to iron out whatever subtext you're trying to imply.

Always a good idea and if I'm lucky, you may be able to point things out, I myself am not aware of. If something's unclear, ask. And. Their CoCs got to you, aye?

 

[ClockworkCoder]

I am on the left and was a member of several left wing organisations. I am using the term SJW to speak about people who act like if they are left, but are in fact religious / totalitarian / just want to look or feel like they are fighting for a good cause. I have never seen one of them at a demonstration for refugee rights or donating for a ship to rescue people from the mediteran sea. SJW is a great term to talk about a problem. Bad actors who do terrible things and claim to be the new left. We need to get rid of them before they ruin more left wing political groups. This people are trying to infiltrate Fridays For Future in my town and create some formal rules. It is a sad thing to watch from the outside.

This is interesting, thank you for your insight.

I consider myself moderate left / liberal, and had originally only associated SJW with a blanket term used by the right-wing in a sense that seemed to be attempting to demonise anyone with any proclivity towards liberalism/leftism.

I've never really thought who might *be* a so-called SJW. The label has been pointed towards Stallman, although I have no knowledge of anything he has done to push the whole gender pronoun thing, and I have no idea if he should be branded an SJW or not...

If I think about it more, I perhaps could see SJW in some of the more extreme examples of what have come out of PETA (e.g. death threats or attacks to individuals working within organisations associated with animal testing). Or, that it could be an evolution of the Rainbow Warrior of Green Peace. But I really have no idea...

I think it's unfair to use it to demonise a group though. If there are individuals that are undermining the work of activist groups, then perhaps they should be labelled as extremists in the same way as any other destructive / counter-productive entity?

 

[Klumpen]

The label has been pointed towards Stallman, although I have no knowledge of anything he has done to push the whole gender pronoun thing, and I have no idea if he should be branded an SJW or not...

Stallman is a very good example of someone who by such people mentioned above got bullied out of the left organization he himself founded.
PETA is run by such people (who also happen to use good ideas to pervert them and make a lot of money with it, as usual) and Green Peace has had them for a long time too, yeah.

The problem are ill-meaning (evil?) people who use a good cause to be "one of the good ones" and do their shit without having to fear repercussions and without anyone questioning them if they play the "blame and shame"-game right.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

I've never really thought who might *be* a so-called SJW. The label has been pointed towards Stallman, although I have no knowledge of anything he has done to push the whole gender pronoun thing, and I have no idea if he should be branded an SJW or not...

I'd say rather not. As I understand him, he doesn't mind you running proprietary software. He'd just like to make sure, it's an informed decision on your part. He'd also ask you to consider not to force proprietary stuff on others by making them need to use skype for example.

I think it's unfair to use it to demonise a group though. If there are individuals that are undermining the work of activist groups, then perhaps they should be labelled as extremists in the same way as any other destructive / counter-productive entity?

Give me another term then to demonize that group. By "that group" I mean the affiliation-decoupled sum of people, that abuse empathy-based ideas to corrupt some thing or another - doing lots of damage, gaining little to nothing. (I don't know, if they manage egotistical gains. If so, those gains to me wouldn't count here.)

The problem are ill-meaning (evil?) people who use a good cause to be "one of the good ones" and do their shit without having to fear repercussions and without anyone questioning them if they play the "blame and shame"-game right.

I think, among them are assholes and dumb. In my vocabulary, both do damage - the former knowingly, the latter less so. In this context, the dumb would be hangers-on and indoctrinated ones. To me both in SJWs - or whatever substitute term ClockworkCoder has to offer.

 

[rohezal]

I consider myself moderate left / liberal, and had originally only associated SJW with a blanket term used by the right-wing in a sense that seemed to be attempting to demonise anyone with any proclivity towards liberalism/leftism.

Maybe there is a difference between the US/UK and Europe. The term SJW is one of the best and useful words to describe harmful, bad actors who infiltrated the left. People who are a part of a religous, godless cult and not a political movement.

Why SJWs are dangerous from a left / academic perspective:
They are a religious cult not a politcal movement (and of course not a left political movement, even if they claim it)
They fire scientists for no good reason (Tim Hunt from the University College London was fired for a joke)
The fight against science (mostly psychology / biology) like antivaxxers fight against vaccination or climate change deniers deny climate change
Their roots are in gender studies, feminists studies and other grievance studies, which are mostly pseudo science (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/)
They endorse Adolfs Hitler "Mein Kampf" when you change jews to white males / they want to chain down kids with wrong skin color in history lessons. They did not accept a paper on basis of the race of the author( see areo link)
They think they are right when their ideology / dogma says so and will fight you if you disagree, even if there is clear evicende against their dogma (women and men choose on average different jobs because of biological factors https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/)
They fight against the enlightenment (they want "always believe the victim" instead of "fair trial", e. g. title 9 in US universities)
They go into left wing groups, enforce their religion, enforce anti left wing policies and destroy the groups (see Evergreen College or Occupy Wallstreet)

They tell dangerous false stories and make up wrong reasons why our system works like it works. Like the gender wage gap. They say this is because the society hates women. Which in Germany is wrong, there is not a gender pay gap, but a parent (and especially a single parent) wage gap. Which is a problem for both sexes, but there are more single mothers than single fathers. If you controll for kids and education there is no wage gap. The solution "empower women" is simply wrong, the solution "help parents" (which also helps mostly women) is the correct answer. But the dogma of SJWs prevents them from finding correct solutions and they will fight people who want to implement them. This is very dangerous.

SJW is a term for anti humanist feminists ("always believe women"), anti white racists ("only white people can racists") and anti-working-class rich kids. People who claim to be on the left but are just "playing revolutionary", just want to be part of a movement or are simply crazy. A fine german example is a youtuber called Suzy Grimes. She is a young woman and the daughter of a very rich woman who works in the fashion industry. On her youtube channel (paid by german tax payer money) she runs around in clothing worth several thousand of euros and talks about the oppression of women. So she went to some hardworking male movers, people who do hard physical work for way less money than she earns and tells them she opressed by them and they profit from the "gender pay gap". A woman from the bourgeoisie insults working class members and thinks she doing left wing work. This is SJW. And a lot of journalists are part of this cult, which is a big problem.

A short word about gamergate: A female game designer created a simple game, had sex with a gaming journalist and got very good reviews. People got angry about this and the magazines did the same as Hollywood did with "strong female movies": All of the critics are sexists, racists, bigots and white males. So we have to deplatform (censor) them. All gamers are a problem (They literally had a headline like this, in a gaming magazine). Then "not your shield" was created where female gamers spoke about how this SJW group who runs the magazine has no idea what they are talking about and that they just want to play good games, without political propaganda. Some rightwing idiots (like Sargon) where part of the gamergate movement and a lot of crazy SJWs like Anita Sarkeesian where part of the "journalists".

 

[Klumpen]

indoctrinated ones

That's the right term for sure.
People seem to need doctrine of some sort, in the past it was based on old scripture and any kind of church/cult which already formulated it.
Did you notice, that all the new CoCs that are popping up everywhere lately read exactly like church doctrine? This is no coincidence.
[doublepost=1570961488,1570960968][/doublepost]@rohezal Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are not crazy, they are machiavellian business women who make huge profits by exploiting cultural phenomena.
[doublepost=1570961723][/doublepost]

People who claim to be on the left but are just "playing revolutionary", just want to be part of a movement or are simply crazy. A fine german example is a youtuber called Suzy Grimes. She is a young woman and the daughter of a very rich woman who works in the fashion industry. On her youtube channel (paid by german tax payer money) she runs around in clothing worth several thousand of euros and talks about the oppression of women. So she went to some hardworking male movers, people who do hard physical work for way less money than she earns and tells them she opressed by them and they profit from the "gender pay gap". A woman from the bourgeoisie insults working class members and thinks she doing left wing work.

 

[rohezal]

This is exactly what I mean. Rich kids playing revolutionaries, having a stupid religion (women are always oppressed, white males are always privileged), and forcing it into left politics. This is destroying the left. If Marx would be around, he would fight this anti working class idiots.

Here is a good, short video and on point from a left wing youtuber about this problem, please watch it.

 

[kuru]

Kind of related a bit
I had a dream last night. I sold off a few things on ebay and put a little bag of gummy bears in each box. I then got a negative rating from a buyer because the treats weren't vegan.

Minefields everywhere

 

[rohezal]

indoctrinated ones

I think this is too broad. Scientology or jehovah's witnesses have indoctrinated members. But they are not claiming to fight for social justice and go to organisations and tell them they are *-ist (sexist, etc ). They don't use standard words and give them an other meaning.

Sexism means to discriminate against a person because of this persons sex. Sexism for SJWs means, that if there is a different amount of males / females in certain group this is sexism, independent of the other reasons than discrimination. This is addressed in the video. SJWs are not simply indoctrinated, they are infiltrating groups by using deceptive language and redefining terms. This is way more dangerous.

 

[ClockworkCoder]

@rohezal Thanks for the video link and again your input. The quote at the start of the video says it well:

George Orwell — 'The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.'

The louder the dissenting voices are though, the harder it is to hear truth behind it, and many people don't seem to want to spend the time with critical thinking / rationalising.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

Did you notice, that all the new CoCs that are popping up everywhere lately read exactly like church doctrine? This is no coincidence.

I don't really enjoy looking at CoCs that much, but what I've seen was, giving moderators the means to willy-nilly kick people out.

I think this is too broad.

Yeah, me too. As a precaution, I didn't mean it that way. When I'd say, among Scientology are those in control, hangers-on, and indoctrinated ones, I woulnd't mean, there are a lot of mormones in Scientology.I read your comment wrong.
I'd say, different doctrine => different behaviour. Indoctrination is just a means to come by the cults believes. 'Twasn't a comment on the quality of the phenotype.

 

[rSl]

SJWs are not simply indoctrinated, they are infiltrating groups by using deceptiv language and redefining terms. This is way more dangerous.

verry interesting read, thanks. this not only works on social media online.
i was at the occupy camp '11 in our city and we had an so called sjw (i did not know this term back then) attending one evening, and boom the whole group went mad and was really disrupted after that. i often think about this occourance and how easy and "well" it worked. i have the impression this was a highly trained undercover cop, really knowing what buttons to push.

 

[Binky]

Is the problem with SJWs, whoever they are exactly, that they attempt to turn social manners into law, with a combination of aggression and condescension?

Almost every social group will form a system of etiquette. Ways to greet people, ways to show sympathy, ways to show or demand respect, etc. Over that, most real social groups, certainly the better ones, show genuine consideration for their members, which will spread to newcomers, provided the uptake rate is slow enough.

You don't use non-standard pronouns because the CoC demands it on pain of expulsion, or because you'll bring down an angry mob of people calling you a whatever-ist if you don't. You use non-standard pronouns out of human respect for the person in question. A real person, with feelings, who would prefer not to be 'he' or 'she', and who's presence in the group you value.

Of course, that requires social pressure to work both ways. Just as you show consideration by using appropriate language, the individual in question should refrain from demanding ridiculously unwieldy pronouns with two-dozen syllables. If that can't be achieved, then clearly the social relationship is not going to work out.

I'm not talking exclusively about non-binary gender-pronouns here, by the way. The same concept of using social contracts, instead of legal impositions, applies to other things too. Perhaps a parallel could be drawn with the habit some people have of defending their mistakes by convincing themselves it wasn't a mistake, and expecting others to believe it. The thing in common being the underestimation of other people's complexity.

Supporting the rights of minority groups is good. Undiscerningly labelling anyone outside that group as evil is a grossly unreasonable simplification, and will make the world at large hate or despise you.

Of course, there's nothing like an external enemy to strengthen and perpetuate group loyalties...

 

[Null]

or are simply crazy.

Us crazy people want nothing to do with them either.

 

[rohezal]

Is the problem with SJWs, whoever they are exactly, that they attempt to turn social manners into law, with a combination of aggression and condescension?

The problem is, that a lot of SJWs function like a religion. They believe things even if they are not based on facts. This is dangerous 1 in 3 women in college is raped (not true [1]), almost all young trans people will stay trans after becoming adults (not true [2]), women are paid 77 cents to 100 cents for a men for the exactly same job (not true[3]). If religious people get to make laws, it gets very dangerous. Intelligent design in schools and no sex education are problems in christian religious area. In SJW religious areas people are teaching that there is no biological difference in men and women in character traits. I know people from the psychological faculty and we talked about this. This is as wrong as denying climate change from a scientific point of view.

I don't want to give climate change deniers, anti vaxxers, biology deniers and religious ideologues the power to make laws. It is sad enough that a member one group is already president .

[1][2][3]Sources will be included later, sorry

Almost every social group will form a system of etiquette. Ways to greet people, ways to show sympathy, ways to show or demand respect, etc. Over that, most real social groups, certainly the better ones, show genuine consideration for their members, which will spread to newcomers, provided the uptake rate is slow enough.

This is true and fine. There is no problem if a bunch of soccer fans acts rudely and loudly and a book club act silently and politely. Everyone can join the club everyone likes. And if there is no polite soccer club, just create one. But this is how SJW operates. They ideology demands to infiltrate groups of people with other values.

This is from an actual gender studies paper I had to read in university. They complained that in soccer fan culture people are rude, which is a manly trait. And women have "to become men" to join this group (means you have to like rude language, drink beer and not cry instantly). They demanded to change the group behaviour not to create polite, sensitive soccer fan groups. This is anti pluralistic and totalitarian.

You don't use non-standard pronouns because the CoC demands it on pain of expulsion, or because you'll bring down an angry mob of people calling you a whatever-ist if you don't. You use non-standard pronouns out of human respect for the person in question. A real person, with feelings, who would prefer not to be 'he' or 'she', and who's presence in the group you value.

Maybe it is a cultural thing but in Germany I never heard about non standard pronouns. It seems strange to address a person depending on which group the person things it belongs or what ideology it has. You don't use different pronouns for muslims, christians, jews and atheists. But the use of choosen sex pronouns (he/she) or a neutral pronoun (it/per) is okay. Everything else seems silly. To be honest, I don't care if you have XX, XY or chromosome mutation. And I don't care which group you like most. It would be best to call just everyone with a gender neutral pronoun (per from person) and solve all problems, since your chromosomes do not matter.

***edit***

Of course, that requires social pressure to work both ways. Just as you show consideration by using appropriate language, the individual in question should refrain from demanding ridiculously unwieldy pronouns with two-dozen syllables. If that can't be achieved, then clearly the social relationship is not going to work out.

The problem is not the complexity of the word. The problem is that people can demand respect and acceptance for a self choosen identity. This seems to be wrong. Respect is earned, acceptance is earned only tolerance is free. You have tolerate the religion of someone, but you don't have to think it is good (acceptance) or to think it is a honorable deed to have the religion (respect it). I am fine with choosen pronouns. He/she/it/per, however you feel. But I don't want an extra pronoun for every ideology. No extra pronoun for christians, muslims, jews, otherkin (people who believe that they are not humans) or homosexuals. In fact we should all use only per (short form of person) for everyone. Believe what you want, it won't change the word I will use for you in third person, there is only one word for everyone.

Supporting the rights of minority groups is good. Undiscerningly labelling anyone outside that group as evil is a grossly unreasonable simplification, and will make the world at large hate or despise you.

I agree completly. Every human has the rights, needs the possibility to live how it wants and each human life has the same value. I can't see how having other people have to call me by a chosen word is a right.