SerenityOS and LadyBirds: Because These Things Shouldn't Hide in Closed Git Conversations - ░ Nova Online

cmdr-nova.online SerenityOS and LadyBirds: Because These Things Shouldn't Hide in Closed Git Conversations - ░ Nova Online

SerenityOS and LadyBird: Projects gone wrong with, you guessed it, far right, woman hating, transphobic weirdos.

Found this blog post and found it had more insight into the issues around the dev and the toxicity in FOSS

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

84 comments

Ah OK, I think we're getting to the heart of why you are saying that this wasn't an issue.
When you say that the author wasn't assuming anything, what exactly do you mean? If, for example, I write in a guide that if a user of my software does 'a' then he can expect result 'b', do you disagree that I am assuming my users go by he/him pronouns?
I might not have done it with intention, but there is an assumption being made there. Words mean things.
- Exactly this.
  Just because you wrote your documentation a certain way, doesn't automatically mean that you feel a certain way about any particular group, or that your users are primarily a certain gender. It may just be writing what pronoun you are most familiar with.
  In this particular case, we can see that the author didn't exactly make the best case for himself.
  However, there was never a problem to begin with until the person that requested the change also accused the the author of assuming that the user/dev of the OS is male.
  If that little bit of accusation would have been left out, and they just put a note like "grammatical correction" it may have just been accepted and moved on. Instead they asked for a change while accusing the author of feeling a certain way.
  
  So, not 'exactly this'. I wrote that in my example an assumption had been made, whether I intended it or not.
  Same as in the documentation this post is about, therefore the problem existed before it was pointed out.
  The grammatical error to be fixed was the assumption in the language used. Both of these things are true. Pointing it out very simply, as part of providing the reason for the change, is completely normal
- As an outside observer, who is a male which is important for this sentence, if something said "if a user of my software does 'a' then she can expect result 'b'," I wouldn't assume I couldn't use the software, I wouldn't be mad about the gendered pronoun, I wouldn't assume anything about the author, I'd say "cool so if I do A I can expect result B." I don't think I'd even give it a second glance, at best/worst I'd think "oh neat I wonder if the devs are women" and move on with installing the thing.
  
  That's great! Same here, to be honest. But I also realise why it doesn't affect me, because as a man I've never felt unwelcome in these spaces purely on account of my gender.
  Kind of like how as a white guy, I wouldn't really feel much other than a bit of surprise if someone called me a cracker. I haven't felt oppression and prejudice connected to that word, or any other that is to do with my whiteness. But I do NOT then turn around and say "well why are people upset about being called n-words? They should just move on with their day like I can!"
  
  No honestly if we change it to be a woman dominated field where I'd feel unwelcome instead of a male dominated field, like say teaching, I still wouldn't be upset at the assumption because frankly it doesn't hinder my ability to understand the material, I can read it as a typo and move on.
  Unless I guess the person was aware of who I am and intentionally misgendering me to be a dick, then yeah, but if we've never met and the thing I'm reading is general, then it basically is just a typo the author didn't realize they made.
  
  Right, so continue that thought into why you wouldn't be affected by it.
  Perhaps you wouldn't actually feel quite so unwelcome in an education role as women might in STEM. I did a quick google to see if teaching was as female-dominated as STEM is male-dominated, and while yes it's very close, hilariously the first result was about how there is still a gender based wage gap issue even though it's so dominated in the other direction.... Interesting.
  So while you might think you can really put yourself in their shoes by imagining yourself in a teaching role, now try imagining yourself as a woman in a male-dominated field, in a male-dominated society, in a male dominated world. Could be a little bit different, maybe
  
  Sure I guess I'd just be offended by everything always which doesn't sound exhausting at all. Or maybe I'm already not the top paid person in my field either and measuring my successes against others is a recipe for jealousy and misery. I guess it's dealer's choice really.
  
  Ah, women are just choosing to be unreasonably offended by the patriarchy. Got it.
  Also - this wasn't even about someone being offended. It was a quiet PR to fix a grammatical mistake, and the reason given was simple and correct: the pronoun used was needlessly non-inclusive. It's everyone else who has an issue with this that seems to be offended, in my opinion
  
  I mean, yes. In some cases on some issues, some people get offended at things that are frankly a waste of anger. This is a good example of that imo, as opposed to being mad about real patriarchal shit like the wage gap, being mad because a general document says "he" seems like it's really jumping the shark.
  Personally I'd probably have checked to make sure the person who submitted it didn't pull an XZ utils or just fuck something else up by accident before I merged it, but assuming it was literally just :%s/he/they/g then I'd have merged it, simply because while I don't think it's really that big of an issue either way it's easier to just do it than being brigaded and bullied.
  
  I mean, yes. In some cases on some issues, some people get offended at things that are frankly a waste of anger.
  Agreed. Though I'm not sure how this is a good example, as the PR just fixed it without any anger or offence taken.
  Then, there was anger after the PR got rejected because apparently being inclusive to women is 'political'. This is where you can see that the maintainer didn't just make a mistake, they made a choice and are sticking with it for reasons. This is where it becomes an issue.
  
  Eh it still seems like it isn't that big of a deal what the words say to me at the root of the issue, as I said if it said "she" which is similarly exclusive not even to men because who cares but to nonbinary people and the like, and the maintainer refused to change it for whatever reason, I still wouldn't feel too strongly about it even though I'm technically excluded.
  Maybe if she said "men can't use my software" or something I'd feel excluded, but if she just says "eh I'm not changing it to 'they' because X" I wouldn't care.

84 comments