How are White Supremacists not your political enemies, and why are you so concerned about their feelings?

And why are you advocating driving away minorities and anti-racist people from working on the Linux kernel by tolerating White Supremacists in violation of the Linux Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, who consider other human beings genetically inferior and not deserving of the same rights and respect as white people? Are you ok with rapists and murderers, too, or do you just have a special place in your heart for defending White Supremacy?

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...

>Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

>The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

>Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

>Public or private harassment

>Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

>Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

White Supremacy is clearly inappropriate in a professional setting. Or do you disagree? Do you have a dog in this battle? Can you name any White Supremacist kernel hackers who the community can't get along without?

You really need to take a deep look at yourself, and decide which side of history you're on. Advocating and defending White Supremacy online could and should have detrimental effect on your employability. Do you stand by your beliefs enough to share your real name with us, or do you insist on remaining anonymous?

> How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing?

You don't really believe driving out the alt-right white supremacists would result in a smaller overall community, do you? They're a small group that has an outsized ability to repel other people.

What are you talking about? Are you even responding to the right message?

Tell me please, what are my secretly held preconceptions exactly, and how do you know that?

By writing double quotes around the sentence "It's about marginalized people." you are clearly claiming that I said that, which I absolutely did not. When and where do you claim that I say that?

Why are you deceptively trying to attribute a quote to me that I didn't say?

Do you have no better argument than blatantly misquoting me to make a straw man to attack?

I mean one way to do it would be that when someone brings up a specific term that they feel is a problem, we decide to change the term or not, and if we choose not to, we can revisit later.

If someone brings up that they feel the verb abort is an issue, the community can have that conversation. There are no shortage of idioms that are synonymic -- halt, stop, terminate, end -- and it would be trivial to make the changes if it came to that. Either the decision will be to replace with another idiom, or to keep the existing one.

If Linux had never used master/slave, and instead used primary/secondary, no one would open up a discussion to say "replace primary with master, primary is unclear and too much work to type" or whatever. So clearly there's no obligation to use the disputed terms, just as there wouldn't be for "abort". Are you hung up on using "abort"?

Like, we don't need some cosmic answer once and for all about whether or not ever possible term will ever be offensive. We can just respond to people who bring the issues up. If they seem to be bringing it up in bad faith (for example, if the username is "DefendTheWestGroyper" and they have an anime avatar, probably you don't need to take them seriously) then that can be part of the conversation too.

If this is the worst bikeshedding you're experiencing in a team project then you've got an uncommonly productive group. But also you can just opt out of the conversation. If you try to submit a PR later with a banned word in it, someone will flag it. The consequences on the code side seem de minimis.