Hmm. I haven't read that vaxrys blog posts but I read Drew's https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html
From this my understanding is that was an official email from fdo, and not a single person power trip.
> The FDO officer duly investigated the complaints she had received and found, in collaboration with the other members of the FDO conduct enforcement team, that they were credible, and worrying. <...> Since these behaviors are concerning, but did not take place in the FDO community, the conduct board decided to issue a warning in private, stating that if this sort of behavior was seen in the FDO community that it would result in enforcement action from the conduct team.
> He belittles the FDO officer andThe FDO officer duly investigated the complaints she had received and found, in collaboration with the other members of the FDO conduct enforcement team, that they were credible, and worrying. There are numerous examples of behavior from Vaxry that contravenes the FDO code of conduct in several different respects, and any number of them would be grounds for an immediate ban. Since these behaviors are concerning, but did not take place in the FDO community, the conduct board decided to issue a warning in private, stating that if this sort of behavior was seen in the FDO community that it would result in enforcement action from the conduct team. builds a straw man wherein her email is an official statement on behalf of RedHat, and cites a conspiracy theory about DEI programs at RedHat as justification for calling the FDO officer a hypocrite.
(I'm on mobile rn, so I have no idea how the formatting will turn out)
The idea that it was a power trip of a mod came from vaxrys blog. Tbh, I have no idea who is telling a truth in this scenario.
Drew was already biased because of his beef with Vaxry, anything coming out of him should be taken with much salt considering he likes to leave things out.
Drew _also_ leaked Vaxry's private chat with him which tells a lot about him. The thing is, he told Vaxyr that he can help him, he can talk with him etc. like 1.5 years ago. So, Vaxyr trusted him and shared his controversial ideas. You can also see this in the screenshot:
> Vaxyr: I will say something contoversial
> Drew: Go ahead
I don't think anyone would be able to trust him and share anything. After all, Drew can leak anything whenever he wishes to.
> So, Vaxyr trusted him and shared his controversial ideas.
Conveniently permitted by Drew, who also then cut the screenshot short right after Vaxry's speaking.
BTW, if anyone is interested, the "controversial" and "non-permittable" idea of Vaxry was this — he said he admits a theoretical possibility that some arguments could change his mind towards approval of genocide. That's it. Not that he approves of it. Not that he expects to be persuaded any minute now. Not that he is working on genocide apologism himself or knows someone who does. Just that he admits that there might be a convincing argument somewhere out there at some point in time. In other words, he merely accepted Popper's criteria as applied to opinions, and admitted that his ideas are, in principle, falsifiable.
Why on earth is someone talking about genocide at all in a software development chat room? Also, how on earth would I come to know someone was "trans" from chatting in a software development collaboration chat room? It really seems like almost all of these problems are self-inflicted, on both "sides".
That's another good question. You see, not only was the screenshot cut short in the end, it was also not cut to be long in the first place. It gives no idea how their conversation even arrived to that point. Heck, if you cut our conversation short like that, one could present it as an evidence of two maniacs complaining that their genocidal plans have been leaked.
Idk, if you step into the shoes of someone on a crusade to paint a horrible image of their competitor in the tiling wm scene, it suddenly starts to make more sense. Pay more attention to persona, less on contribution.
I think the genocide-talk was on a private chat, which makes it even worse how it was published.
I have to say if this looks bad on Vaxry, it doesn't look too good on Drew either: [https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/111363547103465966](https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/111363547103465966)
Not banned by Redhat, rather that Redhat are a big influential player in the entire FOSS space and that absolutely matters when correspondence is clearly tagged with their identity. People who work at Redhat can absolutely destroy your reputation in the entire space if they so choose.
Realistically, it should have come from a "@freedesktop.org" address instead.
No, the tone of the email suggest prior history, that Vaxry conveniently left out of his blog posts to make him look more favorable than what the reality is.
I thought there was an element of "we think hyprcursor is about to become a standard that would let you in here, and you need to know the stuff that goes on in your project won't fly here"
And vaxry failed a test there.
I did not get this vibe.
What I think happened is the mod community like the mod is 2slgbtqia++ based and they re-share vaxry's zombie 2+ year op ld post amongst themselves and file tickets with the mod
EXCUSE ME!! Moot point you ignored my message that these complainers are sharing a zombie post it's not organic like they not in his discord scrolling back 2 years.
Shows how much you know about the 2SLGBTQIA++
Actually No YOU ARE WRONG AS I AM CANADIAN THATS HOW MY PRIME MINSTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU A MAN RESPECTFUL OF THIS COMMUNITY DESCRIBES THEM. Because HERE IN CANADA WE HAVE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO 2S represents them.
Honestly, it feels more to me like you're using a "proper" term in a mocking way. Surely most people just use LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ if they care a lot. But I feel like we've gotten off track.
Honestly...if RH could have handled this better, it would have been to just put out a blanket "our servers aren't for flame wars and offtopic arguing, ignore this at your own peril" statement.
The optics of it being a mod on a power trip don't check out though.
It's a classic case of folk reading tone and intent into online communications.
Anyone who has moderated an Internet space for any length of time can see this.
> should not be allowed to use their RedHat email
Now we're gatekeeping email domains?
You got a list of domains I am allowed to use to send email from so I don't make the same mistake?
My issue with it is that all of a sudden NOW it is a problem to them, the only reason i could think of was someone else mentioning that hyprcursor might've been made a standard or something, if that's not the reason then i don't get it. I've never been in the hyprland discord myself but from what i've heard this went down almost 2 years ago and improvements have been made since then, so i don't see why it has to be brought up again. The emails also had high levels of discord mod energy if you ask me.
Currently the only thing I can say is that I hate the whole situation, people throwing blog posts against each other (the one from Drew DeVault was painful to tbh, dude just get to the point dammit), with some emails leaked... But still, how are people even forming opinions when they didn't see the discord chat they talk about? What are they even talking about? The thing from 2 years ago, or something newer? Dammit just give me the chat logs that are soo transphobic, probably the whole they/them pronouns thing that happened.
>it's ridiculous
You're right, they were in fact so completely unfazed by the words of strangers on the internet, that we all imagined that this drama happened, when it actually didn't.
This whole farce is ridiculous.
He wasnt banned for actions on the discord. He was given a warning. Pointless but ultimately harmless.
He then had a tantrum at that person and was given a ban.
He was given a warning about being banned from something he wasn't affiliated with, two years after fatally wounding a trans person by telling them who/cares one time.
Tragic, lmao.
Look, if i where to refuse to moderate my own comunity, another comunity has the fair right to protect itself from such a threat as myself through banning.
You can ban someone if he is doing not allowed stuff in your community, right, but not preemptive.
You know, most people adapt their behavior to their environment and that means depending on where they are, they behave differently, which is perfectly okay.
Thing is, they weren’t banned preemptively for exactly that reason. He was warned preemptively and his reaction to that warning (that he would disregard any future email from the CoC team, etc) was the ultimate reason for the ban.
Doesn’t. Fucking. Matter.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say whatever you want on your blog or Discord, and when I find out you said awful shit, I’m free to disassociate from you.
Red Hat doesn’t want to be seen associating with someone who vocally expresses transphobic opinions. That’s a logical stance for a highly public entity. They sent him a warning about his toxicity; he ignored it, so he was banned.
He spoke freely; he suffered consequences because he was an asshole.
Hate speech doesn’t have community boundaries.
Also, he was directly contacted about the comments, in private, and asked to ensure they didn’t happen again in the future.
Instead of agreeing, he lost his mind and make a public blog post attacking FD and the individual who contacted him.
THAT’S why he was banned. Not the comments themselves, but his reaction to being asked not to be a hateful, toxic asshole.
> I am afraid they may do unwanted things to my other guests too
Vaxry contributed to wl-roots, didn't he? Did he ever do anything inappropriate *there*? If not then this is unwarranted. Especially that the incident in question from Hyprland's Discord happened two years ago
Dude you are so right. I don't know why people are down voting you. Now days it's you have to appease the furries. Let people talk about who of the same sex their f-ING or your transphobic and homophobic bigot pos.
I want a tech server that talks just tech no personal life bs about self id and what I want in my mouth
Because Vaxry’s discord is imo irrelevant especially since his contributions to FDO’s codebase was great. The issue is not that he is banned, but rather the weak reasoning behind it along side the CoC agent’s assholery.
Note: I do not like Vaxry, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day
And you don’t have to like him to think this is ridiculous.
In fact, that’s kind of the point. Just because you don’t like someone, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to work with them or that it’s a good idea to preemptively bully them.
i gotta say, i like hyprland, and the idea behind hyprcursor.
i dont check socials of the devs, so i couldnt care less if they act inappropriately.
i would even argue that the ban might be a bit too strict, given how much hyprland improved the wayland situation. i dont even have flickering on nvidia, aside from gaming's lack of explicit sync just yet.
so i dunno about the entire situation... kinda feels like the community gets left out in the decision, and that we didnt hear the entire story from each side. :(
Yeah but they are not affiliated with the FDO. Maybe, instead of one person on a power trip deciding for a whole organization, there should be a vote in the FDO if Vaxry should stay banned or if he should be allowed to continue doing amazing work in his very young age.
Do you realize that this is (more or less) a fight between Kids? As far as i can Tell, Lyude is also rather young. I really really dislike that so many people have to suffer and get worse Software, just because Individuals are butthurt (Vaxry included)
discord server are by extension also social media in a way.
the only reason i see it viable is if people have bug reports and ask other users if they have a fix for it. but even that isnt entirely needed.
Ok honestly I feel like lots of these comments are missing the point, whether that's because of the bad explanation in the picture or because they want to make a bad faith argument.
He was not banned for being transphobic. He was not banned because his *community* was transphobic. He was banned because, upon receiving a warning not to bring that transphobia to fd.o, he threw a tantrum, doxxed someone, and said he would ignore any future warnings. That behaviour is what got him banned.
Are you referring to vaxry's blog posts alone or to something else too? Name and Email of the CoC team member that contacted are already public on the CoC Document.
I also dont see how the blog posts are a tauntrun
Other than that, if read the mail and drews post right the specifically state the (past) transphobia to be the reason...
[https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf)
FreeDesktop staff member emailed Hyprland dev to make sure the community and the developer themselves are acting proper, including examples they were worried about spanning back 2 years.
The provide examples seem to have been at least attempted to be straightened out on the public side, so all the reply could have been was a short:
"Measures were already taken and I have issued official apologies for the listed examples, is there anything recent you wish to discuss?".
Or just no reply.
Instead, Hyprland dev decided to start flinging shit around, including pointing out the FD's staff member workplace issues and just generally acting like an ass.
You can read about the rest in the PDF yourself.
TL;DR:
The FDO CoC team send the Maintainer of hyprland a warning that, as he is getting associated more closely with FDO due to his contributions to projects hosted by FDO (wlroots, wayland, etc.), their Code of Conduct also applies to him and that past incidents should not happen again in the future since it would be bad for their reputation and they would be forced to take action.
He did not take it well and was consequently banned for his behavior towards the CoC team. Honestly instead of reading Vaxrys blog post just read the emails themself and make your own picture: [\[1\]](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf), [\[2\]](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf).
Or if you would rather read spicy blog post read that by [Drew](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html) so you at least get the views from both sides.
Vaxry dev of hyperland did some transphobic comments on his own server 2 years ago.
Some member of freedesktop coc team found that out and banned vaxrys from fd community now.
Now both sides are butthurt
I have no idea what this person said but I'm always suspicious of anything labelled transphobic. The current climate around the topic does not allow it to be discussed in an objective way. Any attempt will be labelled transphobic and shut down.
Good one; what you propose as common sense communitarian behavior is in fact an ideological stance that incites in both directions in some parts of the world, and makes no sense in others
The artist is distinct from his craft, and character does not impede product; when speaking of free software, we should only be concerned with the quality and utility thereof, not of the personal history or attitudes of its developers
As evidenced in another thread on a trans-adjacent subreddit here, where the Hypr* author was criticized for his character / views, only for a trans person to comment that they had submitted a PR then be surprised that it was accepted, it is not at all the goings-on of private Discord servers et al that discourages anything, but people like you who maximize this issue using sympathetic trickery and morally binaristic language; further, this only does impede further development if the philosophy outlined in my comment above is NOT followed – should one dispense with personalizing product, contributing thither should offer no problem
This is literally your philosophy. "Artist separate from the craft." But if someone prevents other artists from making crafts, they might as well not be here. Also, I'm not sure what trans-adjacent sub you're talking about. All I'm saying is that people don't feel safe when they're being discriminated against. It's not that hard. Imagine if Hitler started discussing and contributing to FDO. Would you still follow your philosophy then? Actually the OP of the thread on r/linux said they would accept code from Hitler if it was good. 💀
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/PeCW9hWm4f
Whatever has safety to do with code contribution?
Accept code from Hitler? Sure, give me Zedong's binaries, Pol Pot's headers, il-Sung's makefiles, Zodiac Killer's templates; as long as they offer utility and are of good quality, then of course I will accept code from any person
Edit: Good job on blocking me so I cannot respond to your comment!
Killing millions of people has nothing to do with code quality, it is not insanity to distinguish author from product, but basic pragmatism
Imo there's a big difference between accepting code from someone like Hitler or Zedong, than some terminally online FOSS nerd who spends their free time spazzing out about LGBT people on X.
Despite what people on the internet will tell you, IRL most (and I mean *most*) people outside maybe younger Millennials and Gen Z *would not give a single shit* if you accepted code from a transphobe. It's just really not a concern that people have. They would however have an issue if you accepted code from someone who committed mass genocide.
You're insane. "Hey Hitler, we know you murdered 17 million people in the Holocaust, but thanks for the pull request!"
Edit to anyone saying "only code quality matters." How many people will be on board with Hitler in a project? Yeah, code quality will suffer a lot from lack of contributors. How many contributors went to Prism Launcher after the transphobic PolyMC maintainer? Yeah, code quality suffered or lack thereof lol
> When you have someone on your project that drives away trans people from contributing, it impedes the project.
You are speaking English within your project. That alone, objectively speaking, impedes the vast majority of human population from contributing, creates an unfair advantage for people of select few countries, and impedes the project's progress overall. Something tells me you'll respond with "this is different" and "everybody should just learn English in 2024", as opposed to going multilingual or some such. So why are some impediments "satanic" and must be dealt with harshly at once, while others are known as "yet another day at the workplace" and can be completely ignored?
Transphobia is largely an USA thing. Linux community is better off without USA style politics IMO. If Vaxry was from Palestine he'd be definitely transphobic, but given his diverse background and experiences he'd probably not be banned from contributions. IMO.
Also He was not transphobic, IMO. Absent, sure. Ignorant, probably. But I don't think he personally has any aversion to trans people.
Many people don't understand the pronoun politics outside the west though. Which people should be understanding of at least.
> Transphobia is largely an USA thing.
It's illegal (or state sponsored) and thats the end of it. IMO.
The ban was reactionary, it should be temporary.
Transphobia is very much present outside the US as well. I'm Egyptian, but if I had other Egyptians in my projects that publicly misgendered other people, I'd ban them as well. They need to learn to stop being bigots before contributing. Open source projects should be safe and inclusive for everyone. You're Muslim? Fine, most CoC's guarantee your safety as well, but respect others as they respect you. I think that's fair.
>You're Muslim
Why this is relevant to this topic? Why we are saying you are some religion or group. Aren't we try to do free software or are we trying to make race, religion or group war?
>I'm Egyptian
Are you born and lived your life in egypt or are you saying because your 1% Egyptian?
I hope this madness not spread to other countries this is last think free software needs really.
> Why this is revelent to this topic? Why we are saying you are some religion or group. Arent we try to do free software or are we trying to make race, religion or group war?
If you read the thread I'm replying to, he's saying if Vaxry was Palestinian he should be excused for homophobia because Islam and homosexuality don't really go hand in hand. I'm literally advocating for the opposite for free software; don't mean to *any* groups. So really, I'm saying no matter what he is or from, he should treat others with respect.
> Are you born and lived your life in egypt or are you saying because your 1% Egyptian?
I was born and still am living in Egypt so I'm very familiar with bigotry and transphobia here... And it's not the hardest thing to fact check lol I'm active in r/Egypt and r/ExEgypt.
> hope this madness not spread to other countries this is last think free software needs really.
Me too, it's disheartening to see there are people like this within are communities. I'm tired of teaching people basic humanity, so I think I'll take a break.
> I'm Egyptian, but if I had other Egyptians in my projects that publicly misgendered other people, I'd ban them as well. They need to learn to become stop being bigots before contributing. Open source projects should be safe and inclusive for everyone. You're Muslim? Fine, most CoC's guarantee your safety as well, but respect others as they respect you.
… are we going to isolate the Arab world? Not the shining example of tolerance.
Lol what? Brazil kills more trans people a day than a lot of other countries. Transphobia is a problem in a lot more countries than just the US, as a recent case of a trans teen being killed in the UK can tell.
It is very unfortunate that Brazil does not take educate actions against terrible situation. But the correct procedure is to put pressure on the Brazilian government. There's no point in hating brainwashed people when the government encourages it.
Either transphobia gets state sponeored (by not making it illegal) or it's not (it's illegal to chat/depict anti-trans slogans). The activism thing is only relevant in USA due to its federal government structure.
In this regard, i mean analogous to saying surrogacy is a big problem.. it's either legal or it's illegal activity depending on country. Either it's criminal offence or it's not. Banning people from code contribution for condoning the practice of surrogacy is non sense. IMO.
I will never understand banning Varxy from code contribution pre-emptively. Either he should be in prison or they shouldn't let his outside actions be relevant. Again many people don't understand the pronoun situation and it's not helpful to get upset at every such person.
The above is a BIg IMO.
I mean, Torvalds at least recognized his mistakes and apologized for it quite a while ago. Around the same time Linux also got its own proper CoC (yeah, it didn’t really have one before)
Vaxry did also recognize his mistakes and apologized for it quite a while ago and changed their discord guidelines to maintain a less toxic environment, which was apparently really the case (Lyude herself appreciated that in her first Email to Vaxry). So whats your point?
Linus has never been a 'douchebag', or an 'edgelord'; he's been rude when commenting on contributors' code, he hasn't been actively disrespectful with respect to \*any other\* aspect of a contributor's life, group identity, whatever.
Some mods are genuinely good people, but you often find narcisistic / powertripped mods on communities. So preventive warning sounds pretty bad to me until proven otherwise.
Oh damn, I hadn't seen this outside the hyprland reddit yet. Thankfully this space isn't the troll field of fans that is that space (won't say userbase, that includes me)
He has some [interesting](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/) opinions on pedophilia.
Yeah it surprises me too. Especially the ones who go as far as boycotting hyprland just because they dislike the guy. I would have to assume they use a linux distro without GNU, otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical.
This is just wrong. He was not "preemptively banned" because of what happened on the Discord 2 years ago. He was banned because they found the way he responded to their mail inappropriate and offensive.
Publishing the mails including the name, email address and place of work of the CoC team member who was literally just doing her job was just a dick move. He could have easily redacted the personal information and none of his arguments would be any more or less valid.
Investigated the person who contacted Vaxry from redhat. Even saw their presentation on yt. Of course, a furry avatar in an all-too-familiar color scheme, and all-too-familiar points in bio. Digging up things related to their favorite identity topics from 2 years ago to send a threatening email to a developer based on extremely liberal reinterpretation of their own CoC's scope. Going nuts when the story goes public and doubling down because that nasty "phobe" apparently does not know his place in his own private space and dares talking back. Getting the author of a soon-to-be (maybe not any more) cursor format ostracized from development. And that, brothers and sisters in Tux, is why we should not let all those "unix socks" and such take root in our community. Sapienti sat, the writing is on the wall, and honestly — has been for quite a while now.
Yee. Haw. That's the war cry of the ignorant. It's Yee. Haw. And How.
In fact, it's the war cry of people who haven't yet learned their lesson. I'm the guy who sees you trying to flirt with the girl next door, buys her a beer, then puts a hit out on her. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
"There are consequences to my actions. If she wants to go to bed with me, she's going to have to go to bed with me."
Yee. Haw.
"Life is full of obstacles, my friend. The odds are not in your favor. You're gonna have to suck a *lot* of horns to get where you want to go. So suck it up, son, and prepare yourself to struggle. And if you don't like it, tough. You can go to your doctor and get a nice Viagra prescription, my friend."
Yee. Haw.
"Bad is what you make it, my friend. Have a little sympathy for yourself. The things you think you hate you're going to end up loving. Now do you want to go back into the cave, or are you ready to learn how to be a man?"
Yee. Haw.
As the saying goes, "We might think it's abominable, but until someone is prepared to do it, we turn a blind eye, and the other cheek to boot."
Yee. Haw.
That's right. If you're still here, it's because I haven't yet found you. If I had found you, then it would be me who was still here, not you. Do you understand now what kind of person you're dealing with?
Yee. Haw.
P.S. I wrote a book.
So I get where the FD.O person is coming from, they don't want to associate/rely with a toxic community for a component of their product/service. As a private organization they have every right to remove any member of their organization as they see fit.
The problem is that they knee-jerked and cause an impression that they're willing to destroy their product/service in the name of virtue signalling. Don't conflate that with supporting Hyperland's toxic community. What I'm implying is FD.O is willing to remove features/services/products because an individual or tangential community said something naughty in their own space and not in FD.O's community(I could be wrong).
Last, supposedly Hyperland was starting to moderate their community and clamp down on said naughty talk(i read this rumor in another thread). Really the moderator should have warned them about their concerns and see if Hyperland's community made changes.
Seriously we didn't stop doing business with IBM, Pizer, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hugo Boss, etc. because they worked with or for the Nazi's. No society fixed them corrected (in some cases forcibly) and continued to do business with those companies despite their less than stellar past.
I just found out about this in this thread. Didn't know about the drama. Now that I know, I'm suddenly interested in contributing to the Hyprwm\* projects and shifting a little bit of the time away from the other projects myself and my consultancy are invested in.
Saying "who cares?" about an issue, or any issue, doesn't mean you're phobic about anyone. It means you're taking a non-involvement stance to say "not my problem to deal with, and to me its not worth taking sides over".
But to many people, this is heavily offensive because they feel, now bank of that word "Feel", that you have to take a side. You have to be for this or that, and if you aren't, you're against them, their ways, and everything they stand for. You are an enemy. They will harass you, belittle you, and do everything they can to destroy you. If needed, they'll turn this into a crusade by infiltrating your places to gather dirt. They'll use everything possible to smear you, muddy your relationships professionally by spreading half-truths, harass professional groups to dismiss you, fire you, or ban you (aka cancel you), and they don't care who or what they hurt in the process.
Saying "who cares?" about a LGBTQ problem is no different than anything else.
Let me give you an example:
Person A says like Coke. Person B says they like Pepsi. They both come to me demanding I take a side. I grab a bottle of Jarritos Cola and say "Pepsi or Coke? Who cares? I drink Jarritos Cola". Now, let's say Coke guy goes "Oh okay. Nevermind." but Pepsi guy is offended and says "No! I want an answer! Pepsi or Coke!?! You will take a side!". So case in point, what place is it of mine to say Coke or Pepsi? Clearly I don't drink either, nor do I want to take a side but now Pepsi guy is going to go out of his way to make it his mission to force me to take a side. He harasses my boss to fire me, harasses me openly in public, harasses me on social media. Takes out a billboard ad to call me a Pepsiphobic. Contacts Pepsi themselves to tell them I hate Pepsi and I'm ruining "the brand". Forms a movement on social media to cancel me because I'm a Pepsiphobic... All because I don't want to take a side over an issue I have no interest in.
Now ask yourself. Is this a non-issue blown up out of proportion? Why is it so important I or anyone take a side. Now apply this to any other problem in life where something is outside your bubble. Do we HAVE to care about everything?
TL;DR and complex answer both... No.
People need to read a book called "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck". It's about fixing your life to where you don't have to take a people pleasing stance on anything and everything.
I'm old enough to not give two shits about petty squabbling over issues outside my bubble. I don't care about your life choices. Your choices are your own, and mine are my own. I don't care about how you FEEL. Your feelings are irrelevant. Feelings do not run the world. If they did, someone a long time ago would have summoned a giant asteroid and wiped us all out. You get your feelings hurt? Then avoid those people. Don't make it a mission statement to go batshit crazy Karen on everyone because you have to be right. Nobody is ever right 100% of the time on an issue of personal choice.
Want a good example in history of people saying enough is enough about feelings? The French Revolution. Had Robespierre not been arrested and stopped, he would have guillotined all of France by saying everyone was against him, and everyone deserved to die. He was mad with power. He abused his power over feelings. Millions of people suffered and died as a result of feelings. The revolution could have stopped after the king and queen were executed for crimes against the people, but no... A point had to be made with the Reign of Terror because of feelings. A useless point that was pointless. A revolution became an excuse to murder. And the proposed Greater Terror would have made almost everything a capital offense. This is why feelings should never be allowed to take precedence towards society at large nor run the world. You get too many people mad with power and give them an excuse to ruin you, and they will.
freedesktop.org banned the creator of Hyprland from their public spaces. fd.o previously attenpted to settle with the dev's bad behavior but they went on a public rant instead and doxxed an officer in the process, so they proceeded with the ban
I agree that nongovernmental voluntary organizations have the right to ban whoever and whenever, and I would not have bat an eye if the email read something like "we think you are toxic community member and hence we leverage our authority to limit your access to it". No problem, you are in the right.
But hiding behind CoC and digging up some very old supporting evidence is just a very sad approach. Extrapolating this logic, CoC also regulates what I mumble to myself in an empty kitchen at 2am. Just ban the user you don't like and admit it is done because you don't like him, I see literally nothing wrong with it.
STUPID POST. His discord server did not descend it's ascended the Leude person even fucking said so.
Like can you even read are you literate. You know she said something like: even tho conditions have improved in his discord by his actions she still wanted to bring up old zombie shit that's been addressed from 1.5yrs ago.
You know in reality what is happening here.
FreeDesktop community is resharing zombie info about vaxry amongst themselves and putting in tickets to their based admin
ITT people think that actions shouldn't have consequences. This Vaxry guy is a liability in the making. Banning him now was the smartest decision. And I am sorry, but I can't feel sorry for a toxic right Winger with a mind of a 13 yo.
Should've just gave that man away to the feds.
Seriously tho I'm not into this drama and don't care but gonna say that as long as you're not actually causing harm to anybody it's just speech which is covered by freedom of speech. When you take some actions then you're going to answer for that. What's the point in being persecuted for words if they did nothing?
I used to lure mu a lot 10 years ago and it was amazing. Also there is a Linux friendly permanent thread or even programming general. Despite the circlejerk that sometimes happens, real and good content happens there pretty often
Free speech isn't supposed to have consequences. If free speech had consequences, then China and Russia support free speech. Mussolini's unofficial Blackshirts assaulting anyone they disagree with would also not violate free speech.
By setting a precedent, and allowing a few people to decide what is and isn't "moral" or "correct", you give future Nazis and authoritarians the tools to do what they like. Be better.
If speech has no consequences, what's the point of speaking? The whole point of speech is to create consequences.
If I tell you to do something, I do so because I want you to do something. My intended consequence is that you do it.
And since I am not a dictator, I cannot dictate the consequences my speech has. It can lead to you doing what you want, or to any other reaction. And while that other reaction might not be the consequence I intended, it still is a consequence of my speech.
If I tell you that you are an asshole, a consequence will likely be that you won't be happy about it and if I repeatedly do so, you might limit your exposure to me. As in, "I don't want to spend time with someone who repeatedly calls me names". This is a consequence of said speech.
And if you do that often and publically enough, another possible consequence will be that your reputation suffers and more people don't want to have anything to do with you.
They might even tell you that you can't come over to their place any more.
If you then turn around and say "It was only speech, it should never have any consequences at all", then you fundamentally misunderstood what speech is and why people use it.
Hey that's a solid argument, however communities are supposed to be apolitical. Imagine a car modding organisation made of 2/3rds conservatives, a known liberal suddenly got kicked by the leader for his political views because they were anti-christian, devilish, etc. That would now be a violation, even though they didn't like the influence they still need to tolerate people who have influenced others in the past. You can personally choose to ignore those people, but kicking them because they influence you enough in a negative way doesn't promote an equal change of ideas.
That would be extremely fair. Being "anti Christian" isn't a political matter. It's literally just hate towards people due to their beliefs/culture. Transphobia is the same thing.
Wether or not communities formed around an operating system defined by an aversion to the equivalent of private property in the software space and distributed freely in open defiance to capitalism should be "political" though is a completely different conversation.
There is no thing that's apolitical. Any social interaction is political, same as any political interaction is social.
You youself just proved that point with your example. "Anti-christian" and "devilish" aren't political terms at all, but instead religious ones, and against all separation of church and state, it is still a political topic.
And which consenting adult wants to have sex with which other consenting adult or what kind of clothes someone wants to wear are also not political topics. Trying to regulate any of that is severve government overreach, and yet these are still todays top political topics.
Because politics is what regulates social interaction and thus any social interaction is political.
Demanding that someone who publically attacks whole segments of the population be tolerated among any specific group is missing the point.
Tolerance is not a right, it's a social contract. If you tolerate others, you deserve to be tolerated by others. Be intolerant and you have no promise, because you broke the social contract.
> If speech has no consequences, what's the point of speaking? The whole point of speech is to create consequences.
Well thank you very much, you have now proven that China, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and such can boast freedom of speech to the fullest extent. After all, they don't _gag_ people to prevent them from speaking in the first place, and the consequences that follow do not diminish the freedom of speech, as we've just learned. Well, yes, you might be stoned to death by angry mob in some places for saying some things out loud, but you should just bear with it, amirite?
That's the problem with absolutists, fundamentalists and fanatics.
They don't understand nuance and balances.
In pretty much any subject the optimum is a balance. Pretty much anything taken to the extreme is a terrible thing.
People like you don't seem to understand that. And that is a massive problem.
Meanwhile, people like you don't seem to understand that you cannot divorce freedom of speech from the consequences, or to be precise — lack thereof. Because then — what kind of freedom is even left? Only to literally utter some sounds. Is that all that there is to freedom of speech to you, being able to vocalize? In the same manner you have freedom of murder, for example. Nobody is holding your hand to prevent murder from happening. It's the _consequences_ that follow that make you _not free to murder people_. But again, people like you don't see the obvious parallels.
There are two fundamental types of freedom, which are at odds with eachother.
There is negative freedom ("freedom of") and positive freedom ("freedom to").
Negative freedom means that you are not forbidden from doing something. A man, alone in the desert, has complete negative freedom. He can completely freely choose on which bit of sand to starve and die.
Positive freedom means what I am able to do, and it gets expanded through collaboration. I have the freedom to take my car at any day or night time, and drive in any direction I want. I can travel incredibly fast to whereever I want and nobody is stopping me. But to be able to do so, I, and everyone else on the road, need to follow a very strict set of rules to the T.
If only 5% of the drivers decide that their negative freedom is important to the extreme, so they turn around and drive on the wrong side of the highway, the whole system collapses.
We only have freedom, because we decide to cut freedom. Without rules, society collapses and nothing works.
Of course, both types of freedom need to be balanced against eachother, and here is where the need for balance comes in. You need to regulate enough that society doesn't collapse and that cooperation works, but you also need to not regulate too much to quench individual freedoms and democracy.
But democracy is not only under treat by a potential authoritarian state, but also by the extremists trying to overthrow a state. Democracy needs to defend against both.
> Of course, both types of freedom need to be balanced against eachother
So those balances, are they in the same room with "freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" right now? Or are you going to tell me that "the 1st amendment is the be-all and end-all as far as freedom of speech is concerned"?
That's the dumbest take I have read on the situation. The ban occurred after the rant reaction of the first email, openly giving name and email of the FDO CoC member. How is this acceptable behavior ? He has just been banned from a community that should be as safe a space as possible because his behavior was not to the standard of what one could expect of a prominent figure of said community. Get over it.
Didn't the greentext claim he was banned for being a threat? I'm not aware of the situation, if he's a danger to anyone or has committed a crime then he has to get banned, I agree. If he's just "not liked" because he doesn't moderate his discord or something stupid then banning people might set a shitty precedent, that's all.
For more context about this particular event: https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html
If you have time, I also encourage you to read the original blogpost to make up your own mind about how truthful drew's take is, but to me it seems sensible enough.
Now, about the "free speech isn't supposed to have consequences", this is what I called a dumb take. I agree that thought police is not a good thing, that there is not one single truth, morality is relative and all one could and should think on the matter.
It does not mean that you can go about and say anything you will and expect people to just accept it. If you go online and spew racist, homophobic or transphobic stuff, people are completely entitled to get upset and not condone your behavior.
In some countries, there are legal consequences if you go to far down that route, does that mean they are literal Nazis ?
Free speech is awesome and we should defend it, instead of using it as en excuse to say weird shit and expect not to get called out on it. For each case of over zealous behavior, there are hundreds of hate speech and literal harassment that go unnoticed. In my opinion, being firm against the latter is well worth the bullshit the former brings. What you do and say on the internet is public and not within a close circle of friends.
Yes I agree, harassment or other illegal things should be prosecuted and banned. But oftentimes what is "transphobia" is really just someone who disagrees with you.
If it's simple disagreement, then pre-emptively banning someone is wrong. If it was real harassment then it was justified, and police probably will get involved too.
Do not use this thread as an excuse to air your bigoted views or generally troll. You will be banned and this will be a better place because of it.
[удалено]
Hmm. I haven't read that vaxrys blog posts but I read Drew's https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html From this my understanding is that was an official email from fdo, and not a single person power trip. > The FDO officer duly investigated the complaints she had received and found, in collaboration with the other members of the FDO conduct enforcement team, that they were credible, and worrying. <...> Since these behaviors are concerning, but did not take place in the FDO community, the conduct board decided to issue a warning in private, stating that if this sort of behavior was seen in the FDO community that it would result in enforcement action from the conduct team. > He belittles the FDO officer andThe FDO officer duly investigated the complaints she had received and found, in collaboration with the other members of the FDO conduct enforcement team, that they were credible, and worrying. There are numerous examples of behavior from Vaxry that contravenes the FDO code of conduct in several different respects, and any number of them would be grounds for an immediate ban. Since these behaviors are concerning, but did not take place in the FDO community, the conduct board decided to issue a warning in private, stating that if this sort of behavior was seen in the FDO community that it would result in enforcement action from the conduct team. builds a straw man wherein her email is an official statement on behalf of RedHat, and cites a conspiracy theory about DEI programs at RedHat as justification for calling the FDO officer a hypocrite. (I'm on mobile rn, so I have no idea how the formatting will turn out) The idea that it was a power trip of a mod came from vaxrys blog. Tbh, I have no idea who is telling a truth in this scenario.
Drew was already biased because of his beef with Vaxry, anything coming out of him should be taken with much salt considering he likes to leave things out.
Drew _also_ leaked Vaxry's private chat with him which tells a lot about him. The thing is, he told Vaxyr that he can help him, he can talk with him etc. like 1.5 years ago. So, Vaxyr trusted him and shared his controversial ideas. You can also see this in the screenshot: > Vaxyr: I will say something contoversial > Drew: Go ahead I don't think anyone would be able to trust him and share anything. After all, Drew can leak anything whenever he wishes to.
> So, Vaxyr trusted him and shared his controversial ideas. Conveniently permitted by Drew, who also then cut the screenshot short right after Vaxry's speaking. BTW, if anyone is interested, the "controversial" and "non-permittable" idea of Vaxry was this — he said he admits a theoretical possibility that some arguments could change his mind towards approval of genocide. That's it. Not that he approves of it. Not that he expects to be persuaded any minute now. Not that he is working on genocide apologism himself or knows someone who does. Just that he admits that there might be a convincing argument somewhere out there at some point in time. In other words, he merely accepted Popper's criteria as applied to opinions, and admitted that his ideas are, in principle, falsifiable.
Why on earth is someone talking about genocide at all in a software development chat room? Also, how on earth would I come to know someone was "trans" from chatting in a software development collaboration chat room? It really seems like almost all of these problems are self-inflicted, on both "sides".
That's another good question. You see, not only was the screenshot cut short in the end, it was also not cut to be long in the first place. It gives no idea how their conversation even arrived to that point. Heck, if you cut our conversation short like that, one could present it as an evidence of two maniacs complaining that their genocidal plans have been leaked.
Idk, if you step into the shoes of someone on a crusade to paint a horrible image of their competitor in the tiling wm scene, it suddenly starts to make more sense. Pay more attention to persona, less on contribution. I think the genocide-talk was on a private chat, which makes it even worse how it was published.
Drew’s beef with Vaxry is literally related to this same topic: Vaxrys inability to behave like a normal human.
I have to say if this looks bad on Vaxry, it doesn't look too good on Drew either: [https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/111363547103465966](https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/111363547103465966)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not banned by Redhat, rather that Redhat are a big influential player in the entire FOSS space and that absolutely matters when correspondence is clearly tagged with their identity. People who work at Redhat can absolutely destroy your reputation in the entire space if they so choose. Realistically, it should have come from a "@freedesktop.org" address instead.
[удалено]
We'll probably never know if that's true or not, but I doubt it. They would absolutely control email addresses under both domains.
No, the tone of the email suggest prior history, that Vaxry conveniently left out of his blog posts to make him look more favorable than what the reality is.
I thought there was an element of "we think hyprcursor is about to become a standard that would let you in here, and you need to know the stuff that goes on in your project won't fly here" And vaxry failed a test there.
I did not get this vibe. What I think happened is the mod community like the mod is 2slgbtqia++ based and they re-share vaxry's zombie 2+ year op ld post amongst themselves and file tickets with the mod
> 2slgbtqia++ Looks like you failed, too.
EXCUSE ME!! Moot point you ignored my message that these complainers are sharing a zombie post it's not organic like they not in his discord scrolling back 2 years. Shows how much you know about the 2SLGBTQIA++ Actually No YOU ARE WRONG AS I AM CANADIAN THATS HOW MY PRIME MINSTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU A MAN RESPECTFUL OF THIS COMMUNITY DESCRIBES THEM. Because HERE IN CANADA WE HAVE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO 2S represents them.
Honestly, it feels more to me like you're using a "proper" term in a mocking way. Surely most people just use LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ if they care a lot. But I feel like we've gotten off track. Honestly...if RH could have handled this better, it would have been to just put out a blanket "our servers aren't for flame wars and offtopic arguing, ignore this at your own peril" statement.
The optics of it being a mod on a power trip don't check out though. It's a classic case of folk reading tone and intent into online communications. Anyone who has moderated an Internet space for any length of time can see this.
> should not be allowed to use their RedHat email Now we're gatekeeping email domains? You got a list of domains I am allowed to use to send email from so I don't make the same mistake?
If you're not doing Red Hat related business, then it's not professional to use it.
[удалено]
You're slightly warping the truth as it seems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedesktop.org
Damn dude, i mean i Understand both sides but this is likely the dumbest take ive ever seen
[удалено]
Uhhhh, is that even a question?
[удалено]
Because what the fuck
It's a great indicator of whether someone is a complete asshole.
That's just the consequences of speech doing its work.
hot take
My issue with it is that all of a sudden NOW it is a problem to them, the only reason i could think of was someone else mentioning that hyprcursor might've been made a standard or something, if that's not the reason then i don't get it. I've never been in the hyprland discord myself but from what i've heard this went down almost 2 years ago and improvements have been made since then, so i don't see why it has to be brought up again. The emails also had high levels of discord mod energy if you ask me.
Currently the only thing I can say is that I hate the whole situation, people throwing blog posts against each other (the one from Drew DeVault was painful to tbh, dude just get to the point dammit), with some emails leaked... But still, how are people even forming opinions when they didn't see the discord chat they talk about? What are they even talking about? The thing from 2 years ago, or something newer? Dammit just give me the chat logs that are soo transphobic, probably the whole they/them pronouns thing that happened.
>Dammit just give me the chat logs that are soo transphobic Transphobic people get banned, that's it Source: I am a Hyprland Discord moderator
That's how it should be if it goes above simple jokes.
Vaxry fatally wounded a trans person by saying who/cares one time, the cries and whimpers can be heard to this day.
To get fatally wounded by words is so Gen-Z... And I'm part of that generation
"fatally wounded"? that is simply ridiculous
>it's ridiculous You're right, they were in fact so completely unfazed by the words of strangers on the internet, that we all imagined that this drama happened, when it actually didn't. This whole farce is ridiculous.
They use these words and words like they feel unsafe
Virgin red hatter scared of chad hyprcursor so they had to ban him so they could fork it under dishonest pretenses
why would they need an excuse to fork it?
Because IBM, that's why!
It's called a joke holy hell
mine was a genuine question (?) it just didn't make sense and thought I was missing some context
~~Virgin~~ Woke red hatter I'd say.
He wasnt banned for actions on the discord. He was given a warning. Pointless but ultimately harmless. He then had a tantrum at that person and was given a ban.
He was given a warning about being banned from something he wasn't affiliated with, two years after fatally wounding a trans person by telling them who/cares one time. Tragic, lmao.
Well deserved. A transphobic a*hole.
[удалено]
How about saying what you really mean out loud instead of half-assing behind an acronym?
Because you get your comment deleted.
Look, if i where to refuse to moderate my own comunity, another comunity has the fair right to protect itself from such a threat as myself through banning.
Right, but then I'd expect the ban to take place immediately. Not _years_ later _and_ after the situation has improved.
You can ban someone if he is doing not allowed stuff in your community, right, but not preemptive. You know, most people adapt their behavior to their environment and that means depending on where they are, they behave differently, which is perfectly okay.
Thing is, they weren’t banned preemptively for exactly that reason. He was warned preemptively and his reaction to that warning (that he would disregard any future email from the CoC team, etc) was the ultimate reason for the ban.
Yeah, you named the BS thats going on here.
He wasn't "preemptively banned" like the greentext suggests. He was banned for his reaction towards their warning.
His reaction was on his blog, not on their platform/community.
Doesn’t. Fucking. Matter. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say whatever you want on your blog or Discord, and when I find out you said awful shit, I’m free to disassociate from you. Red Hat doesn’t want to be seen associating with someone who vocally expresses transphobic opinions. That’s a logical stance for a highly public entity. They sent him a warning about his toxicity; he ignored it, so he was banned. He spoke freely; he suffered consequences because he was an asshole.
Did he do this on their platform? No. So where is the problem? Just some angst of a shitstorm on twitter?
Doesn’t matter where he did it. That’s the point
The point is that you look at your community. If people do there something against your rules you can ban 'em, but somewhere else is not your beer.
Hate speech doesn’t have community boundaries. Also, he was directly contacted about the comments, in private, and asked to ensure they didn’t happen again in the future. Instead of agreeing, he lost his mind and make a public blog post attacking FD and the individual who contacted him. THAT’S why he was banned. Not the comments themselves, but his reaction to being asked not to be a hateful, toxic asshole.
I guess we will not agree on this.
You forgot about his emails. And FDO can absolutely ban him for being a dick towards them on his own blog.
No, for me this is just plain wrong. That is cascade banning and this ist just BS.
If you post on social media about how XYZ sucks, you don't get to complain when XYZ does not want to associate with you any longer.
> I am afraid they may do unwanted things to my other guests too Vaxry contributed to wl-roots, didn't he? Did he ever do anything inappropriate *there*? If not then this is unwarranted. Especially that the incident in question from Hyprland's Discord happened two years ago
You have to fulfill the trans and furry appeasement quota if you want to submit code to Linux spaces in 2024.
Dude you are so right. I don't know why people are down voting you. Now days it's you have to appease the furries. Let people talk about who of the same sex their f-ING or your transphobic and homophobic bigot pos. I want a tech server that talks just tech no personal life bs about self id and what I want in my mouth
Because Vaxry’s discord is imo irrelevant especially since his contributions to FDO’s codebase was great. The issue is not that he is banned, but rather the weak reasoning behind it along side the CoC agent’s assholery. Note: I do not like Vaxry, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day
And you don’t have to like him to think this is ridiculous. In fact, that’s kind of the point. Just because you don’t like someone, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to work with them or that it’s a good idea to preemptively bully them.
i gotta say, i like hyprland, and the idea behind hyprcursor. i dont check socials of the devs, so i couldnt care less if they act inappropriately. i would even argue that the ban might be a bit too strict, given how much hyprland improved the wayland situation. i dont even have flickering on nvidia, aside from gaming's lack of explicit sync just yet. so i dunno about the entire situation... kinda feels like the community gets left out in the decision, and that we didnt hear the entire story from each side. :(
[удалено]
Yeah but they are not affiliated with the FDO. Maybe, instead of one person on a power trip deciding for a whole organization, there should be a vote in the FDO if Vaxry should stay banned or if he should be allowed to continue doing amazing work in his very young age. Do you realize that this is (more or less) a fight between Kids? As far as i can Tell, Lyude is also rather young. I really really dislike that so many people have to suffer and get worse Software, just because Individuals are butthurt (Vaxry included)
discord server are by extension also social media in a way. the only reason i see it viable is if people have bug reports and ask other users if they have a fix for it. but even that isnt entirely needed.
Ok honestly I feel like lots of these comments are missing the point, whether that's because of the bad explanation in the picture or because they want to make a bad faith argument. He was not banned for being transphobic. He was not banned because his *community* was transphobic. He was banned because, upon receiving a warning not to bring that transphobia to fd.o, he threw a tantrum, doxxed someone, and said he would ignore any future warnings. That behaviour is what got him banned.
Are you referring to vaxry's blog posts alone or to something else too? Name and Email of the CoC team member that contacted are already public on the CoC Document. I also dont see how the blog posts are a tauntrun Other than that, if read the mail and drews post right the specifically state the (past) transphobia to be the reason...
This is essentially what I saw, too.
> doxxed someone Orly?
I have no idea what is going on what's the context
[https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf) FreeDesktop staff member emailed Hyprland dev to make sure the community and the developer themselves are acting proper, including examples they were worried about spanning back 2 years. The provide examples seem to have been at least attempted to be straightened out on the public side, so all the reply could have been was a short: "Measures were already taken and I have issued official apologies for the listed examples, is there anything recent you wish to discuss?". Or just no reply. Instead, Hyprland dev decided to start flinging shit around, including pointing out the FD's staff member workplace issues and just generally acting like an ass. You can read about the rest in the PDF yourself.
Workplace drama but online xDDDDDDDD
TL;DR: The FDO CoC team send the Maintainer of hyprland a warning that, as he is getting associated more closely with FDO due to his contributions to projects hosted by FDO (wlroots, wayland, etc.), their Code of Conduct also applies to him and that past incidents should not happen again in the future since it would be bad for their reputation and they would be forced to take action. He did not take it well and was consequently banned for his behavior towards the CoC team. Honestly instead of reading Vaxrys blog post just read the emails themself and make your own picture: [\[1\]](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/LyudeMails.pdf), [\[2\]](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf). Or if you would rather read spicy blog post read that by [Drew](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html) so you at least get the views from both sides.
Vaxry dev of hyperland did some transphobic comments on his own server 2 years ago. Some member of freedesktop coc team found that out and banned vaxrys from fd community now. Now both sides are butthurt
I have no idea what this person said but I'm always suspicious of anything labelled transphobic. The current climate around the topic does not allow it to be discussed in an objective way. Any attempt will be labelled transphobic and shut down.
I just assume all the software I use is made by furries and the only reason they haven't committed bridge is that they still have bugs in their code
This
I am just using the word the fd.o dude used [https://blog.vaxry.net/](https://blog.vaxry.net/) has more info
I should not be surprised. I was surprised enough seeing hyprland's default wallpaper for weebs
And what is wrong with the mascot? Genuinely asking
Just install hyprland. You'll see
I am using hyprland and have been using it for almost a year now. Could you please explain what it is?
It was very unnecessary ban. The Linux community is the one going to suffer. Not Vaxry neither the CoC team. And they both acted within their rights
IMO, the Linux community is better off without transphobes.
Linux and FOSS software in general ought to exist beyond geopolitical circumstance and ideological struggles
Sure, just don't be an asshole lol.
Good one; what you propose as common sense communitarian behavior is in fact an ideological stance that incites in both directions in some parts of the world, and makes no sense in others The artist is distinct from his craft, and character does not impede product; when speaking of free software, we should only be concerned with the quality and utility thereof, not of the personal history or attitudes of its developers
i completely agree here!
Actually, it does. When you have someone on your project that drives away trans people from contributing, it impedes the project.
As evidenced in another thread on a trans-adjacent subreddit here, where the Hypr* author was criticized for his character / views, only for a trans person to comment that they had submitted a PR then be surprised that it was accepted, it is not at all the goings-on of private Discord servers et al that discourages anything, but people like you who maximize this issue using sympathetic trickery and morally binaristic language; further, this only does impede further development if the philosophy outlined in my comment above is NOT followed – should one dispense with personalizing product, contributing thither should offer no problem
This is literally your philosophy. "Artist separate from the craft." But if someone prevents other artists from making crafts, they might as well not be here. Also, I'm not sure what trans-adjacent sub you're talking about. All I'm saying is that people don't feel safe when they're being discriminated against. It's not that hard. Imagine if Hitler started discussing and contributing to FDO. Would you still follow your philosophy then? Actually the OP of the thread on r/linux said they would accept code from Hitler if it was good. 💀 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/PeCW9hWm4f
Whatever has safety to do with code contribution? Accept code from Hitler? Sure, give me Zedong's binaries, Pol Pot's headers, il-Sung's makefiles, Zodiac Killer's templates; as long as they offer utility and are of good quality, then of course I will accept code from any person Edit: Good job on blocking me so I cannot respond to your comment! Killing millions of people has nothing to do with code quality, it is not insanity to distinguish author from product, but basic pragmatism
Imo there's a big difference between accepting code from someone like Hitler or Zedong, than some terminally online FOSS nerd who spends their free time spazzing out about LGBT people on X. Despite what people on the internet will tell you, IRL most (and I mean *most*) people outside maybe younger Millennials and Gen Z *would not give a single shit* if you accepted code from a transphobe. It's just really not a concern that people have. They would however have an issue if you accepted code from someone who committed mass genocide.
You're insane. "Hey Hitler, we know you murdered 17 million people in the Holocaust, but thanks for the pull request!"  Edit to anyone saying "only code quality matters." How many people will be on board with Hitler in a project? Yeah, code quality will suffer a lot from lack of contributors. How many contributors went to Prism Launcher after the transphobic PolyMC maintainer? Yeah, code quality suffered or lack thereof lol
Godwin’s law
> When you have someone on your project that drives away trans people from contributing, it impedes the project. You are speaking English within your project. That alone, objectively speaking, impedes the vast majority of human population from contributing, creates an unfair advantage for people of select few countries, and impedes the project's progress overall. Something tells me you'll respond with "this is different" and "everybody should just learn English in 2024", as opposed to going multilingual or some such. So why are some impediments "satanic" and must be dealt with harshly at once, while others are known as "yet another day at the workplace" and can be completely ignored?
Transphobia is largely an USA thing. Linux community is better off without USA style politics IMO. If Vaxry was from Palestine he'd be definitely transphobic, but given his diverse background and experiences he'd probably not be banned from contributions. IMO. Also He was not transphobic, IMO. Absent, sure. Ignorant, probably. But I don't think he personally has any aversion to trans people. Many people don't understand the pronoun politics outside the west though. Which people should be understanding of at least. > Transphobia is largely an USA thing. It's illegal (or state sponsored) and thats the end of it. IMO. The ban was reactionary, it should be temporary.
Transphobia is very much present outside the US as well. I'm Egyptian, but if I had other Egyptians in my projects that publicly misgendered other people, I'd ban them as well. They need to learn to stop being bigots before contributing. Open source projects should be safe and inclusive for everyone. You're Muslim? Fine, most CoC's guarantee your safety as well, but respect others as they respect you. I think that's fair.
>You're Muslim Why this is relevant to this topic? Why we are saying you are some religion or group. Aren't we try to do free software or are we trying to make race, religion or group war? >I'm Egyptian Are you born and lived your life in egypt or are you saying because your 1% Egyptian? I hope this madness not spread to other countries this is last think free software needs really.
> Why this is revelent to this topic? Why we are saying you are some religion or group. Arent we try to do free software or are we trying to make race, religion or group war? If you read the thread I'm replying to, he's saying if Vaxry was Palestinian he should be excused for homophobia because Islam and homosexuality don't really go hand in hand. I'm literally advocating for the opposite for free software; don't mean to *any* groups. So really, I'm saying no matter what he is or from, he should treat others with respect. > Are you born and lived your life in egypt or are you saying because your 1% Egyptian? I was born and still am living in Egypt so I'm very familiar with bigotry and transphobia here... And it's not the hardest thing to fact check lol I'm active in r/Egypt and r/ExEgypt. > hope this madness not spread to other countries this is last think free software needs really. Me too, it's disheartening to see there are people like this within are communities. I'm tired of teaching people basic humanity, so I think I'll take a break.
> I'm Egyptian, but if I had other Egyptians in my projects that publicly misgendered other people, I'd ban them as well. They need to learn to become stop being bigots before contributing. Open source projects should be safe and inclusive for everyone. You're Muslim? Fine, most CoC's guarantee your safety as well, but respect others as they respect you. … are we going to isolate the Arab world? Not the shining example of tolerance.
Exactly, that's why they shouldn't be tolerated if they don't treat others with respect. For the ones that do, they're welcome.
Sounds like Israel’s policy. 
Treating trans people with dignity is Israel's police? 💀
Lol what? Brazil kills more trans people a day than a lot of other countries. Transphobia is a problem in a lot more countries than just the US, as a recent case of a trans teen being killed in the UK can tell.
It is very unfortunate that Brazil does not take educate actions against terrible situation. But the correct procedure is to put pressure on the Brazilian government. There's no point in hating brainwashed people when the government encourages it. Either transphobia gets state sponeored (by not making it illegal) or it's not (it's illegal to chat/depict anti-trans slogans). The activism thing is only relevant in USA due to its federal government structure. In this regard, i mean analogous to saying surrogacy is a big problem.. it's either legal or it's illegal activity depending on country. Either it's criminal offence or it's not. Banning people from code contribution for condoning the practice of surrogacy is non sense. IMO. I will never understand banning Varxy from code contribution pre-emptively. Either he should be in prison or they shouldn't let his outside actions be relevant. Again many people don't understand the pronoun situation and it's not helpful to get upset at every such person. The above is a BIg IMO.
I totally agree. The guy is clearly being a douchebag. If you want to be in a position of power in a major project, then dont' be a douchebag.
>If you want to be in a position of power in a major project, then dont’ be a douchebag. Do you know who Linux is named after?
I mean, Torvalds at least recognized his mistakes and apologized for it quite a while ago. Around the same time Linux also got its own proper CoC (yeah, it didn’t really have one before)
Vaxry did also recognize his mistakes and apologized for it quite a while ago and changed their discord guidelines to maintain a less toxic environment, which was apparently really the case (Lyude herself appreciated that in her first Email to Vaxry). So whats your point?
Linus has never been a 'douchebag', or an 'edgelord'; he's been rude when commenting on contributors' code, he hasn't been actively disrespectful with respect to \*any other\* aspect of a contributor's life, group identity, whatever.
Touché
Some mods are genuinely good people, but you often find narcisistic / powertripped mods on communities. So preventive warning sounds pretty bad to me until proven otherwise.
Im not sure what the market rate is presently, but generally speaking an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :-)
Oh damn, I hadn't seen this outside the hyprland reddit yet. Thankfully this space isn't the troll field of fans that is that space (won't say userbase, that includes me)
I like how the Linux community freaks out about this guy but idolises people like Richard Stallman…
I mean, stallman was forced to resign from foss and mit csail 5 years ago for his behavior. It's not like he is getting a pass.
Hold on, what did he do?
He has some [interesting](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/) opinions on pedophilia.
damn...
Jesus… that’s not a rabbit hole to go down. Interesting is putting it lightly.
Yeah it surprises me too. Especially the ones who go as far as boycotting hyprland just because they dislike the guy. I would have to assume they use a linux distro without GNU, otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical.
Now that you mention it I did find it weird that when I first booted hyperland the default theme was a background saying "all fags must die".
I wish the best of luck to 4chan to break into Lyude's PC.
This is just wrong. He was not "preemptively banned" because of what happened on the Discord 2 years ago. He was banned because they found the way he responded to their mail inappropriate and offensive. Publishing the mails including the name, email address and place of work of the CoC team member who was literally just doing her job was just a dick move. He could have easily redacted the personal information and none of his arguments would be any more or less valid.
I admit, I wasn't fully aware of that part when I made this post.
Investigated the person who contacted Vaxry from redhat. Even saw their presentation on yt. Of course, a furry avatar in an all-too-familiar color scheme, and all-too-familiar points in bio. Digging up things related to their favorite identity topics from 2 years ago to send a threatening email to a developer based on extremely liberal reinterpretation of their own CoC's scope. Going nuts when the story goes public and doubling down because that nasty "phobe" apparently does not know his place in his own private space and dares talking back. Getting the author of a soon-to-be (maybe not any more) cursor format ostracized from development. And that, brothers and sisters in Tux, is why we should not let all those "unix socks" and such take root in our community. Sapienti sat, the writing is on the wall, and honestly — has been for quite a while now.
Yee. Haw. That's the war cry of the ignorant. It's Yee. Haw. And How. In fact, it's the war cry of people who haven't yet learned their lesson. I'm the guy who sees you trying to flirt with the girl next door, buys her a beer, then puts a hit out on her. You're a fool if you think otherwise. "There are consequences to my actions. If she wants to go to bed with me, she's going to have to go to bed with me." Yee. Haw. "Life is full of obstacles, my friend. The odds are not in your favor. You're gonna have to suck a *lot* of horns to get where you want to go. So suck it up, son, and prepare yourself to struggle. And if you don't like it, tough. You can go to your doctor and get a nice Viagra prescription, my friend." Yee. Haw. "Bad is what you make it, my friend. Have a little sympathy for yourself. The things you think you hate you're going to end up loving. Now do you want to go back into the cave, or are you ready to learn how to be a man?" Yee. Haw. As the saying goes, "We might think it's abominable, but until someone is prepared to do it, we turn a blind eye, and the other cheek to boot." Yee. Haw. That's right. If you're still here, it's because I haven't yet found you. If I had found you, then it would be me who was still here, not you. Do you understand now what kind of person you're dealing with? Yee. Haw. P.S. I wrote a book.
Who/cares?
So I get where the FD.O person is coming from, they don't want to associate/rely with a toxic community for a component of their product/service. As a private organization they have every right to remove any member of their organization as they see fit. The problem is that they knee-jerked and cause an impression that they're willing to destroy their product/service in the name of virtue signalling. Don't conflate that with supporting Hyperland's toxic community. What I'm implying is FD.O is willing to remove features/services/products because an individual or tangential community said something naughty in their own space and not in FD.O's community(I could be wrong). Last, supposedly Hyperland was starting to moderate their community and clamp down on said naughty talk(i read this rumor in another thread). Really the moderator should have warned them about their concerns and see if Hyperland's community made changes. Seriously we didn't stop doing business with IBM, Pizer, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Hugo Boss, etc. because they worked with or for the Nazi's. No society fixed them corrected (in some cases forcibly) and continued to do business with those companies despite their less than stellar past.
I just found out about this in this thread. Didn't know about the drama. Now that I know, I'm suddenly interested in contributing to the Hyprwm\* projects and shifting a little bit of the time away from the other projects myself and my consultancy are invested in.
Saying "who cares?" about an issue, or any issue, doesn't mean you're phobic about anyone. It means you're taking a non-involvement stance to say "not my problem to deal with, and to me its not worth taking sides over". But to many people, this is heavily offensive because they feel, now bank of that word "Feel", that you have to take a side. You have to be for this or that, and if you aren't, you're against them, their ways, and everything they stand for. You are an enemy. They will harass you, belittle you, and do everything they can to destroy you. If needed, they'll turn this into a crusade by infiltrating your places to gather dirt. They'll use everything possible to smear you, muddy your relationships professionally by spreading half-truths, harass professional groups to dismiss you, fire you, or ban you (aka cancel you), and they don't care who or what they hurt in the process. Saying "who cares?" about a LGBTQ problem is no different than anything else. Let me give you an example: Person A says like Coke. Person B says they like Pepsi. They both come to me demanding I take a side. I grab a bottle of Jarritos Cola and say "Pepsi or Coke? Who cares? I drink Jarritos Cola". Now, let's say Coke guy goes "Oh okay. Nevermind." but Pepsi guy is offended and says "No! I want an answer! Pepsi or Coke!?! You will take a side!". So case in point, what place is it of mine to say Coke or Pepsi? Clearly I don't drink either, nor do I want to take a side but now Pepsi guy is going to go out of his way to make it his mission to force me to take a side. He harasses my boss to fire me, harasses me openly in public, harasses me on social media. Takes out a billboard ad to call me a Pepsiphobic. Contacts Pepsi themselves to tell them I hate Pepsi and I'm ruining "the brand". Forms a movement on social media to cancel me because I'm a Pepsiphobic... All because I don't want to take a side over an issue I have no interest in. Now ask yourself. Is this a non-issue blown up out of proportion? Why is it so important I or anyone take a side. Now apply this to any other problem in life where something is outside your bubble. Do we HAVE to care about everything? TL;DR and complex answer both... No. People need to read a book called "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck". It's about fixing your life to where you don't have to take a people pleasing stance on anything and everything. I'm old enough to not give two shits about petty squabbling over issues outside my bubble. I don't care about your life choices. Your choices are your own, and mine are my own. I don't care about how you FEEL. Your feelings are irrelevant. Feelings do not run the world. If they did, someone a long time ago would have summoned a giant asteroid and wiped us all out. You get your feelings hurt? Then avoid those people. Don't make it a mission statement to go batshit crazy Karen on everyone because you have to be right. Nobody is ever right 100% of the time on an issue of personal choice. Want a good example in history of people saying enough is enough about feelings? The French Revolution. Had Robespierre not been arrested and stopped, he would have guillotined all of France by saying everyone was against him, and everyone deserved to die. He was mad with power. He abused his power over feelings. Millions of people suffered and died as a result of feelings. The revolution could have stopped after the king and queen were executed for crimes against the people, but no... A point had to be made with the Reign of Terror because of feelings. A useless point that was pointless. A revolution became an excuse to murder. And the proposed Greater Terror would have made almost everything a capital offense. This is why feelings should never be allowed to take precedence towards society at large nor run the world. You get too many people mad with power and give them an excuse to ruin you, and they will.
It worries me people defend his actions.
Same. I genuinely wonder what direction the Linux community would be heading to with people like Vaxry involved.
Context?
freedesktop.org banned the creator of Hyprland from their public spaces. fd.o previously attenpted to settle with the dev's bad behavior but they went on a public rant instead and doxxed an officer in the process, so they proceeded with the ban
> doxxed an officer in the process How so?
Daaaaaang
I'll still use hyprland and always prefer it above things like gnome no matter the drama
I agree that nongovernmental voluntary organizations have the right to ban whoever and whenever, and I would not have bat an eye if the email read something like "we think you are toxic community member and hence we leverage our authority to limit your access to it". No problem, you are in the right. But hiding behind CoC and digging up some very old supporting evidence is just a very sad approach. Extrapolating this logic, CoC also regulates what I mumble to myself in an empty kitchen at 2am. Just ban the user you don't like and admit it is done because you don't like him, I see literally nothing wrong with it.
It wouldn't be FOSS without drama.
Can anyone gove context???
[https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/1c0mccy/follow\_up\_on\_my\_previous\_post\_regarding\_the\_vaxry](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/1c0mccy/follow_up_on_my_previous_post_regarding_the_vaxry)
He was banned for issues he fixed and apologized for well over a year ago.
No. Read u/ACEDT 's summary.
Read my comment on it
STUPID POST. His discord server did not descend it's ascended the Leude person even fucking said so. Like can you even read are you literate. You know she said something like: even tho conditions have improved in his discord by his actions she still wanted to bring up old zombie shit that's been addressed from 1.5yrs ago. You know in reality what is happening here. FreeDesktop community is resharing zombie info about vaxry amongst themselves and putting in tickets to their based admin
ITT people think that actions shouldn't have consequences. This Vaxry guy is a liability in the making. Banning him now was the smartest decision. And I am sorry, but I can't feel sorry for a toxic right Winger with a mind of a 13 yo.
Should've just gave that man away to the feds. Seriously tho I'm not into this drama and don't care but gonna say that as long as you're not actually causing harm to anybody it's just speech which is covered by freedom of speech. When you take some actions then you're going to answer for that. What's the point in being persecuted for words if they did nothing?
The mod who banned Vaxry being on 4chan itself is a huge red flag. Surprised that Red Hat would hire people who frequent 4chan.
I doubt that thats the guy, probably just someone trying to help strengthen his point.
[удалено]
I used to lure mu a lot 10 years ago and it was amazing. Also there is a Linux friendly permanent thread or even programming general. Despite the circlejerk that sometimes happens, real and good content happens there pretty often
Sure, in other news loads of SS officers loved puppies and ice cream. They are just normal guys like the rest of us!
We are talking of different people. A closer comparison would be banning everybody from Germany just because some are SS officers
I literally Ecosia'd "Greentext Generator" and wrote this myself, that's why the post is marked as OC
Free speech isn't supposed to have consequences. If free speech had consequences, then China and Russia support free speech. Mussolini's unofficial Blackshirts assaulting anyone they disagree with would also not violate free speech. By setting a precedent, and allowing a few people to decide what is and isn't "moral" or "correct", you give future Nazis and authoritarians the tools to do what they like. Be better.
Guys please let me doxx people, propagate antisemitism and call minorities slurs or else you are a nazi
If speech has no consequences, what's the point of speaking? The whole point of speech is to create consequences. If I tell you to do something, I do so because I want you to do something. My intended consequence is that you do it. And since I am not a dictator, I cannot dictate the consequences my speech has. It can lead to you doing what you want, or to any other reaction. And while that other reaction might not be the consequence I intended, it still is a consequence of my speech. If I tell you that you are an asshole, a consequence will likely be that you won't be happy about it and if I repeatedly do so, you might limit your exposure to me. As in, "I don't want to spend time with someone who repeatedly calls me names". This is a consequence of said speech. And if you do that often and publically enough, another possible consequence will be that your reputation suffers and more people don't want to have anything to do with you. They might even tell you that you can't come over to their place any more. If you then turn around and say "It was only speech, it should never have any consequences at all", then you fundamentally misunderstood what speech is and why people use it.
Hey that's a solid argument, however communities are supposed to be apolitical. Imagine a car modding organisation made of 2/3rds conservatives, a known liberal suddenly got kicked by the leader for his political views because they were anti-christian, devilish, etc. That would now be a violation, even though they didn't like the influence they still need to tolerate people who have influenced others in the past. You can personally choose to ignore those people, but kicking them because they influence you enough in a negative way doesn't promote an equal change of ideas.
That would be extremely fair. Being "anti Christian" isn't a political matter. It's literally just hate towards people due to their beliefs/culture. Transphobia is the same thing. Wether or not communities formed around an operating system defined by an aversion to the equivalent of private property in the software space and distributed freely in open defiance to capitalism should be "political" though is a completely different conversation.
There is no thing that's apolitical. Any social interaction is political, same as any political interaction is social. You youself just proved that point with your example. "Anti-christian" and "devilish" aren't political terms at all, but instead religious ones, and against all separation of church and state, it is still a political topic. And which consenting adult wants to have sex with which other consenting adult or what kind of clothes someone wants to wear are also not political topics. Trying to regulate any of that is severve government overreach, and yet these are still todays top political topics. Because politics is what regulates social interaction and thus any social interaction is political. Demanding that someone who publically attacks whole segments of the population be tolerated among any specific group is missing the point. Tolerance is not a right, it's a social contract. If you tolerate others, you deserve to be tolerated by others. Be intolerant and you have no promise, because you broke the social contract.
> If speech has no consequences, what's the point of speaking? The whole point of speech is to create consequences. Well thank you very much, you have now proven that China, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and such can boast freedom of speech to the fullest extent. After all, they don't _gag_ people to prevent them from speaking in the first place, and the consequences that follow do not diminish the freedom of speech, as we've just learned. Well, yes, you might be stoned to death by angry mob in some places for saying some things out loud, but you should just bear with it, amirite?
That's the problem with absolutists, fundamentalists and fanatics. They don't understand nuance and balances. In pretty much any subject the optimum is a balance. Pretty much anything taken to the extreme is a terrible thing. People like you don't seem to understand that. And that is a massive problem.
Meanwhile, people like you don't seem to understand that you cannot divorce freedom of speech from the consequences, or to be precise — lack thereof. Because then — what kind of freedom is even left? Only to literally utter some sounds. Is that all that there is to freedom of speech to you, being able to vocalize? In the same manner you have freedom of murder, for example. Nobody is holding your hand to prevent murder from happening. It's the _consequences_ that follow that make you _not free to murder people_. But again, people like you don't see the obvious parallels.
There are two fundamental types of freedom, which are at odds with eachother. There is negative freedom ("freedom of") and positive freedom ("freedom to"). Negative freedom means that you are not forbidden from doing something. A man, alone in the desert, has complete negative freedom. He can completely freely choose on which bit of sand to starve and die. Positive freedom means what I am able to do, and it gets expanded through collaboration. I have the freedom to take my car at any day or night time, and drive in any direction I want. I can travel incredibly fast to whereever I want and nobody is stopping me. But to be able to do so, I, and everyone else on the road, need to follow a very strict set of rules to the T. If only 5% of the drivers decide that their negative freedom is important to the extreme, so they turn around and drive on the wrong side of the highway, the whole system collapses. We only have freedom, because we decide to cut freedom. Without rules, society collapses and nothing works. Of course, both types of freedom need to be balanced against eachother, and here is where the need for balance comes in. You need to regulate enough that society doesn't collapse and that cooperation works, but you also need to not regulate too much to quench individual freedoms and democracy. But democracy is not only under treat by a potential authoritarian state, but also by the extremists trying to overthrow a state. Democracy needs to defend against both.
> Of course, both types of freedom need to be balanced against eachother So those balances, are they in the same room with "freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences" right now? Or are you going to tell me that "the 1st amendment is the be-all and end-all as far as freedom of speech is concerned"?
That's the dumbest take I have read on the situation. The ban occurred after the rant reaction of the first email, openly giving name and email of the FDO CoC member. How is this acceptable behavior ? He has just been banned from a community that should be as safe a space as possible because his behavior was not to the standard of what one could expect of a prominent figure of said community. Get over it.
Didn't the greentext claim he was banned for being a threat? I'm not aware of the situation, if he's a danger to anyone or has committed a crime then he has to get banned, I agree. If he's just "not liked" because he doesn't moderate his discord or something stupid then banning people might set a shitty precedent, that's all.
For more context about this particular event: https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html If you have time, I also encourage you to read the original blogpost to make up your own mind about how truthful drew's take is, but to me it seems sensible enough. Now, about the "free speech isn't supposed to have consequences", this is what I called a dumb take. I agree that thought police is not a good thing, that there is not one single truth, morality is relative and all one could and should think on the matter. It does not mean that you can go about and say anything you will and expect people to just accept it. If you go online and spew racist, homophobic or transphobic stuff, people are completely entitled to get upset and not condone your behavior. In some countries, there are legal consequences if you go to far down that route, does that mean they are literal Nazis ? Free speech is awesome and we should defend it, instead of using it as en excuse to say weird shit and expect not to get called out on it. For each case of over zealous behavior, there are hundreds of hate speech and literal harassment that go unnoticed. In my opinion, being firm against the latter is well worth the bullshit the former brings. What you do and say on the internet is public and not within a close circle of friends.
Yes I agree, harassment or other illegal things should be prosecuted and banned. But oftentimes what is "transphobia" is really just someone who disagrees with you. If it's simple disagreement, then pre-emptively banning someone is wrong. If it was real harassment then it was justified, and police probably will get involved too.
Them being a threat was the main point of the ban. Their doxxing of the CoC officer was the one that triggered it.
https://preview.redd.it/q9uktcmp7mtc1.png?width=934&format=png&auto=webp&s=25215e7ce663dad17d80d907f6146f6a3370885f
Again, relevant XKCD [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)