"In a 2000 research article from the Home Office, in England and
Wales, around 1 in 20 women (5%) said that they had been raped at some point in their life from the age of 16 beyond.[6]"
"The same study found that approximately 1 in 21 men had been made to penetrate someone else, usually an intimate partner or acquaintance."
This is completely in line with original claim, "have been forced into sexual intercourse against their will". Wiki page does call this rape when it comes to women, but not when it comes to men.
I don't think it's intellectually honest to mix and match stats from different studies to fit your worldview. The study that has the 1 in 21 stat for men who have been forced to penetrate also says that 1 in 5 women have been raped.
I didn't see the full study. Thanks for pointing me to it. Indeed the figures are higher for women than for men. Let me edit my comment to reflect that.
It's becoming the norm in some communities. For example, Mozilla/Rust has a lot of people like that, and one of the core team members has contributed to #hnwatch Twitter tag linked below.
People from that circle were proposing the idea of creating 'black lists' to make people unemployable for political reasons; they managed to get Brendan Eich expelled from Mozilla; they're pushing for "Codes of conducts", which again aim at expelling people from open source communities for political reasons - eg things they said in completely unrelated places, like their own Twitter feeds (see "Opalgate").
Also see PronounGate, DongleGate, past scandals at Github (meritocracy rug, Julie-Ann Horvath departure), discussions/scandals around CoC/"Contributor Covenant", etc etc etc.
One thing they frequently claim, is that they are NOT censoring anything, people are free to do whatever they want.
Yet they keep pushing for this behaviour (black listing people that disagree with feminism, nagging companies until they decide to not launch products in some markets because fear of feminist backlash, and so on).
I honestly don't see how they don't notice how illogical their position are.
>> I honestly don't see how they don't notice how illogical their position are.
I have a friend on Twitter who's a raging feminist. I asked her if she was concerned about Carly Fiorina being excluded from the GOP debate since she was the only woman and actually had more votes in the Iowa caucus than two other male candidates who they kept in the debate.
Her response was that she never cared about any GOP candidate. It just makes no sense to me. If you're for women's rights, then it shouldn't matter what race, religion or political party someone is, in order to support them - they're women, and should be supported regardless.
Exactly it, but your friend is just a typical hypocrite. She says she is for women's rights, but is really just for any woman who has the same worldview as her and f the rest.
> If you're for women's rights, then it shouldn't matter what race, religion or political party someone is, in order to support them - they're women, and should be supported regardless.
WTH are you talking about? If you're for women's rights you support people who are also for women's rights, regardless of race, religion or gender they are.
I don't know who Carly Fiorina is, but I know Margaret Thatcher, and she did nothing for women. By your logic though, just because she was a woman, feminists should have supported her over men in the opposing (socialist) party that supported women's rights?
if we think some pattern should be called "censorship", then it is called that. if your interlocutor refuses to move beyond "argument about definition of words" and you still want to communicate, you then have to taboo the word, which slows your thinking+communication down a bit, but so be it.
Good call, this is an excelent community with some hearthbreaking stories. There is also a whole network of subreddits on the topic, some very active (lower right sidebar).
First one I can recall was the meritocracy scandal, where they tried to put a rug promoting meritocracy, and their in-house feminist Julie-Ann Horvath (nudged by her friends) complained in the general sense of "meritocracy is bad since it's racist and sexist". The caved in and removed the rug.
Said Julie-Ann Horvath later got in a fight with a (CEO&founder)'s wife, left the company and made another huge scandal. She accused the company of sexism and sexual harassment (independent investigator found none, and other female Github engineers said there was nothing wrong), accused a co-worker of systematically removing her code from repos since, I quote, "I wouldn't let him fuck me" (independent investigator found that he was actually fixing her errors), and that CEO's wife overstepped her boundaries and used company resources for her own projects [1] (independent investigator found that to be true, and CEO stepped down).
JAH also complained of terrible sexual harassment - that is, men looking at women spinning hula hoops. Women did not complain, but JAH got offended on their behalf anyway.
In the end, she left with a loud door slam, smeared a bunch of Github people, and in general had a huge meltdown on Twitter, as you do.
Then, as mentioned, there was a bunch of scandals where people had their repos removed (like C+=, a language satirizing the more, uh, out-there ideas expressed by the feminists; or a few repos related to GamerGate).
The latest in a series was a repo threatened with removal (or removed?) for using the word 'retarded'.
Then they added a CoC endorsing anti-white racism and anti-male sexism: "Github's new Code of Conduct says "Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort." and will not act on "reverse" racism, sexism, etc." [2]
Well, at least we have BitBucket, GitLab et al.
----------------------------------------
[1] That's one empowered woman! What's not to like here? - TA
>that CEO's wife overstepped her boundaries and used company resources for her own projects [1] (independent investigator found that to be true, and CEO stepped down).
This is particularly fun to note, because it shows that these investigators were not being easy/taking the side of the CEO. In short, it gives strong evidence they really were independent investigators.
Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it. I just wish you didn't consider enemies the women who are trying to make things better for women, and that you would not consider the majority opinion of Reddit to be correct.
I wonder how big this cultural divide really is, or if it just seems this big online. In my usual workplaces, nobody would be as systematically angry as you seem to be about a woman and a company asking other people to be nice.
It doesn't seem to me that the user you're replying to is "systematically angry." Furthermore, the independent contractors were truly independent, and the Twitter meltdown and smearing were real. Those are real, harmful actions which should not be ignored.
Furthermore, people are attempting to hold on to their ability to speak freely, to not have to monitor their own speech. There is no way to stop other people from being offended. No matter what you do, it will be offensive to someone. So should that person have the right to police you and to take down something that's yours? And what if you disagree with that person?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion.
Honestly, saying that anything you do will be offensive is a weak evasion of personal responsibility. It's like saying that you might as well eat Big Macs for every meal since all food can be unhealthy, under certain circumstances. While the premise is technically true, the conclusion is flawed. It's a spectrum, with behavior on one end being better than behavior on the other end.
To your last point, of course some rando who's offended by my statement should haven't the right to police me or take down something I wrote. But they do have the right to respond to what I wrote, point it out to others, argue with me, criticize me for it, etc. And I have the right to argue back, ignore them, or even – as crazy as it sounds – consider if their feelings might be sincere and worth me reevaluating my statement.
Anyway, this became longer than I intended. I'm just trying to say that, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, as fellow creatures inhabiting this pale blue dot, we have an obligation to deal kindly with one another. The fact that some people are jerks doesn't obviate that.
The repositories mentioned in the post three levels above yours were taken down. There was no arguing back or ignoring.
I am not advocating of getting rid of kindness, and I think that preventing racism is a noble idea. And I'm not obviating a responsibility to avoid offending people by commenters who want to be taken seriously. But in the end, it is nearly impossible to entirely rid yourself of offense. Freedom of speech is necessary for productive environments, and it's been proven that people behave differently and speak differently when they know they're being watched.
There's a difference between attempting to be taken seriously and being disingenuous about who you are and they way you think. I believe in freedom of speech above all.
If I call you a retard it's probably not that insulting to you. But it does cause offence in a large group of other people. And those people were not my target. So the word retard is a suboptimal choice for those two reasons.
The other way to use retard as an insult is to use it against people with a learning disability. I don't think that's what you're defending -- verbal aggression by mostly rich programmers of mostly poor vulnerable people.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion.
My go-to example is generally something along the lines of, religious people might be offended by atheist philosophies. Does that mean atheists should refrain from speaking about their beliefs to avoid potentially offending someone? What about the reverse, should religious people refrain from speaking about religion to avoid offending people of a different (or no) religion?
Or for an example closer to the context of the discussion, is it rude or offensive to argue that a wage gap between men and women doesn't actually exist? Or that employers shouldn't hire women purely based on a need to balance out a gender disparity in their employees?
I'm sure there are plenty of people would be offended by those arguments. Does that mean people should refrain from using them?
Or a simpler example: people who believe vaccines cause autism are extremely stupid and responsible for the death of extremely high numbers of children. To the extent that is legally possible, they should be shamed and ostracized for their dangerous behavior in an attempt to save the lives of vulnerable children.
Actually, the above is two examples. One where I stop after the first sentence, one where I include both. It is extremely offensive to some people, and the second (extended) version even includes a call to action that can be considered outright harmful (but done to reduce what is viewed by those who take the call as a greater harm).
Now in some cases, such as talking to someone who holds an anti-vaxxer view point, being offensive is counter productive. But when calling those already on your side to action, using such wording can motivate and mobilize others in ways that more sanitized language cannot.
> But when calling those already on your side to action, using such wording can motivate and mobilize others in ways that more sanitized language cannot.
Well said, it's hard to convey severity without using severe language.
Well, it does say they "won't act on reverse-racism or reverse-sexism", so, depending on how you interpret that I can see what he's trying to say at least. "Endorses" is strong, but "ignores" would be correct. And one could imply something about the authors of this CoC from that.
If you take action to ban all things in some group A, and then make an explicit exception to not ban some subgroup B, it seems pretty close to endorsing subgroup B. If they had not called the exception, but instead just ignored reports about it, that would seem more like ignoring.
For a comparison, say you have a party at your house that gets out of hand. Too many strangers show up. So you explicitly state that all guests are required to leave. There is a difference between telling some people they can stay (or saying I won't call the cops if you stay, but I'll call the cops on anyone else who stays) and just ignoring the few people who don't leave.
That is generally what reverse racism and reverse sexism is understood to mean. People on either side of the argument, when asked to define those two terms, would give similar definitions.
If anything betrays their political bent, it is that they view this as a negative thing. But the same could be said of those who do not view this as a negative thing.
Honestly I assumed it because his comments just read like a bitter MRA. But if you want, you can click his profile and confirm it for yourself like I did.
"Why do you assume a member who spouts KKK rhetoric is a white person?!?" -okasaki
Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it.
Seems strange to feign ambivalence while still responding to the post in question. If you really "didn't want to get into a shouting match", shouldn't you have just not responded at all?
I just didn't want to get into a point-by-point rebuttal with the original author. I'd rather talk about other things, like why "meritocracy" is a problem. A lot of people are surprised by it, since it seems like a good idea on the face of it.
Regardless of its origin (cf. the etymological fallacy), the term has come not to mean "rule by the adept", but rather rewarding accomplishment and efficiently using people's talents. It is a worthwhile ideal to strive towards regardless of how 'fair' things are in the real world. The complaints about the term are very far fetched, and require a huge number of ideological assumptions to even make sense.
I was tempted to give a perhaps too glib response that it allows them to live in a world where they might possibly be able to benefit from the advances wrought by the more talented, but that doesn't seem to get at your underlying concern.
My personal belief is that those who lacked the opportunities to develop themselves still deserve to live with dignity and full moral consideration, but that doesn't mean we should give them awards or accept their pull requests necessarily. Furthermore, if one apportions them a scarce resource at someone else's expense, I would consider that to be unjust.
I still don't quite get it - meritocracy should invite all to participate and have their contributions considered equally, that's what open source development in this style is about. To say it's not something we should strive for seems ridiculous.
It's a long article, and judging by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes?
I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to begin with, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages.
But the actual article, which I have my doubts you've read, explains this better.
> It's a long article, and by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes?
Sorry, I had read it before. I just didn't really get an opportunity to discuss it.
> I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to get those advantages, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages.
I'm not saying perfect meritocracy is something we have, but it's something we should strive for and act under at least. We shouldn't over or undervalue contributions just because someone is a certain race/gender/etc in my opinion. It's patronizing and to do so seems only to contribute to the problem further.
I think meritocracy is one of those things that seems well-intentioned like "separate but equal" or "don't ask don't tell" which sound like a good thing but in fact make things worse. It tries to fix a problem by ignoring it. You can't fix social disadvantages by pretending they don't exist. They exist for everything we do, including writing code.
> You can't fix social disadvantages by pretending they don't exist.
The goal of an open source project should not be to fix social disadvantages but to produce the best possible product. They do this best via meritocracy, accepting contributions happily from anyone and choosing the best of them, not by rewarding or punishing people for things which they cannot change. Doing so makes the resulting product worse as you're not getting the best code from the best people, but instead discriminating on other factors unrelated to your end goal.
Is it really "racist" or "sexist" to say this? Is it not the truth?
The goal of an open source project should not be to fix social disadvantages but to produce the best possible product.
Why? Lots of open source projects have social goals; for example, there's the Debian Social Contract, the Mozilla Manifesto, and Ubuntu is itself named after an humanitarian philosophy. These goals often override technical quality: Debian will rather ship a more buggy and incomplete FOSS software than one which doesn't comply with the Social Contract.
These are some hilariously bad examples. Every Debian user I know adds repositories which violate the social contract, for proprietary drivers, codecs, etc. Ubuntu, while it's named after a humanitarian concept removed this for this very reason: it goes against making the best product possible. I'd argue that most people prefer an OS without said social restrictions and I think Ubuntu is evidence of it rather than evidence against it. That said, most of the restrictions in the things you've listed are technical or legal in nature and _do_ actually have to do with the resulting product rather than unrelated social disadvantages. The Debian social contract simply states "no discrimination" which is certainly in line with meritocracy in my view of it at least.
To answer why: because people want quality software and political agendas are a niche at best. There are much better places to address such things.
Well, now you know one Debian user that doesn't have repositories in his machine that violate the social contract, and while I'm not a purist, the Social Contract is actually a significant part of why I like and support Debian.
I don't agree with the notion that you can neatly separate "politics" from the rest of your life. Every action that you do which affects others is inherently political, and publicly distributing software is no different. By just following along, one is simply weakly supporting the status quo - which might be fine, but should be consciously chosen nevertheless.
Regarding whether I want worse software because of my political opinions, it's not really relevant what I want; I do consider having social goals as a valid position for an open source / free software project.
> By just following along, one is simply weakly supporting the status quo - which might be fine, but should be consciously chosen nevertheless.
I am not supporting the status quo, I am simply supporting the best possible software we can produce. And I don't believe we produce that by rewarding or punishing people based on factors they can't change. This is not a matter of "following along", this is a matter of using the best people to the best of their abilities, regardless of these factors.
Well, yes and no. Imagine the opposite situation, where ImaginaryDB is revealed to have made a sweeping genocide possible. I doubt there would be an instant rush to switch DBs, but over time, I would bet many people would use something else. I would like to think that ethics are a part of every human endeavor (we're not quite there yet, unfortunately).
> where ImaginaryDB is revealed to have made a sweeping genocide possible.
Freedom 0 according to the FSF is the freedom to use the software for any purpose (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html). Genocide included. I don't see why that would make anyone switch unless the authors publicly said "yes, we support this genocide".
Software is a tool, plain and simple. A better example right now would be Tor or Bitcoin. People aren't flocking away from those for their use in crimes...
But not overtly so. It seems ill-intentioned to some of us today, but consider the people who were in favour of it:
"We are not mistreating them! We are treating them equally. We are keeping the races separate because [whatever reason], but nobody is being mistreated. We are being well-intentioned and everyone can still have equality."
The people who believed and supported separate-but-equal were genuinely thinking they were well-intentioned. They thought it was a good and necessary thing.
She obviously was not socially disadvantaged (as many people in inner cities, etc are), since she had a decent paying developer position at GitHub.
Perhaps, just perhaps...instead of spending time dealing with the rug, she could have brushed up on her coding skills (since someone else had to fix her coding defects for her)?
Overcoming social disadvantage requires some work, you know.
> She obviously was not socially disadvantaged (as many people in inner cities, etc are), since she had a decent paying developer position at GitHub.
She might not be socially disadvantaged with respect to inner city dwellers, but she's still socially disadvantaged with respect to men.
Please don't make me reiterate all of the things that women have to put up with and men don't, especially in tech. Just because she got a job does not mean that we've solved patriarchy.
She's not evidently incompetent. She apparently wrote some bugs. We all write bugs.
You are a bit too antagonistic and you sound too emotional in your responses. Please be more charitable. I am not able to respond well to such an unfriendly tone.
I think a lot of people are opposed to sexism or racism precisely because they undermine meritocracy. If you take away fairness or meritocracy as a goal, you are left with chauvinism, supremacy, and tribalism masquerading as their opposites.
Remember that the symbol for gay pride, the Pink Triangle, was branding used by Nazi Germany to denote rapists, sex offenders, and gays for gas chambers and labor camps. It was not meant to have positive connotations.
What I meant here is that we should not lose sight of the original idea behind meritocracy. The author of The Rise of the Meritocracy was arguing that a meritocracy becomes a clique who defines what "merit" means. If you do not think there is any merit in being nice to others, you end up defending toxic behaviours under the guise of justice and equality.
This list is weak. There really isn't anything there. None of these were actually major fiascos and most of them have nothing to do with hosting code.
I'm actually glad that they removed the satirical language repo and the one that used the word `retarded` and I don't believe that anybody actually endorses anti-white racism or anti-male sexism. You should feel bad for spreading that around.
I'm sorry, but anti-white racism and anti-male sexism aren't real things. Sexism is clearly a thing, as shown by your very sexist comment. Stop making HN an unsafe place for women.
The same "facts" could have been stated in a very different way. For example, I could tell the story like this:
"An employee complained about sexual harassment at Github. The confirmation of some of her accusations by an independent investigator led the CEO to step down."
The only references to sexual harrasment I found in OPs post was:
> She accused the company of sexism and sexual harassment (independent investigator found none, and other female Github engineers said there was nothing wrong)
> JAH also complained of terrible sexual harassment - that is, men looking at women spinning hula hoops. Women did not complain, but JAH got offended on their behalf anyway.
Are these not facts? Were "men looking at women spinning hula hoops" and this other individual brought it to someone's attention as sexual harassment?
> I'm sorry, but anti-white racism and anti-male sexism aren't real things.
Even by the narrow "power plus prejudice" definition this is false; this is pretty readily observable, in the first instance, in lots of contexts where whites are not in a position of power (even in localized contexts embedded in broader societies where whites are in a position of power.)
They may be less significant in modern American society because of the general power distribution in the overall society and therefore the most common power distribution in particular contexts embedded within that society, but that's very different than not being real things.
There's no anti-white racial oppression going on (in the US; may differ by region). There may be instances of anti-white racial discrimination.
There's no anti-male sexist oppression going. There may be instances of anti-male sexist discrimination (eg. assuming that male kindergarten teachers are child molesters).
Two different definitions of sexism and racism.
Depending on the definition of racism and sexism, the "anti-white" and "anti-male" variants may exist or not. Please don't assume that your definition (which seems to be of the "oppression" kind) is universal.
Exactly. It's an outrage machine, people who participate mostly want to get their daily fix of feeling that they're fighting for a good cause - and if you lay low for a few days or a couple of weeks, few if any will be persistent enough to bug you after that, as the focus will shift elsewhere.
You may or may not want to issue a polite and carefully-worded statement, but don't cave in - something like "we've heard you and understand your position, thanks for letting us know".
It might be different when the issue is used in intra-project political fight (like two companies competing for control over the project), but for your average Twitter raid that should be enough.
Do not engage further, do not fight them, they are just self-righteous trolls - so, just don't feed them.
I believe he was referring to the top two receivers, Shanley [1] and Ashe[2].
These two are a part of the group of very aggressive feminists; there's no official 'group' to speak of (AFAIK), just a network of people supporting each other.
Just to give a few names - Alex Gaynor (member of PSF board), Jacob Kaplan-Moss (yep, Django ex-BDFL), Coda Hale (HN/codahale, see his last messages here on HN [3], they're just about Shanley and Gittip), HN/steveklabnik, etc etc
A few highlights by Shanley:
"Men are rapists" [4]
HN's Sam Altman reaches out to women asking what he could do; Shanley reacts: "i'm not insulting you, i'm fucking EDUCATING you. so shut the fuck up and/or pay me, preferably both." [5], while refusing to do anything for HN, not even meeting anyone in person [6]
They've been either involved or voiced (shouted, actually) their support to whoever was involved in recent scandals with feminism - Adria Richards @ PyCon (I believe Alex Gaynor helped to make this event as public as possible), pronoun scandal (Alex Gaynor, again, was the author of RP that started the whole thing), Paul Graham misquote (Jacob KM speaks out [7])... I could go on.
But, basically, a bunch of very aggressive people, who claim to work on solving the problems women face, but actually (IMO) are just making the whole thing worse.
And, back to the subject, seeing them on top of gittip definitely doesn't help the project. Which is said, that's a great idea and I loved it when I saw it.
PS Oh, this just in. Shanley on how companies can increase diversity: "Hire me to be your diversity consultant I will help you quickly close down your business to make room for better ones"
First, I think that last tweet is actually pretty funny. What's wrong with a little black humor?
Also, because of the Torvalds mention earlier in this thread, I thought it'd be interesting to compare the people you mention here to him. Almost all of them look quite tame when you compare their behavior to Torvalds's. Kane's online persona does run toward being a jerk, and is probably the only one that could stand toe-to-toe with Torvalds in terms of brashness and hostility.
So why do these "very aggressive" people bother you so much, when Torvalds is generally seen as something of a hero? Are you willing to rate Torvalds's behavior as being just as "toxic" as theirs? The fictional QA report you describe in a later post actually sounds quite a lot like some stuff Torvalds has written. Do you have a similarly dutifully-annotated post in storage that details all of Torvalds's sins? Does his behavior set OSS back in the same way you claim these people set their communities back?
Maybe we should start referring to Torvalds as a "very aggressive programmer" ...
Note: I realize this post relies quite a bit on things I can't know. "ta140604" may very well think Torvalds is just as problematic as the people he discusses here. The point is to add a little context, and give you something to chew on the next time you see a post like this, where "a wild pseudonym appears!" expressly to smear a group of people that question the status quo. Yes, it's entirely likely that these people are all huge jerks. Most of us are jerks. But why are we so concerned with the fact that they, specifically, are jerks, when we don't give a shit about it in most everyone else?
Agreed. The problem is, they exaggerate and twist the truth, spread hate, unnecessarily antagonizing people, and actively push away those who try to reach out to them trying to do something.
Exactly: people like @shanley and @ashedryden make money by polarizing and then profiting from the resulting flames of their gender argument, and so vigorously resist even talking to those that they accuse and condemn. It's the type of narcissistic intolerance that is rarely seen in such pure form.
The logic here is rather straightforward: to a 'stage4' narcissist, their opinions are the functional equivalent of absolute truths, and therefore it is sacrilegious to even imply that they be 'open for debate'. So if anyone persists in challenging one of their sermons,that person is either grossly ignorant (solution => RTFM) OR is intentionally 'attacking' or 'harassing' (because there is no gray area to debate for the histrionically 'self-deified' -- it's impossible to debate across parallel 'Absolutes' -"God does not play dice";)
Heck, at this stage of ferment, she is all but accusing (the almost freakishly fair minded) Chad of misogyny :D
My advice to GitTip: 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. You had a great year, so proceed cautiously with any systemic changes, and error on the side of transparency. Keep conversations as open as possible because the real solution to 'Bad' Speech -- is more speech.
The only exception to that rule is personally threatening language, which should not be tolerated at all. And only a coward would resort to that low level of action.
But with that being said lets not construe honest disagreements that are substantiated with reasons -- as a personal attack or a cause to feel 'threatened'.
And as far as funding goes: except for clear cases of fraud, let people decide for themselves where they want their money to go -- and let transparency take care of the rest :)
P.S. They are using flame throwers on twitter about this thread -- when they should be replying here :D (twitter is a better place to polarize with out of context 'headlines')
I don't agree that any of that is a problem. It's not their responsibility to help you do the right thing any more than it's a (again with the theme) QA person's job to teach the programmer proper coding practice. Separation of concerns, if you will.
If we go on with your analogy, QA report would look as follows: "Your piece of shit program burned down the whole fucking server farm, you useless assclown! You belong in jail!", where the real bug was maybe a crash. That's not a good, or even acceptable QA report, I'd say.
Look, if you think saying "men are rapists" is not a problem, there's not much to discuss here. Before that point I had my doubts - okay, they're self-righteous hateful hypocrites, but maybe they're right? I DO know there are problems that women face - maybe they know something I don't, and I should try harder and listen to them?
After that I just noped out.
And, BTW, their inability to reflect on their action, admit mistakes and apologize is another huge red flag. (I haven't seen any examples, at least - please let me know if you have any, I'd be very glad to see them)
Repeated errors have certainly received bug reports of a similar tone. In the context of QA I'd say that saying someone belongs in jail would be seen as humor and sarcasm, so that part doesn't really hold for me.
That said, I really don't see any nuance or indication that you were an ally before someone said "men are rapists," tbh. "Men are rapists" is an extreme statement, but "hateful hypocrites" isn't. Gotcha.
If you're going to "nope out" that easily, maybe you don't have much to offer. I don't know, you just sound like you're lecturing people in absentia. "Admit your mistake!" the principal says. Reading some Foucault might help here.
Your digging deep if you grab a github documentation PR as an example of how these people are making problems facing women in technology worse.
It's doubtful that you understand the issues women face and it's even more doubtful that you are able to measure the impact of anyone's efforts towards addressing those problems. Most importantly, it's clear you do not care in the slightest about helping women so your motivation in taking this thread about gittip off-topic is about attacking women.
You are a spineless coward hiding behind an anonymous ID tearing down a couple of women who are at least trying to make the world a better place. There is no way that your efforts could be construed as anything close to helping anyone. For some reason, they threaten you. Sort it out.
Unless you have anything to actually prove that Shanley, Ashe, whomever else you named in this thread, are "making the whole things worse", please be so kind and keep your hate to yourself.
PS. The only thing the tweets you quoted prove is that Shanley, on top of everything, has a sense of humor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_females
"In a 2000 research article from the Home Office, in England and Wales, around 1 in 20 women (5%) said that they had been raped at some point in their life from the age of 16 beyond.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_males
"The same study found that approximately 1 in 21 men had been made to penetrate someone else, usually an intimate partner or acquaintance."
This is completely in line with original claim, "have been forced into sexual intercourse against their will". Wiki page does call this rape when it comes to women, but not when it comes to men.