• 7 Posts
  • 160 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Tower, moving into refrigerator area

    Hands, prepare for food extraction

    Stomach stand by

    Stomach stand by

    Eyes show doors within range

    Extending arm, prepare handle grasp

    Handle secured

    Contract arm for open

    Door is opening

    *alarm siren*

    Unauthorized food ejection ALERT

    Eyes reporting the raspberries fell out again

    *launch expletives*

    Stomach, stand by

    All arms, hands defend against the animals

    Emergency cleanup all hands

    *launch expletives, threaten animals*

    Head warning, open refrigerator door - repeat: Head warning

    Stomach, stand by

    *auxilliary cursing: ON*
















  • TL;DR;

    A few days later, someone pointed out an issue in SerenityOS where a new contributor offered to update the documentation to include gender-neutral language instead of always assuming the person building the project was a man. Kling rejected it with the statement: “This project is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics.”

    …Kling and the Ladybird project doubled down on rejecting active inclusion in the name of being “apolitical.” Others tried to explain that rejecting inclusivity is inherently a political decision.

    If you’ve watched enough of these things play out, it’s usually the doubling down that causes a lasting split, more than the original disagreement.

    So not some kind of JK Rowling transphobia or even stock republiQan misogyny as much as a fairly tone-deaf executive position on documentation that became a thing.

    Making documentation gender-neutral is not radical or ‘political’ other than it’s trying to reflect the reality that more than just men use and create code. It seems like Kling thought his project was under threat of takeover by some radical pansexual furry anarcho-collective (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and said something stupid like “documentation isn’t a place for political debate” which, is sort of true and also not relevant to the change requested.

    As the article states, the real issue is the doubling down. That’s not good.