Could you be specific? I am having a hard time connecting his dislike for SJWs to any danger of COC violations. This all just seems political intolerance to me.
How is being anti-social justice as a philosophical stance exclude one from working within the bounds of a CoC?
Social justice as an ideology is deeply flawed and runs counter to liberal democratic principles. Every CoC I've seen is just rules for engaging on an open source project. Clearly one could oppose a philosophy and abide by the terms of a CoC. A CoC isn't about policing people, but about civility and rules of engagement for a specific thing.
I would like clarity, as it seems like you are saying that that CoCs are exactly the ideological purity test and purge the detractors like to claim they are, but that seems uncharitable.
Some of us do not accept "this person has said [thing considered objectionable] and therefore should not be allowed to talk about [unrelated topic] even if they perfectly follow the guidelines of the relevant event."
The question is what kind of effect they have on the audience. If someone uses exclusionary language in front of a diverse community that can be really destructive.
Something else to consider though, the amount of contempt for ones views that may be unpopular, for me is contrary to a diverse community, in fact disinviting people is exactly the opposite of being inclusive. I’m unsure how you can have a diverse community without having people who aren’t always inclusive, by trying to weed them out you inherently become what you lament. No?
That excuse just does not work. Who are these fragile people who would be destroyed by Bob Martin's thoughts on programming? And why are they more important than all the other people who would want to listen to a guy that has been successfully writing software longer than almost anyone still working?
What? His remark regarding racial bias is reasonable and should not be grounds for barring from talking about programming in any sane, free society. We are going insane here. This isn't going to work, there is going to be a huge backlash and no one is going to take this SJW stuff seriously anymore.
If I invited a dozen guests to a party at my house and half of them objected to having #7 on the guest list because he's a shitbag, it would not bother me one bit to have him disinvited.
If, on the other hand, I myself were disinvited in such a manner, my first thought would be to reassess my recent behavior rather than suing the house owner.
Of course, when faced with a few loud complainers, you would never consider yourself to be right, and them wrong. You would recognize the folly of your ways, and the wisdom of the crowd that was right all along.
What if your party took place 80 years ago, in Berlin, and you invited a dozen guests, half of them were Nazi and objected to your invitation of the 7th for being a Jewish sympathizer? Would it bother you to disinvite him? And would you reassess your recent behavior if you were the one disinvited?
What if the other six had enough plutonium on them to collectively trigger a nuclear blast? What if one of the Nazis had super powers and wasn't fully committed to the Reich's agenda? What if this comment goes on forever, listing increasingly ridiculous scenarios?
To answer your particular hypothetical question: I can't say for certain, but I sure hope that yes, it would bother me to disinvite that person in that situation. But I don't see how your post relates to the topic at hand.
EDIT: Looks like whilst I was writing the below (underneath the dashes) the parent did post a couple of links (thank you!). I'll leave what I originally said unedited because I don't think it's particularly controversial. However, having read them, I do have some additional comments on the links.
On the race situation, I disagree with Uncle Bob (link: https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...), and I think what he's written is ill-advised and ill-thought through. At the same time I don't see disinviting him or deplatforming him to be a worthwhile approach. Dialogue would be a better option.
On the sexism situation (link: https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...), maybe I'm tired, but I couldn't quite get my head around what the piece was saying. There seems to be a paragraph quoted from Uncle Bob in there that suggests he's not being sexist. Frankly neither Uncle Bob nor the author rebutting him seem like the clearest communicators in this situation. I find the whole thing a bit unseemly but it also seems like it's not strong enough evidence to say Uncle Bob is definitively sexist.
It's also worth pointing out that prejudice is not binary. People who are sexist or racist in some aspect of their psyche or attitudes don't always manifest that in the same way, to the same degree, and to the same "out groups".
At the moment our response seems to be that anyone who's even a little bit prejudiced, or even appears like they might be prejudiced, about any "out-group" should be absolutely crucified without mercy. That's ridiculous and is a product of corrupted thinking.
There is a clear and significant difference between the murder of George Floyd, for which the perpetrator will rightly be tried according to due process, and somebody saying something online that's naive, somewhat ignorant, and hasn't been thought through properly (and is therefore tone-deaf).
At the moment our tendency seems to be to want to treat both of these extremes as the same. All that's doing is deepening the divisions, mistrust, and alienation within our societies. This is not a good outcome for any of us.
--------
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:
Well this, right here, is the problem.
Some weeks back I became tangentially aware that Uncle Bob had become persona non grata and I tried to find out what he'd actually said[0]. I'll grant you I didn't spend that long on it, but I did spend a good 5 minutes Googling when I arguably had better things to do, and didn't find anything.
However, if you're going to make vague allegations somebody's behaviour the ABSOLUTE LEAST YOU CAN DO is cite some examples (with links) of where this person has behaved as alleged. Not second-hand accounts: what they've actually said on their blog or social media or wherever.
If the content has been deleted then a credible news source that includes screenshots of the original content is fine. But what you shouldn't be doing is posting nothing to back up your allegations.
[0] I've never been a close follower of Uncle Bob's because he's mostly known (as far as I'm aware) for being a huge proponent of agile and I'm... well, let's just say that like a lot of people I'm somewhat over it and have been for many years.
The woke movement is about power. It’s like “Anonymous” with better PR/public perception (good initial purpose, then it becomes a nom-de-guerre that anyone can take up)
People who choose to perform its language claim it’s about racial or gender outcomes. “Saints” lead the way in pursuing meaningful change, “believers” follow them.
Then, when “sociopaths” figure out how to use the blessed language to for _personal_ (or in-group) power grabs (and destory livelihoods in the process), one should call the followers “useful idiots”.
I see Uncle Bob doing a poor job of sympathetically articulating potential (or realized) issues with the moment*. And using words that aren’t from the right tribal dictionary. But I see respondents avoiding substantive responses and trying to tar and feather him for word choice. Cardinal Richelou’ing him.
> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. [1]
Your claim is bold and your proof is lacking.
You won't be spared because you agree (or claim to). I hope your performative martyrdom here satisfies you, because your imagined allies Do. Not. Care.
People acting like bad NLP software. Finding banned words instead of constructing parse trees.
Thank you for being clear about the backing of your claims. I find them thin.
This response is hardly site-guidelines worthy. Sorry.
And now when he was told he had said some things that make people uncomfortable, his public reaction was threatening to sue. He'd rather attack, than stop and understand why he is becoming persona non grata.
Co-opting the language of victimhood (in the blog post, but also for Sonmez https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/118636551396805017... ) to support and perpetuate toxic behaviour in himself and other people in the software industry is just one reason why "Uncle" Bob Martin shouldn't be given a platform by any conference. There are plenty more deserving people who can talk instead.
There is nothing in what you posted that makes Bob Martin a sexist. He should attack, no one should kowtow to this self righteous mob. Its only cowardliness that is giving these people power.
