You're viewing a single thread.
The tone may be a bit harsh but it's muuuuch better than how he used to be during his most toxic days. This is how he used to talk: https://www.networkworld.com/article/706908/security-torvalds-to-bad-security-devs-kill-yourself-now.html
Linus definitely got much better at handling his anger since his public apology in 2018.
[I]f you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace âmy kidsâ with âsales people on the roadâ if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place,â he wrote.
Hah love it
I canât believe linus did a âKILL YOURSELF, NOWâ before it was cool
*someone uploads a shitty pull request*
Linus: kys
reads the article
considers the triggers prompting the outburst
Heâs⌠not wrong.
Not right, but definitely not wrong. There is a big difference between effective security and total security. He was dumping on total security, which in many ways is worse than no security at all.
Indeed, I think he just wanted to get the point across that it is a dangerous approach.
It was never a question of being technically right or wrong. Linus' realization was that his inflammatory language was viewed as permission by other people in the Linux community to be verbally abusive to their peers. People who had been valuable contributors to Linux projects explained to Linus how they had been berated by colleagues, and when challenged those colleagues cited Linus' own language.
What Linus wants is working code, and you don't get working code by giving tacit permission to your most aggressive & abrasive community members to attack others.
Thatâs why I was particularly clear about him being ânot rightâ.
Because being abusive is definitely ânot rightâ.
But sometimes you have to make a point and you just have no other way of doing so, because the deed is already done, and anything less shocking is just gonna get ignored wholesale. That foot-stomp has to be loud enough and clear enough to be heard even by the people in the back. And there are only so many (frequently limited!) ways of grabbing everyoneâs attention by the nuts.
I donât agree with how Linus handled it. But I can understand it.
sometimes you have to make a point and you just have no other way of doing so
Well, that's just an excuse for bad leadership.
Well, that's just an excuse for bad leadership.
You canât be a leader to people who have no desire to follow you in the first place. And you canât force anyone to accept you as a leader.
The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sometimes you need to throw your weight around for the overall good of the community. Itâs why law enforcement exists within every functional community - there will be people who intentionally ignore âleadershipâ and break rules for their own selfish purposes regardless of how good said leadership is, and the only thing that will make them behave is the threat of social censure or outright punishment.
And Linus has no ability to directly correct or punish, so social censure is the next best functional tool.
That's not even his worst stuff. That seems pretty tame imo.
I mean, telling someone to kill themselves is something that I've heard a lot, it usually never means "go and literally do it", it's more of an expression... But the fact that it was used in that context is just disturbing.
Doesn't mean it's ever the right thing to say.
Especially among professionals
I remember telling someone to go kill themselves was a generic insult in school. Same as "fuck off".
exactly. This was normal years ago, probably at the same time he used it. I'm not sure if kids are still saying these things in high school, but in the workplace this is 100% out of place.
I could write another rant on the whole American âI take offense with thatâ mentality. Itâs political correctness of the worst kind, and as far as Iâm concerned. Jokes are often offensive. If you get offended, the problem is solidly at your end. Think about it for a while,...
He has a point there though IMO, things are way out if control with political correctness.
Have you noticed how almost every meme here on Lemmy goes in shitposts? My guess is, it's a safe bet, almost anything goes there, so I won't be downvoted to oblivion just because I wrote female instead of woman. Hell, I know I do it for that very reason.
While I mostly agree with you, don't discount the insane volume of genuine hate speech in the United States. A vast amount of it âif not the majorityâ is coded language so there is an actual need to be extra sensitive. If you aren't a member of a targeted minority, you won't get it because the nature of coded hate speech is that it's only transparent to the perpetrators and the victims.
I don't live in the US, but from what I've seen, instead of everyone just taking a step back and not getting offended over stupid things, people do the exact opposite. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Maybe I live in a place where people have thicker skin, IDK, but to get downvoted over semantics when the post is not even about that, I mean... really �
It doesn't matter, I know, no one cares about up/down votes, but just the sheer ammount of it was "wow, really?".
As I said, it's different if you're a member of a targeted minority.
I think the point is that to you, it's just semantics. But, to use your example, given that some people have started intentionally using "female" in place of "woman" as an (arguably) subtle way to exclude trans women, it suddenly becomes more than semantics to both trans and anti-trans populations. That's what Smotherlove is saying about "dog whistle" language only being transparent to the perpetrator and the victim.
So from your/my perspective (admittedly assuming you're neither trans nor anti-trans), it's largely a case of "a few rotten apples ruining it for the rest of the bunch." What should just be a semantic difference has been coopted and intentionally weaponized by some, so all of us have to be conscious of whether or not we're making that worse.
It's also not a new phenomenon. Many epithets start as PC terms and then become offensive based on how a specific group starts to use them, notably, almost every one-time PC terms for Black Americans and people of color. Unfortunately, it's basically the reason that, for at least 100 years, (responsible) individuals/media have had to change terms for many marginalized peoples every 10-20 years, with many other examples, like "Oriental" and the terms that predate it, and plenty of others.
Female is not just anti trans. It has also been used as a way of dehumanizing women for some time. It was in the 4chan playbook until they switched to femoid for extra dehumanizing.
Good to know, thank you! Yet more reasons to avoid it
I also referred to men as males in the post, but that didn't seem to bother anyone.
Though I do admit female was a more used term. I was trying to explain some of the differences (to the best of my knowledge) of why males are more agressive and just generally not so in touch with their emotions, as opposed to females. I mean, come on, I wasn't trying to offend anybody, but I do suppose that some people just saw "female, brain", thought I was talking smack about women and just started downvoting me đ¤ˇ. I was trying to explain that that is not the context and that those 2 terms were just the first ones that popped up in my mind, but it was too late.
I get the likely reason why you don't find it offensive, but I also get why plenty people do.
Note how the complains are usually towards the usage of "female" as a noun, not as an adjective. That's because of a small quirk of English, that marks adjective nominalisation rather heavily. To show it with a non-offensive example:
- I got two cats. *The young is a tabby, and *the old is *a bicolour.
That likely sounds fine in the other language[s] that you speak (as it would do in my L1 and L2), but it sounds weird for English speakers - they'd expect "young", "old" and "bicolour" to be followed by nouns, not to be treated as nouns.
As a result, when you "promote" an adjective to a noun, people usually take it as creating a category aside from whatever category the relevant entities were formerly assigned to. And if the former category was "human beings", the nominalisation becomes dehumanising.
Another example [now offensive] to highlight this would be:
- "Alice is gay" - most people wouldn't raise an eyebrow to that
- "Alice is a gay" - since the usage of article forces reading "gay" as a noun, it suddenly sounds dehumanising.
The same process actually does apply to "male"; the main difference is that men aren't seen as a disfavoured group by society, and people often take that into account when judging the offensiveness of an utterance.
I also referred to men as males in the post, but that didn't seem to bother anyone.
Because there's no history of "males" being used in a derogatory way.