He's right that everyone should be able to participate in a community, no matter what are their political ideas, as long as they don't preach these ideas to the community. All this argument of "feeling threatened by the mere presence", used by various minorities, has always been a trojan horse to expel the wrong-think.

That’s because people frequently use DIE as a pretense for socially unacceptable behaviors:

- political discrimination

- racism and sexism

That’s why institutions which are outspoken about DIE such as Harvard lose civil rights suits over their institutional racism. And why the party which has made DIE a central tenet supports antisemitism.

Believing that DIE advocates are about diversity, inclusion, or equality is like believing that DPRK is a democratic republic for the benefit of its people.

I saw a bunch of people comment about the author on various Mastodon networks and in any other context they could be defined as cyber bulling or harassment.

There's arseholes on all sides of the spectrums, left or right, progressive or conservative, but the ones on the progressive side (and I'm a progressive type myself) are the worst in that anyone who doesn't agree whole heartedly with their views is made out to be scum of the earth, dogpiled, cancelled etc.

They ultimately shoot their own cause in the foot by just fuelling the rise of populist and far-right parties.

I know one person that's the kind this post is referring to. They will more or less unknowingly sabotage their friendships because they are not able to understand that not everyone is up to date or even caring about their strict and ever-changing system of beliefs and opinions. As a result, they suffer from chronic anxiety and feel constantly burned out, because it's not possible to cut off "impure" coworkers. I believe this is just a type that won't change, and it's better to just cut them off.

The Gnome Foundation's Code of Conduct explicitly condones racism (against white people), sexism (against men) and cisphobia. Lest you think I'm exaggerating:

> "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct.

To be clear, it does say that discriminatory actions are prohibited:

> Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved.

"You're allowed to be racist/sexist, towards white people/males/cisgendered, just don't actually discriminate against them".

"Safety vs Comfort". Huh.

"It's more important that people be/feel safe than you feel comfortable" - I agree.

But ... if you need to be able to express "cisphobia" and "reverse racism" to feel safe, then this is hugely problematic, and perhaps a deeper issue that just perhaps, an OSS community should not need to navigate on your behalf ...

Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this one isn't more controversial.

Source: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct

I believe that people that advocate banning people with extreme and/or dangerous viewpoints from public forums and communities also don't want child rapists and murderers to be rehabilitated.

In my experience this is a relatively strong percentage pf people, which affects everyone, irrespective of the viewpoint axis.

In this case, we have an example of a sjw/progressive viewpoint person which does not believe in 'those' people having any food left in them.

In a technical environment, why can't this problem be avoided by insisting that all comments be strictly on-topic?

Yep

This is a really good article but you aren't going to like it if you're on the pro-SJW side.

I think it's a very good rationalization of the rational side of anti-SJW reasoning particularly as applied to Free Software.

Dude is literally being slandered and called a Nazi and SJW people in the comments here are defending the slander and attacking the poster ad hominem while making straw man arguments. It is amusing but also makes me lose hope that rehabilitation of SJW types is possible.

I personally think we need to divide communities into pro-SJ and anti-SJ spaces. SJ is self destructive, least of which because they tend to lose lawsuits when courts get involved. Defending literal slander is yet another example of that...

Ok I noticed who the author of the post is, he's well known, it's helpful to Google his name for the context of what he says

Look, the great people of hackernews flagged an article they don't like. Amazing.