Top Linux developer outed as a rape apologist
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Which employers would these be?
Windows and Apple?
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Windows and Apple?
Point I was making is the tech industry is full of this stuff.
I also thought the the point of linux is that it is not owned by anyone and everyone can contribute to it. It's hardly a hacker OS it is so reliant on this one person.
I recently posted a long winded article about problems with the left and this is one of them (although this case also includes extremist feminism, more of a left tolerated a d adopted group). The use of labels such as "rape apologist" for example. Lowering the bar (if someone says its rape then it is rape is the message here).
If you actually read what Tso has done to earn this label, it's simply to have found a potential flaw in a study on rape. I recommend actually reading the emails he sent:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list/Email_1
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list/Email_2
His position is entirely valid and salient. He has pointed out that:
1. The researcher has decided to take the results of a survey and classify themselves what is or isn't rape. The classification goes like this, if unsure, it's rape. Or if it might be rape then it's rape. If it's rape on technicality then it's full blown rape. In fact it's a grey area and even the majority of respondents didn't consider it rape (so you could say that 73% of the female respondents supposedly raped are rape apologists).
2. He has also pointed out that the definition of rape in the study isn't the most severe and definitive kind that people might assume reading the headline.
3. That there's a gender bias in the study towards females and in society as well where men are always assumed responsible.
I've always been supportive of having a less extreme gender skew in technology. Somewhere along the line more females in technology has been corrupted into allowing more feminist extremists into technology. That's damaging the whole process and we should oppose it. Those females can't mix with men because they are grotesquely hostile towards men (a bunch of them aren't even women but instead cross dressers for which taking up the cause of radical feminism is deemed a means to gain acceptance from females).
We've seen all kinds of nonsense and scandal because of this such as:
1. That time when that feminist went after those two guys in a conference because in a private conversation they made a dongle joke.
2. Trying to ban jokes with rape in them such as the **** wolves saga (a joke which didn't encourage rape but rather exposed the moral discrepancy between games and reality).
3. Obsessing about how games are made for men as though it's not allowed. Also whining about fit women in games while ignoring buff men in games. Ignoring the feminisation of games as well such as final fantasy. If feminists think game makers don't want to double their consumer base then they're idiots. Take it from someone who used to program games for women.
4. Obsessing about how bad men are in technology because, shocker, they behave like men. It's a bit like if a guy got a job in a mostly female domain and then complained that they are so vein wearing makeup and talking about Ricky Martin all day and that behaviour ought be prohibited on account of men.
The funny thing about this is in environments I've been in it's been possible to foster 30% female participation which is huge for technology. There is always going to be a discrepancy but the 1/20 or even 0/50 ratios I've often seen don't really make sense. Achieving a high ratio is only possible when there's a high ratio in the hiring pool. Most hires here are foreign so you can get a high ratio with normal meritocracy based hiring practices. Hiring a local female coder is next to impossible as they just don't get into it here. After 30% you don't really have a problem. None of those females behave in this crappy way. Normally they just get on with it and aren't so petty.
However in the media, internet, high profile circles, etc those perfectly respectable women aren't represented. It's the nutjobs that steal the limelight such as the one presented here and I think that's a tragedy. Whenever I witness that behavior my immediate feeling is I don't want that in technology.
It doesn't surprise me if these prominent examples of people with hostile behaviour have often been shut out of technology purely on the basis of that behaviour but are deflecting that onto their gender. I would be very reluctant to hire someone obsessed with coercively regulating the speech of others and apparently out to get their own back against a group of people based on gender.
Finally, for females that are looking to go into technology, please don't consider the behaviour seen here as an example of acceptable, it's the opposite. Confronting genuine unacceptable behaviour is good but this isn't that. This is someone going mental because someone else doesn't agree with their extreme position on what is or isn't in a delicate subject.
If you actually read what Tso has done to earn this label, it's simply to have found a potential flaw in a study on rape. I recommend actually reading the emails he sent:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list/Email_1
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list/Email_2
His position is entirely valid and salient. He has pointed out that:
1. The researcher has decided to take the results of a survey and classify themselves what is or isn't rape. The classification goes like this, if unsure, it's rape. Or if it might be rape then it's rape. If it's rape on technicality then it's full blown rape. In fact it's a grey area and even the majority of respondents didn't consider it rape (so you could say that 73% of the female respondents supposedly raped are rape apologists).
2. He has also pointed out that the definition of rape in the study isn't the most severe and definitive kind that people might assume reading the headline.
3. That there's a gender bias in the study towards females and in society as well where men are always assumed responsible.
I've always been supportive of having a less extreme gender skew in technology. Somewhere along the line more females in technology has been corrupted into allowing more feminist extremists into technology. That's damaging the whole process and we should oppose it. Those females can't mix with men because they are grotesquely hostile towards men (a bunch of them aren't even women but instead cross dressers for which taking up the cause of radical feminism is deemed a means to gain acceptance from females).
We've seen all kinds of nonsense and scandal because of this such as:
1. That time when that feminist went after those two guys in a conference because in a private conversation they made a dongle joke.
2. Trying to ban jokes with rape in them such as the **** wolves saga (a joke which didn't encourage rape but rather exposed the moral discrepancy between games and reality).
3. Obsessing about how games are made for men as though it's not allowed. Also whining about fit women in games while ignoring buff men in games. Ignoring the feminisation of games as well such as final fantasy. If feminists think game makers don't want to double their consumer base then they're idiots. Take it from someone who used to program games for women.
4. Obsessing about how bad men are in technology because, shocker, they behave like men. It's a bit like if a guy got a job in a mostly female domain and then complained that they are so vein wearing makeup and talking about Ricky Martin all day and that behaviour ought be prohibited on account of men.
The funny thing about this is in environments I've been in it's been possible to foster 30% female participation which is huge for technology. There is always going to be a discrepancy but the 1/20 or even 0/50 ratios I've often seen don't really make sense. Achieving a high ratio is only possible when there's a high ratio in the hiring pool. Most hires here are foreign so you can get a high ratio with normal meritocracy based hiring practices. Hiring a local female coder is next to impossible as they just don't get into it here. After 30% you don't really have a problem. None of those females behave in this crappy way. Normally they just get on with it and aren't so petty.
However in the media, internet, high profile circles, etc those perfectly respectable women aren't represented. It's the nutjobs that steal the limelight such as the one presented here and I think that's a tragedy. Whenever I witness that behavior my immediate feeling is I don't want that in technology.
It doesn't surprise me if these prominent examples of people with hostile behaviour have often been shut out of technology purely on the basis of that behaviour but are deflecting that onto their gender. I would be very reluctant to hire someone obsessed with coercively regulating the speech of others and apparently out to get their own back against a group of people based on gender.
Finally, for females that are looking to go into technology, please don't consider the behaviour seen here as an example of acceptable, it's the opposite. Confronting genuine unacceptable behaviour is good but this isn't that. This is someone going mental because someone else doesn't agree with their extreme position on what is or isn't in a delicate subject.
(edited 5 years ago)
.A top diversity & inclusion consultant
Is that what we call mad people now?
This is totally a non-issue, just the left being insane as usual
Is that what we call mad people now?
This is totally a non-issue, just the left being insane as usual
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I also thought the the point of linux is that it is not owned by anyone and everyone can contribute to it. It's hardly a hacker OS it is so reliant on this one person.
You are partially correct with your summation of GNU Linux. One of the core philosophies is that it is open and free for people to use and contribute to (with the exception to some commercial distributions of Linux for use by corporations). There are also core technical philosophies when it comes to GNU Linux.
Contributions made to the kernel (in plain-speak that's the core OS source code) and standard GNU software packages are subject to review by recognised SMEs and senior members of the project. This ensures that the technical philosophies of the project are realised and that contributions made by people are of a suitable quality.
As a result of this, and so as to ensure that only suitable features / functionality are added to the various projects, the community needs to have it's SMEs. So, to a large degree, the community can become reliant on some people due to their level of expertise.
In the case of Ted Tao, he is one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Linux filesystem and the ext4 file format (being the main maintainer of the latter). People have and will continue to rely on his knowledge, regardless of his views on more personal subject matters (whether that be right or wrong).
Original post by jackwinch
regardless of his views on more personal subject matters (whether that be right or wrong).
Good call. It's about the code (C, !CoC), nothing else matters.
Original post by ThomH97
From your link's link to the wikia, it seems the two objectionable things Tso did were:
1) Try to make a distinction between rape involving force, threats or violence, and rape without. But specifically stating the lack of force, threats or violence does not make that rape less of a crime. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but it's true. A victim of a crime, and a victim of the same crime plus a broken arm (for example) are obviously distinguishable.
2) Point out that to be guilty of rape, you have to be conscious of the fact that your victim is not consenting. The laws may be different over there to here, but certainly in Britain this is true. To have committed a rape, you have to have sex with someone without their consent, but also do so believing they do not consent. Rarely do people actually verbally give consent to have sex, but it is obvious they are consenting.
If these are the two most objectionable things Tso did, then I don't see how Sharp (or anyone) can conclude Tso is a rape apologist. Unless the angle is to smear someone in the hope of getting him replaced with a woman.
1) Try to make a distinction between rape involving force, threats or violence, and rape without. But specifically stating the lack of force, threats or violence does not make that rape less of a crime. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but it's true. A victim of a crime, and a victim of the same crime plus a broken arm (for example) are obviously distinguishable.
2) Point out that to be guilty of rape, you have to be conscious of the fact that your victim is not consenting. The laws may be different over there to here, but certainly in Britain this is true. To have committed a rape, you have to have sex with someone without their consent, but also do so believing they do not consent. Rarely do people actually verbally give consent to have sex, but it is obvious they are consenting.
If these are the two most objectionable things Tso did, then I don't see how Sharp (or anyone) can conclude Tso is a rape apologist. Unless the angle is to smear someone in the hope of getting him replaced with a woman.
There was a discussion on Reddit some years back asking rapists to speak their mind. Many of them knew the women they raped were never going to resist, that they were **** scared of possible violence. There are so many examples of women who were beaten or even killed for saying no, for rejecting guys. I have no doubt that an intelligent man like that knows exactly what he is saying in the paraphrasing you wrote out. There is a direct link to porn with this as well, it teaches young people men act, women lie back and take it. So why would any guy think she isn't consenting? Why would a woman be adamantly saying no if the possible consequences are violence and being raped anyway.
You are right, generally one does not ask for consent. But one should.
https://upliftconnect.com/asking-permission-isnt-lame/
Original post by Trinculo
Hillary Clinton is a rape apologist. Do you think that the Democratic Party in the US needs to change its ways?
Of course, there is a definite hypocrisy going on. Very common of those claiming the moral high ground. It's only bad when they want it to be, but when applied to them in a different situation...
Original post by yudothis
There was a discussion on Reddit some years back asking rapists to speak their mind. Many of them knew the women they raped were never going to resist, that they were **** scared of possible violence. There are so many examples of women who were beaten or even killed for saying no, for rejecting guys. I have no doubt that an intelligent man like that knows exactly what he is saying in the paraphrasing you wrote out. There is a direct link to porn with this as well, it teaches young people men act, women lie back and take it. So why would any guy think she isn't consenting? Why would a woman be adamantly saying no if the possible consequences are violence and being raped anyway.
You are right, generally one does not ask for consent. But one should.
https://upliftconnect.com/asking-permission-isnt-lame/
You are right, generally one does not ask for consent. But one should.
https://upliftconnect.com/asking-permission-isnt-lame/
If there's more elsewhere then I'll have to have a look at that. But I don't see anything at all wrong with what Tso is quoted as saying, much less being a rape apologist
There's a contradiction with what you are saying regarding consent and women being passive. A woman is certainly capable of actively participating, even without explicitly giving verbal consent. By insisting men ignore all non-verbal cues and make sure to ask explicitly, you are perpetuating the idea that sex is what a man does to a woman, not with her. Which isn't nearly as bad as rape, of course, but it's still wrong.
Regarding your link, that's not rape. I can understand being threatened into not resisting, but unless being actively, objectively threatened, her paranoia is her issue and no one deserves to go to prison for that. It's unfortunate she somehow trusted him enough to be alone with him, yet didn't trust that he'd stop if she said no, but I don't think he did anything wrong. Communication is good, of course, but no way should she report him for rape. So you think it was rape?
Original post by MrControversial
Good call. It's about the code (C, !CoC), nothing else matters.
Well, I'm not entirely sure about that. Of course it matters how you conduct yourself.
But, I wasn't addressing that with my post. I was purely pointing out some impartial facts about contribution to the Linux kernel and associated projects, as well the fact the community is dependent on expert matters of opinion.
Edit:
Also, do not forget about the architecture dependent assembler that also makes up part of the OS.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by jackwinch
Well, I'm not entirely sure about that. Of course it matters how you conduct yourself.
But, I wasn't addressing that with my post. I was purely pointing out some impartial facts about contribution to the Linux kernel and associated projects, as well the fact the community is dependent on expert matters of opinion.
But, I wasn't addressing that with my post. I was purely pointing out some impartial facts about contribution to the Linux kernel and associated projects, as well the fact the community is dependent on expert matters of opinion.
Present it as you like but the wrong dwords in your underflowed buf are ultimately going to hurt a lot more than a few loose words in your mailing list.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by MrControversial
Present it as you like but the wrong dwords in your underflowed stack are ultimately going to hurt a lot more than a few loose words in your mailing list.
I'm not entirely sure you're receiving what I am trying to say. If you are, then I think you are being rather petty with your response.
As a general comment, if you think that how you conduct yourself in modern society, or any society in fact, does not matter then you are simply wrong. Of course your conduct is going to be held against you. Whether that is right or wrong, however, depends on the context and your personal beliefs.
On a side note, I am a regular contributor to a range of open-source projects and regulated industrial standards. I originally posted on this thread to address some of the comments another user had made about GNU Linux and the related projects' dependency on subject matter experts.
(edited 5 years ago)
I'm sure you have some sensibilities but this isn't a display of that. Go back a short amount of time and beating up blacks and gays is the way one should conduct themselves in a modern society. What makes you think we've gotten it perfect now? I consider submitting to petty yet excessive sensibilities as archaic funnily enough.
Sure, a code of conduct within reason might be useful but ultimately we're talking two separate things, people's inability to control their feelings to the extent everyone around them should sacrifice their liberties compensating walking on egg shells and actually getting things to work such as the linux kernel.
You were almost there but then backtracked I think because you were explaining it as "I think it's wrong but unfortunately we depend on these people so it'll be accepted". Defeatist I suppose.
(edited 5 years ago)
I hope in your software review you'll look for bugs and not political incorrectness.
Original post by MrControversial
I hope in your software review you'll look for bugs and not political incorrectness.
Of course it's a technical review.
As I have previously said, I strongly believe in the right to offend. That doesn't exactly tie up to being PC, does it.
As I think many will agree, your overzealous approach to your commentary on my posts, on this thread, has seemingly been your downfall. You appear to have ignored the point of all my posts, choosing to pick fault with some of my comments entirely out of context and without actually understanding their point.
Rather, you would argue, happy as a pig in s*** all day, and make seemingly whitty retorts - all of which to the detriment of mature and intelligent debate.
Original post by ThomH97
If there's more elsewhere then I'll have to have a look at that. But I don't see anything at all wrong with what Tso is quoted as saying, much less being a rape apologist
There's a contradiction with what you are saying regarding consent and women being passive. A woman is certainly capable of actively participating, even without explicitly giving verbal consent. By insisting men ignore all non-verbal cues and make sure to ask explicitly, you are perpetuating the idea that sex is what a man does to a woman, not with her. Which isn't nearly as bad as rape, of course, but it's still wrong.
Regarding your link, that's not rape. I can understand being threatened into not resisting, but unless being actively, objectively threatened, her paranoia is her issue and no one deserves to go to prison for that. It's unfortunate she somehow trusted him enough to be alone with him, yet didn't trust that he'd stop if she said no, but I don't think he did anything wrong. Communication is good, of course, but no way should she report him for rape. So you think it was rape?
There's a contradiction with what you are saying regarding consent and women being passive. A woman is certainly capable of actively participating, even without explicitly giving verbal consent. By insisting men ignore all non-verbal cues and make sure to ask explicitly, you are perpetuating the idea that sex is what a man does to a woman, not with her. Which isn't nearly as bad as rape, of course, but it's still wrong.
Regarding your link, that's not rape. I can understand being threatened into not resisting, but unless being actively, objectively threatened, her paranoia is her issue and no one deserves to go to prison for that. It's unfortunate she somehow trusted him enough to be alone with him, yet didn't trust that he'd stop if she said no, but I don't think he did anything wrong. Communication is good, of course, but no way should she report him for rape. So you think it was rape?
The part in bold is simply not true. If I ask "do you want to go to the pub" instead of "we're going to the the pub", it's a huge difference.
Actually, it is. Rape is a lack of consent. Regarding also the part in bold, you obviously haven't understood the article very well.
Original post by yudothis
The part in bold is simply not true. If I ask "do you want to go to the pub" instead of "we're going to the the pub", it's a huge difference.
Actually, it is. Rape is a lack of consent. Regarding also the part in bold, you obviously haven't understood the article very well.
Actually, it is. Rape is a lack of consent. Regarding also the part in bold, you obviously haven't understood the article very well.
Rape is lack of consent and reasonable perceived lack of consent by the man. She may feel violated, but the man in that article did nothing wrong (it's just his side of the story, of course) Having things your way, as in the article, you're punishing decent men for finding a woman attractive who is so paranoid thinking he will attack her she plays along despite not wanting sex with him. That's after she shows him she's not scared of him by inviting him to her place alone. Besides, even if a man 'checks in', what's to stop her from being too scared to say no then too? In her eyes, he's pointing a gun at her so she's going to comply with anything - she needs to stop that (perhaps with help) but it's not his job to counsel anyone who invited him to her place and goes along with his sexual advances). I'd even argue that perpetuating the myth that sex is something a man does to a woman rather than with encourages her to have that fearful, passive attitude.
Original post by ThomH97
Rape is lack of consent and reasonable perceived lack of consent by the man. She may feel violated, but the man in that article did nothing wrong (it's just his side of the story, of course) Having things your way, as in the article, you're punishing decent men for finding a woman attractive who is so paranoid thinking he will attack her she plays along despite not wanting sex with him. That's after she shows him she's not scared of him by inviting him to her place alone. Besides, even if a man 'checks in', what's to stop her from being too scared to say no then too? In her eyes, he's pointing a gun at her so she's going to comply with anything - she needs to stop that (perhaps with help) but it's not his job to counsel anyone who invited him to her place and goes along with his sexual advances). I'd even argue that perpetuating the myth that sex is something a man does to a woman rather than with encourages her to have that fearful, passive attitude.
And that is rape culture.
You think "allowed inside = I get to have sex"?
Allowing him in is a totally different situation to him suddenly initiating sex. She let him in to enjoy the company - suddenly he makes it clear he wants sex. Does she let it happen, or say no and risk him forcing it anyway, after all she let him in, she clearly wanted it.
Original post by yudothis
And that is rape culture.
You think "allowed inside = I get to have sex"?
Allowing him in is a totally different situation to him suddenly initiating sex. She let him in to enjoy the company - suddenly he makes it clear he wants sex. Does she let it happen, or say no and risk him forcing it anyway, after all she let him in, she clearly wanted it.
You think "allowed inside = I get to have sex"?
Allowing him in is a totally different situation to him suddenly initiating sex. She let him in to enjoy the company - suddenly he makes it clear he wants sex. Does she let it happen, or say no and risk him forcing it anyway, after all she let him in, she clearly wanted it.
No, you are wrong. It is not rape culture, it is "Hey, women are actually allowed to like sex these days" culture.
Her letting him in shows him that she is not intimidated by him. Her not being intimidated by him and going along with his advances is objectively perceived consent. Thus not rape. Not guilty.
That flip from trusting him with being alone with him to bring so terrified he'll brutalise her because he finds her attractive shows she has issues, I have sympathy for her in that regard. She likely lets a lot of stuff happen to her which she wishes she hadn't due to fear of confrontation. But that doesn't make him a rapist.
(edited 5 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- are linux based OS good for developing/coding?
- Which OS are you using?
- Chromebook vs laptop
- Essex or UEA?
- Dissertation Survey: Linux OS
- whats the best laptop for IT or business courses
- Which is the best university for MSc Computer Science based on graduate prospects?
- Is this a good laptop for everyday use and uni work?
- Link styling on Firefox (Linux)
- Recommend macbook
- A-level English Language A/A* Advice!
- Post Not Visible
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Make it More Underwear-ey !!
- Using a computer for Physics:
- Participants needed!!
- Let me know if anyone needs help with System Administration
- What Computer Science course in DMU is like
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
