Though I know how to do some basic coding, I would not call myself a programmer. As such, I have never spent any time in the open source community; a major subset of which is facilitated in their efforts by the company GitHub. GitHub apparently provides server hosting for various projects and a forum that volunteer programmers can use to collaborate. These programmers are working on these various projects that are intended to be freely available; both to use and to work on. They mostly interact with each other using screen names and without ever knowing the identity, race, or gender of their collaborators.
My impression as a disinterested outsider is that most of these people are sort of nerdy and have a special interest in coding for specific projects. Given what we know about IQ distributions between race and gender, it is safe to assume that most of the guys working on this project are either white or Asian male, and possibly Indian males as well. What we can also be sure of is that women are a small minority. Programming is intellectually rigorous work. Women don’t have the numbers at the high end of the IQ distribution to have large numbers of women with the right capabilities, and even those women smart enough to do it usually lack interest. We can also be relatively sure that blacks and Latinos are a minority as well, again merely because of what we know about racial IQ distributions. I would expect there to be more Latinos than blacks, however. I don’t know for sure what the demographics of github are, but the above is an educated guess based on what can be generalized from data on various groups of people. It also fits with the known demographics of various tech companies working on similar projects. In fact, the demographics of tech companies likely look “better” due to quotas. In an all volunteer project, chances are demographics are even less nationally representative than at most tech companies.
Knowing the above is relevant to understand just how obnoxious Github’s new code of conduct policy really is. It seems like it was intentionally designed to alienate the core demographic. So much so that I would say that if they implement it as written, normal white males will essentially be 2cnd class citizens within this online community. There are two sections I want to highlight, but I encourage you to read the whole thing at the previous link. Here is the first:
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
- ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
- Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
- Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
- Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
- Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Holy… This is like /r/tumblrinaction.
Bullet point one says that hating you because you are white, male, and/or straight is completely allowed. If some black lesbian comes in to disparage you and says you are horrible because of your race and gender (i.e., white and male), that is fine. If you talk back to her using the same language in return, you are in violation of the rule and will be punished.
Bullet point three suggests to me that when some SJW comes in to complain about something retarded, demands that they use some sort of logic to justify themselves will be ignored as part of official policy. If it is categorized as “social justice” it is sacred and is not up for debate.
Bullet point five seems to imply that people who try to defend themselves from unjustified accusations of racism et al, will have their complaints ignored. “If someone falsely accuses you of racism or sexism, T.S., you deserve it whitey.” Though I am not entirely sure about this last one, given the context that interpretation is most likely.
This is a level of entryism well above average in scope. It seems like it was just copied and pasted out of some victimology studies class textbook from Berkeley and pasted into this code of conduct. The level of absurdity in this becoming official policy here is more than I can fathom. This is straight out of 1984, or possibly Atlas Shrugged.
There are two things that really strike me about the above text. One, the main and largest demographic of this all-volunteer community (white men) is the one that these SJW entryists are going out of their way to define as second class citizens. They are telling them point blank that hating white men is allowed and they aren’t going to do anything about it when someone comments in this way. Even though these guys are freely giving away their time and effort, they still aren’t above being the officially sanctioned object of hatred. Two, if those same white men wanted to have some way to defend themselves from false SJW allegations, they are officially disallowed from doing so. They are banned from making SJWs defend their faith in “social justice,” logic need not apply. In addition, when they are accused of some -ism falsely, official channels will not address the slander in any way. They just have to take it. Sounds like a good community to be part of, right?
My question is, how the hell did these radical cultural marxists get into a position to write this code of conduct in the first place? The demographic is mostly white male and there are a lot of programmers I have met who hate this kind of stuff; it is a common enough sentiment you wouldn’t have expected it to get this far. How did they allow these nuts to gain control of their community? Moreover, why did discussion about social justice, sexism, and racism become so important to a community which works with open-source programming projects? These things aren’t even tangentially related. Most of the people interacting do so only via the internet using screen names. You could be a purple teletubbykin Xer and no one would have a clue about it. I mean, there isn’t a better situation for race and gender blindness possible. Blacks and women could contribute all they want and would only be judged by the quality of their code.
Though I am not sure what instigated this change in policy, I think the last sentence suggests one possibility. Women and blacks probably were spotted because they contributed crappy code purely as a result of having lower IQs than their collaborators on average. No one knew they were black or female or whatever, but people spotted shitty code and called them out on it; quite harshly too as is common when men interact with each other. Autist programmers are probably at another level entirely as well. No racism or sexism would have been intended (the criticizer had no way to know these attributes anyway). With women and blacks more consistently contributing crap code compared to other groups there would be a disparate impact on who was on the receiving end of flaming. That disparate impact would have been totally justified, however, because crappy code probably makes everyone else’s work harder. Thus, it would be better for the community as a whole if those not up to snuff just left. Blacks and women would leave more, but fewer of them are legitimately good enough. They should leave until they gain enough ability to be a better contributor if they even can. Meritocracy can’t have protected classes by definition.
I will hazard a guess and say that this was probably the result of feminists more than blacks or other minorities. Feminists are more likely to be overly sensitive to criticism than the black male programmer. White female feminists are smarter than blacks as well and so are more likely to have sufficient numbers trying to invade this community; thus gaining a measure of success. In addition, the feminists wouldn’t hesitate to add all the stuff about race while feminizing the other rules even if race didn’t come up very often.
Essentially what happened, by my guess, is that a group of feminists are trying to legislate out one of the most important rules of the internet. That is, there are no girls on the internet. Probably the best way to get this explained is to quote the original 4chan comment which defined the modern version of the rule. Sorry if it is a bit crude:
If I can pontificate a bit, for your edification, one of the rules of the internet is “there are no girls on the internet.” This rule does not mean what you think it means.
In real life, people like you for being a girl. They want to fuck you, so they pay attention to you and they pretend what you have to say is interesting, or that you are smart or clever. On the Internet, we don’t have the chance to fuck you. This means the advantage of being a “girl” does not exist. You don’t get a bonus to conversation just because I’d like to put my cock in you.
When you make a post like, “hurr durr, I’m a girl” you are begging for attention. The only reason to post it is because you want your girl-advantage back, because you are too vapid and too stupid to do or say anything interesting without it. You are forgetting the rules, there are no girls on the internet.
The one exception to this rule, the one way you can get your “girlness” back on the internet, is to post your tits. This is, and should be, degrading for you, and admission that the only interesting thing about you is your naked body.
tl;dr: tits or GET THE FUCK OUT
I will craft some fiction which I would guess has some resemblance to the events which led to these new rules. What happened was that female programmers who in real life are used to being held to lower standards compared to their male counterparts must have joined GitHub. These women as a group aren’t as good as men and are not criticized for this when people address their work in person. Maybe its because male coworkers want to fuck them or maybe its because her employer fears lawsuits and just needs a vagina on the programmer payroll regardless of how much she sucks. Whatever the reason, these women met with a harsh climate when they contributed junk code using an anonymized account. They were being held to the same standards as men for the first time in their lives and they didn’t like it. So, they immediately violated the internet rule of “there are no girls on the internet.” They stated they were female, despite that having no bearing on whether the code was good or not, to try to get their female advantage back. A number of programmers rightly condemned this and told them to hit the road with that nonsense. Some might have used especially harsh language, but the message was clear. Code well or leave. Somehow, feminazis had managed to gain power within the corporate structure of GitHub, or the males there were complete pussies, or both. They saw these interactions, and being feminists and cucks, created these rules so that when people use the race or sex card to defend their low quality work, good programmers are put into a corner where they can’t defend themselves or have any mechanism to reject poor code from the coddled classes. It was mainly about m’lady, but being good leftists they added in several other contenders for the victim Olympics. If someone has a better theory, please share.
In essence, the same pathetic “victims” who we are all sick of hearing complain found that in a pure, unadulterated meritocracy they were clearly found to be less skilled. Their initial attempts to use the same -ism crutch they use in real life to excuse their incompetence didn’t work because no one could tell what kind of otherkin they were just by a screen name before they called them out. Friends of these losers in high places thus crafted these rules to make sure that their crutch would work. Good bye GitHub, I only knew you for a brief time, but your cultural Marxism infestation is so severe that nothing can be done. It will be better just to put you down like old yeller. Good bye meritocracy, hello community destruction.
Moving on to the next section I want to quote:
We encourage everyone to participate and are committed to building a community for all. Although we will fail at times, we seek to treat everyone both as fairly and equally as possible. Whenever a participant has made a mistake, we expect them to take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong.
Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, gender, gender identity or expression, culture, ethnicity, language, national origin, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and technical ability. We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with disabilities.
This section is one of the reasons I think it was feminists rather than minorities generally. The concern about feelings and being offended is a clear sign that some female busybody wrote this or at least demanded the language highlight feelings.
We also see the whole rainbow of protected classes. It is almost funny. Most of these things would never come up if only actual programmers doing programming work were part of the community. They would be focusing on working rather all this random identity politics crap. It is the invading SJWs which prioritize this nonsense and probably barely do any coding. It is especially absurd in cases like this where the work has literally no connection to the SJW agenda. I mean seriously, open source software does not have anything to do with identity politics. It is also quite easy to never reveal your weird sexual fetishes or other hangups to anyone on there while working on a project.
Culture and political beliefs are also on the list of protected classes, but you can bet only progressive culture and political beliefs will be protected in practice. Anything not progressive is “racist,” so its banned by default.
Perhaps funniest is they don’t allow discrimination based on technical ability. Lol, what? YOU GUYS ARE PROGRAMMERS WORKING ON TECHNICAL PROJECTS!! YOU CAN’T TELL SOMEONE WHO CAN’T CODE NOT TO SCREW UP YOUR PROJECT? WTF!!11!! Unbelievable. Again, this is extremely feminine perspective. Everyone just get along, girls need special treatment even if they aren’t as good. Be nice to your sister.
All I can say for the guys who were legitimately trying to do work they were passionate about on this platform is I am sorry. SJW entryists have invaded your hobby and are doing everything they can to destroy it. It looks like they will succeed as well. The good news is that because all of this is open source, you should be able to migrate to a different platform pretty easily. At least, you can copy all of the relevant code and move it without any trouble. You could even start up your own competitor which advertises that it doesn’t have SJW cancer. I am sure that would actually be quite attractive to a lot of people. However, you have to remember that the downfall of GitHub was because it was excessively open and welcoming. You let the crazies in and you didn’t get rid of them when you discovered they were crazy. You possibly feared being called “far-right” and capitulated like a cuckservative. This was your mistake.
Open communities are doomed to this fate. It has happened again and again. It happens every single time without fail. It doesn’t matter how apolitical your community is, without a proper immune system radical leftists will invade and change the priorities to social justice and other fantasies. The original work of the community or business will be subjugated to the progressive religion. By direct decree, you will not even be allowed to criticize the progressive social justice. Social justice doesn’t need to make sense, it just has to be sacred. Being sacred, no one is allowed to criticize it. Not even apolitical programmers just trying to work on their apolitical hobby in peace.
For the formers of new communities, including GitHub’s replacement, finding out your choices are limited is difficult, but it should also give you sterner resolve to prevent your next community from being taken over by radical cultural Marxists. For one thing, it should make you accept how important exclusivity is and keep you determined to immediately eject people who want to destroy your painstakingly created community by making it another arm of progressivism. If you want your new GitHub to stay pure and apolitical, you will need to prepare yourself for your new role as inquisitor.
Thanks for the comments; especially those showing entryists at github, and that at least some parts of the community are adopting the policy.
See also “We will not act” (turns out that I was right and this was written by a white female feminist)Find other great dissident right content with the two Atavisionary RSS feeds: Atavisions and Prolific Atavisions. In addition, download the free ebook Smart and Sexy to learn what, how and why there are biologically based cognitive differences between the sexes
19 Replies to “Jumping the Shark: How Cultural Marxism is Set to Ruin GitHub”
“No girls on the internet”, but Github is a corporation, with an HR department, an affirmative action policy, etc. dictated by government regulations. It’s more like consolidation than entryism, which really began and ended with women getting the vote though they neither pay their own way nor defend the nation. Men of ability will have to accept living on the margins if they aren’t willing to confront this
GitHub is trickier than average because they are at least somewhat dependent on volunteer workers. Most of which are probably straight white males. Whatever progressivism may want, alienating a volunteer worker base isn’t a smart move by them.
The contributors are mostly (cuck and beta) males.
Here is a recent case of entryism:
“they don’t allow discrimination based on technical ability.”
Heartiste would like this, just look at his smirk.
yarvin’s urbit is hosted on github.
I don’t disagree with you about the content, but they’re only adopting it for their repos:
“We have adopted the Open Code of Conduct for the open source projects that we maintain, including Atom, Electron, Git LFS, and many others.”
We’ll see if they wind up applying it more widely.
Man, how had I never seen “There are no girls on the internet”? Marvelous, concise, well-written, devastating.
The thing about Github is that it has very little lock-in. It is the most widely-used source-code-hosting site, because it is distinctly the best, but there is very little network effect, because each project on the site is mostly independent of every other project. There are a few rival sites which are distinctly not as good, but they are perfectly viable, and any given project can switch to them, with the only overhead being that developers contributing to the project will have to spend 5 minutes setting up another account.
So, there’s a limit to how much shit they can pull.
I dont see this Code of Conduct as an official document oin the github site, can you provide a link please ?
Some of the other commenters provided handy links. I edited the post to link to the relevant comments at the end.
This is very interesting. I wrote a little bit about it myself if you’d like to check it out (http://criticaldispatches.com/2015/08/05/apologies-in-advance-if-this-offends-or-oppresses-you/)
There is no gender on GitHub.
The only reason to reveal your gender on GitHub is IF YOU ARE FEMALE AND SEEKING AN ADVANTAGE.
High-level technical ability as a coder is rare among females. (That, by the way is in no way a sexist statement. It is a provable, statistical truth). But mediocre technical ability among females is far more common. A favorite strategy of the latter group is to claim that sexism is holding them back.
Now, to be clear: In the workplace many technically sophisticated females (and they very much do exist) may be absolutely correct that sexism is holding them back. That absolutely does happen.
But on the Interwebs there is no gender. There is nameless, faceless ability.
So revealing your gender as a female, immediately preceding a claim that you are being disadvantaged by your gender — is that old ruse we have all seen before: A lesser-skilled female seeking advantage.
Why not make GitHub a gender free zone?
Oh wait. It already is.
Except for some upset women who can’t code.
>Now, to be clear: In the workplace many technically sophisticated females (and they very much do exist) may be absolutely correct that sexism is holding them back. That absolutely does happen.
Thanks for the comment. I have to disagree with this statement, however. Sexism is between rare and non-existent in the current environment and 99.9% of the people who claim it are full of it.
Thanks for the great post, Atavisionary. It was certainly eye popping to say the least.
I just finished erasing all my code and documentation off GitHub and deleting my corporate and personal accounts as well. It’s over for GitHub.
Adios GitHub….it felt good for others to be helped, taught and mentored by my contributions, but there’s always other ways to give to a community I want to give to and to get examples and support from others in my community.
I’m spreading the word about this post as well. Thanks, Atavisionary.
Darth Vader’s Coding Mentor
I am glad I could illuminate the direction that this community is going in, it is sad that inferior people feel they have the right to disparage people giving freely of their time and energy. If someone is ungrateful for help, refuse to ever help them again. Everyone engaging in identity politics only focus on (mostly imagined) negatives about whites and males and ignore all of our positive contributions to society and technological advancement (which outweighs all negatives by a lot imho). It is time to cut those people off from our time, money, resources and anything else.
There is no room for anything like identity politics, racism, neo-liberalism, political discourse, sexual preferences or any personal preferences in the arena of technological collaboration. There’s no room for bias or refusal to support, be it racism or “counter racism”. Any incident, no matter how small or whether one cast the first stone or the second, must be investigated fully with no bias and the full goal of seeking truth and resolution. No one gets a free pass because of the past or current political bias.
I give the ToDo group companies about 1.3 million US$ in business per year. By year end 2015, I plan for it to be zero, including Ubuntu services, Walmart and DropBox.
Some interesting articles:
Called on the carpet
Later she sued them for some discrimination
Now the parasite is about to kill the hosting service.
A related aside:
Personally, I’m a Catholic so find profanity offensive and have had to put up with Atheist “religious people are stupid” jokes. It would probably meet the definition of “hostile work environment”. In short harassing and bullying someone over their being white, cis, or male is fine with Github and their group. I don’t think the EEOC would think so.
But the more specific issue is sometimes you need a thicker skin. OK, deride and insult me, and I’ll fix your stupid bugs to keep a good paycheck. But don’t run to HR if you don’t like what I say.
Thanks to the link to the Opal discussion. It shows the problem. Someone finds an unrelated transphobic tweet or something and demands the contributor be dropped. The project leader says what has that to do with the code (and asks what the complainer has contributed). Much noise and nonsense ensues.
The code of conduct which should be on such things is easy to summarize – take your issues outside, don’t bring them here, a commit or pull request should be technical and contain neither a homophobic slur nor a “help support gay marriage” message.
Robert Conquests Second law of Politics:
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.