reddit censorship about cocks

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3e9m9z/why_was_this_thread_delisted/

https://voat.co/v/programming/comments/331403/1284621

I don't "blame" the mods but it's not a great thing they're doing by suppressing this. But I understand why they do it.

"Thought policing" has been coming through American culture (and perhaps others) in the last few years, and unfortunately this is the latest incarnation of it.

A "code of conduct" where a ban hammer would come down on you because of a perceived threat or non-politically correct comment is disagreed with is a really dangerous policy under the guise of "protection."

Apparently some random person's made a negative remark about transgender individuals on his Twitter account, that account was linked to a github account by some other random person in a github project discussion (the other person reported this as an "issue" with the project, rather than confronting the person he / she disagreed with directly.)

This discussion spiraled completely out of control, brought a lot of bad press to the project (which had nothing to do with the comment), and inspired someone at github to create a "code of conduct."

And basically github can pull your account or projects if someone makes a convincing argument that you're threatening them because say you like a certain politician on Twitter or post a provocative photo of yourself on Facebook or use a curse word or God knows what else.

Why I say I understand the mods but disagree:

What would you do in this situation, where the debate is framed as "people are threatening each other," and the other side are saying, "you're full of shit," and the first side says, "but what? People are being threatened? Are you a monster?!"

Shit, I'd pull the thread too in that case, not to suppress a logical argument but to get the rabid foaming at the mouth debate out of the sub.

You've gotta hand it to the "social justice warriors" in recent years, they're selling thought policing very well, and the other side who is against thought policing isn't truly capable of selling their side well--

My opinion, this seems to be a "fear uncertainty and doubt" approach by people who have waaaay too much time on their hands, starting fires and blaming others while the other side is just trying to work?

How do you deal with this? How can you work when you have a "screaming victim" who is making up things pointing at you and your coworkers / contributors and yelling as loudly (to get their way) as they can to the police who aren't paying much attention to the facts?

>>3
What I don't understand is why all these people hate freedom so much.

The ability to vote with your wallet is the cornerstone of any society that values voluntary interactions, the open source community in particular. So someone notices that some project is maintained by a person whose views they disagree with, they stop using that project, make their own fork and notify everyone who might take interest in that as well. That's how it's supposed to work, that's what Freedom looks like.

The ability of an individual or a group of people to run the place they own according to their own rules is another cornerstone of a free society that respects private property.

So you have this bunch of people who claim that they share these ideals and are very loud about Freedom of Speech and other stuff. Yet the moment someone uses their Freedom in a way they personally disapprove, they start hysterically harping about "witchhunts", demand censoring of people who voluntarily exchange information about various bigots, and protest github's laying down the law on their own fucking servers.

Mind boggles.

>>4
>implying that the cancer is only using its freedoms, and/or only criticized for using its freedoms
>2015
>being this naïve

>>5
But they are. Which part of this situation is not them simply using their freedoms? Only their intentions/views? Oh wait, restricting someone's freedom because you don't like what they are using it is the opposite of supporting freedom.

Anyone can tolerate people doing something he approves of, it's only by the reaction to someone exercising their freedoms in a way that you personally disagree with one can tell if you're sincere or full of shit.

>>6
The SJW cancer are using their freedoms in order to restrict others' use of theirs. That's to say: to enforce a pious silence on pain of retributive consequence.

Their opponents aren't.

And that, you'll find, makes all the operational difference.

>>5
^E_P^I_C!

>>7

The SJW cancer are using their freedoms in order to restrict others' use of theirs. That's to say: to enforce a pious silence on pain of retributive consequence.

You don't have the freedom to camp in someone's house and keep calling them a faggot. That is not your freedom. That can't be your freedom because it interferes with the owner's freedom to not have an obnoxious faggot in his house. Which is definitely a proper freedom since it's his house, not yours.

So, since that's not and never was a freedom of yours, showing you the door is not restricting your freedom. It's just them using their freedoms, yes.

>>7

That's to say: to enforce a pious silence on pain of retributive consequence.

"Retributive consequence" here means that they are going to use their freedom of speech inform other people who don't like bigots that you're a bigot and those other people would exercise their freedom of association to not associate with you.

Of course that would inconvenience you. Willing to trample all over people's freedoms if they inconvenience you makes you an enemy of the freedom and a big fat hypocrite.

tfw i want to have a discussion with someone about something but it's always just retard vs retard shit like
>>5-10 so I never really talk

What's most surprising to me is how readily people engage is such obvious hypocrisy. The same people who decry Russia's ban on "gay propaganda" are pleased to ban "homophobia;" the same people who lament the McCarthy era of bans on communism are happy to ban fascism. The same people who mocked the moral panic about violent video games 10 years ago are quick to join the new moral panic about sexism therein.

I suppose the author is right: people love free speech . . . as long as it agrees with them.

>>12
http://i.imgur.com/opAMtu6.jpg

>>9
What on earth are you talking about, here? I'm not sitting in anyone's house and calling them a faggot! Your metaphor is a mystery.

>>10
What you propose as a simple use of their own rights is, in actuality, an extralegal punishment, i.e. mob rule. Civilized societies leave such matters to be handled by the courts where the accused has a right to face their accuser, hear the accusation, and to defend themselves against it to an impartial judge.

That's to say: you're a barbarian. Your rhetoric usurps the division of powers. Fuck off.

>>12
Quoth Plato from his cave.

>>11
If you want to be taken seriously, drop the memes like "tfw".

Shitty thread, I don't give a shit about what happens on Reddit. If I did, I would go discuss it on Reddit. You've made a huge mistake >>1-卑劣な人. This might have been interesting if you had posted about the Github's banning of discrimination based on technical ability, but now you've poisoned the well and associated it with /g/ros like yourself. Shame on you.

If I did, I would go discuss it on Reddit

and you would be censored and potentially shadowbanned

For a contrary view, Seymour Cray, premier designer of supercomputers, held parity designs in contempt. He felt it showed poor design—if one designed a transmission path to be reliable, one would not have to waste resources on parity. His famous quote on this (circa 1963) was "Parity is for farmers" (after the use of the term "parity" in the New Deal). After he later included parity bits on the CDC 7600, Cray reputedly said that "I learned that a lot of farmers buy computers."

>>18
Who cares? Nobody uses reddit anymore.

>>19
He did predate speculative memory access. There was a period in the early aughties when ECC DIMMs could be operated at a higher MT/s rate than non-ECC ones, assuming support from motherboard and chipset (because DRAM controllers were external to the CPU silicon back then).

This isn't programming. Take it to /lounge/

>>14

What on earth are you talking about, here? I'm not sitting in anyone's house and calling them a faggot! Your metaphor is a mystery.

When you say that you should have the right to call people faggots on github's servers and their CoCk is oppressing you, that's exactly what happens.

You can rent a server for like $10/mo from Linode, set up a git hosting there and call people faggots all you want. Nobody will be able to take that freedom from you. But no, you fuckers invade other people's communities and try to lay down your own rules there.

What you propose as a simple use of their own rights is, in actuality, an extralegal punishment, i.e. mob rule.

It is not a punishment because nobody takes from you anything that you have a right to. You don't have the right to force me to use your software, so I am free to decide not to because you're a bigot or because the voices told me or for no reason at all.

You still can use your own software, you can express yourself in it in any way you want (provided you host your repository yourself of course) and so on, none of your actual freedoms are being infringed upon.

>>23
That's not what punishment means.

^{penis punishment}

>>23
>being this stupid

>>25
^{Whom are} you _quoting

>>26
your mom