Honestly, the college admissions application should come with a single trigger warning that covers all possible inconvenient ideas you might encounter in a university setting. Uncomfortable with that? Then don't attend. Were I entering college today, I would consider all this a reduction of what I would be exposed to in a university setting. If I'm paying for an education, I want a full education, not just the parts no one is protesting.
So you have no problem trying to exclude people based on their opinion as long as it is one you don't agree with? That seem quite hypocritical. Similar to how those who supposedly value diversity of opinion have no problem trying to dismiss other peoples opinions by calling them "crybullies".
Voicing a different opinion is different than demanding someone be punished because they have a different opinion.
Maintaining diversity of opinion is a two-way street that requires tolerance from everyone. Refusing to invite intolerant people is not hypocritical; it ensures the culture of spirited debate is preserved for all comers.
That is the exact same argument that the people you are opposing are making, just that you differ in opinion what is considered intolerant.
And saying that you should try to exclude people who don't agree with you seems very much like "demanding someone be punished because they have a different opinion".
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being intentionally obtuse.
How would you design a system that is supposed to foster debate and differing opinions such that people don't shut it down because they cannot tolerate those differing opinions?
You're the one not responding to my arguments, how am I the one being obtuse?
How is excluding people you think are intolerant any better then they excluding you for thinking you are intolerant? How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? How is it not you that don't tolerate people when you think it's a good idea to try to exclude others from college based on their opinion?
I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the other party to argue their case as best as they can on their own merits instead of trying to shame the other group that are expressing their opinions. People who support free speech should celebrate the outpouring of free speech happening on campuses right now and they should form their own groups arguing for their causes rather than thinking they are morally superior even though they really just disagree since they want the same thing they are accusing their opponents for.
Just the same social justice warriors who attack tech companies and want more females and minorities in STEM, but they don't take STEM classes they take classes in the liberal arts instead.
I encourage females and minorities to take STEM classes for STEM jobs and challenge themselves.
I like the litmus test that only someone with a github profile with projects of their own and commits to any projects in broad use are privvy to an opinion about tech culture.
When I see an SJC opinion on identity politics and tech, my first instinct is to check github to see if the author has ever contributed to open source or has any sizable projects of their own published. I'd guess that 99 times out of 100 they don't.
There are a lot of loudmouthed people with lots of opinions and no street cred.
Pretty much every scandal over the past few years have involved someone with little to no content in their github profile. I encourage anyone with a particular scandal in mind to go find the github profile of the person at the center of the scandal and see if they've accomplished much if anything as software engineer.
This is a bit divergent but GitHub alone is a bad litmus test to determine if someone as accomplished anything as a software engineer.
Many talented engineers are precluded by their contracts from contributing, use other channels to do so, or simply don't work on open source projects. Dismissing someone because of an empty github profile seems like a bit of a hair trigger reaction.
It's a bad litmus test if there is no github account or the github account is completely empty, but you know for certain someone is actually in a position doing real engineering. Every example where I've looked up an SJW's github account, they have had some content on it and it's been very little of very poor quality (typically some HTML and CSS and poor quality jQuery JavaScript or a remarkably trivial Ruby on Rails project). The only example I recall ever encountering where there was an SJW article where the person was quite accomplished was from an MtF trans engineer. That was also the only SJW article that I remember being pretty solid and found myself agreeing with a lot of it. That article was the only decent one I've read on Model-View-Culture.
The two most prominent examples where the SJW had a remarkably unremarkable github account both worked at companies with a very very strong open-source contribution culture because they quit or were let go.
Agreed but the SJWs will always make an issue with a project on a political thing and ask for a code of conduct. It seems to be an annoying pattern of behavior.
You have to remember that SJWs have declared a war on hackers and people in STEM. Trying to find something wrong with them to make them lose their jobs or be kicked out of open source projects.
ESR has an opinion on it that SJWs need to be kicked out of open source projects. Most of them can't even code properly and submit buggy code that gets rejected, and then they claim discrimination.
Nowhere in that post did I see the opinion that good patches be rejected on the grounds that the author is an SJW — ESR appears to say he's quite happy to accept good contributions from anyone. What am I missing?
Good patches should not be rejected by the ground that anyone is anything. What matters is code quality.
ESR was talking about the issues the SJWs make wanting a code of conduct and other political things. That they should be kicked out of projects when they do that sort of thing.
If they submit good patches, it should be accepted. If they cause a political issue instead of a coding or debugging one then they are just stirring up trouble.
In the example the POC (People of Color) submitted several patches but only one or two got accepted because they were good enough. The SJW got upset over the fact that not all of them got accepted. Called the project leader a white straight male, and project leader replied back he was a Latino and accepted a few patches from POC and goes by quality not race to accept or reject a patch.
Really hard to tell a SJW from a troll pretending to be a SJW, Poe's law and all of that.
Any point you might have loses all credibility when you quote ESR.
For this particular post: if you read the linked django thread it's clearly started by a troll, not an actual "SJW". And ESR's previous posts are mixes of overt racism and sexism with bizarre fantsy stirred through.
Some of the best programmers I know avoid open source. Partly because of the drama. But mostly because if you spend you days working on "qualified" things (business systems, simulation, robotics etc) in a demanding environment with, at least help from, highly educated people it's just not that fun to patch JavaScript frameworks on GitHub with the "just fork it" crowd.