Globrazu

You're talking and generalizing an awful lot of people.

https://twitter.com/rachelmyers/status/629981737121021953 (also see some of her late Tweets about this very thread)

https://twitter.com/agelender/status/629080326736773120 https://twitter.com/agelender/status/573560084837498880

I think it started around the time they threw out their "meritocracy rug" back in early 2014 or somewhat before: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug

Not to say that she hasn't provided any proof for many of the claims made.

How do "her feelings" in any way matter over the facts of the situation? This doesn't make sense, I can't discuss anything based on "other people's feelings".

Then you might want to rethink your convictions regarding harassment and abuse, seeing as she's engaged in these things unrepentingly and repeatedly over time periods of years. As I've pointed out in the other comment above, none of these people had anything to do with her before she decided to attack them. Vivek Wadhwa among them least of all, he even offered her a copy of his book for free, which had many testimonials of "women in tech": https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/522547854477246464

He was an avid activist of "getting more women into Tech" and wrote countless columns and the like (and his book in regards to it containing dozens of testimonials) before: http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/01/22/vivek-wadhwa-st... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivek-wadhwa/women-in-tech_b_5... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivek-wadhwa/come-on-silicon-v...

He had to step back from arguing for that position because of the reaction of people like Randi to him: https://gigaom.com/2015/02/23/vivek-wadwha-steps-back-from-t...

Vivek Wadhwa wrote a book that she didn't like and upon being "criticized" even offered a free copy of it, she declined and told him to go die in a fire.

Anne Rice called attention to an article about this and she was declared a "bully" and a "harasser".

Ted Neward never had any conversations with her when she asked for him to be "driven out of the industry" and Iris Classon pleaded to be left alone because Randi was trying to use her for her own purposes.

Roberto Rosario was put on a "list of harassers" by her because he followed the "wrong kind of people" on Twitter and got subsequently harassed and she tried to get him removed from speaking at conferences.

These people ARE HER VICTIMS, not the other way around. She initiates these things. Similar with the FreeBSD community, this is the first time Johannes Meixner has ever talked to her, his supposed wrongdoing previously was that he criticized "safe spaces" and "Code of Conducts" saying that he agrees with this: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

https://twitter.com/xmjEE/status/613083223086768128

Again she attacked him privately telling him to "go fuck himself", that he is a "piece of shit", a "privileged dumbass" and that he is supposedly "giving the project a bad name" while all he did was remaining calm and saying that he has different opinions: https://archive.is/9KGyX

He called this behaviour out after said Code of Conduct was implemented and the Foundation didn't choose to do anything in his favor, this is why he left: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.advocacy/5404/

Randi is just trying to change cause and effect. Nobody was "beaten by the police" in this case and most of these people didn't even know of her existence before. SHE is the harasser/abuser in most of these situations, if you have any proof pointing out otherwise, please feel free to share.

Not to say that this is not the only or first time Randi has behaved like this or done this to someone if you are aware of her larger Online presence, for instance she did it to Vivek Wadhwa: http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2015/06/01/randi-harpers-bul...

She said this about Anne Rice, the 74 year old female author of The Vampire Chronicles / Interview With A Vampire: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/605650789348995073 https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/605736216625938432 https://twitter.com/freebsdgirl/status/605636162653417472

She even did this to Open Source developers like Ted Neward (who she wanted to "drive out of the industry" over a single inappropriate comment) and pulled his supposed "target" Iris Classon into it, upon which she had to defend both herself and him from Randi: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/535151831027302400 http://archive.is/g2556 http://archive.is/T9Hvm http://archive.is/9GUle

Another Open Source developer, who was chairman of the IGDA Puerto Rico and part of several Open Source communities, and was subsequently forced to step down from the IGDA any Python Cuba she did it to was Roberto Rosario: https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/624257540948393988 https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/625866078925647872 https://twitter.com/siloraptor/status/588123915488223232

What exposing someone who pretends to lead an "Online Abuse Prevention Initiative" while being one of the biggest abusers has to do with a "misogynistic campaign" you'll have to explain.

It's very basic DARVO. It's a pattern of pathological behaviour with this person of attacking/going after someone and calling everyone that calls it out "bullies" or "harassers".

How about you give links to these "vicious attacks" so people can actually look at them and make up their own opinions, it's not like they contain any proof that anyone is a serial harasser:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/29/harping-o...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/23/freebsd-c...

And here's a "discussion" on the matter between Randi, Colin and Johannes on /r/FreeBSD: https://archive.is/wH4Rg

See also: http://dancerscode.com/blog/why-the-open-code-of-conduct-isn...

But look at some instances for people who have tried to win political arguments by invoking CoC or are lobbying to instate them on Open Source projects.

Here is a case, someone from Italy was openly against reassignment surgery for kids on Twitter: https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/61156951531550720...

Uh-oh my wrong-think senses are tingling, he had a different opinion on a social issue on his private Twitter account. How could this possibly be handled? Ignore him, discuss this issue with him or agree to disagree? No, clearly he must be somehow punished for this. Luckily he is apparently contributor to an Open Source project called Opal, so let’s bring it up there and insist: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

This is fortunately brought up by someone who has already developed their own “Code of Conduct” that would require that it be followed on “public spaces” (like Twitter, Facebook or forums) and if not be removed from the project: http://contributor-covenant.org/ http://where.coraline.codes/coraline_ehmke.pdf

“By adopting this Code of Conduct, project maintainers commit themselves to fairly and consistently applying these principles to every aspect of managing this project. Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team.

This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.”

It’s basically a shakedown game for ideological control of a space and seems to work this way:

1) Someone gets offended by something someone in the Open Source community said (usually on Twitter or at an official event), they demand they be removed or otherwise punished for the offending thing.

2) They flood GitHub or similar with demands to remove said individual and/or at least adopt a “Code of Conduct” to prevent such “despicable” behavior like disagreeing in the future, which includes all Social media and official events

3) Once project creators have been socially shamed as some sort of bigots for not wanting to do anything against this sufficiently and the activists got a foot in the door they push a self-formulated “Code of Conduct” on the project like above

4) Then they demand it be upheld and anyone that says anything they deem offensive be removed from the project, if it happens another time they can point to said “Code of Conduct” and ask the project creators to abide. A “safe space” has been created. After this they don’t particularly give a shit if great software engineers get pushed out for disagreeing or the project even fails beyond this point, because said people don’t want to abide by their ideology.

Meritocracy is also generally a trigger-word for these people, they absolutely hate it. Just bring it up in conversation and they reveal themselves and their intentions rather quickly: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug

https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of...

Another recent issue was GitHub removing a WebM Converter repo because it used the word “retards”, you can see the same individual involved in the first Twitter conflict pop up throughout the comments yelling at other people to leave: https://github.com/nixxquality/WebMConverter/commit/c1ac0baa...

Several GitHub employees would agree: https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/pull/17

https://twitter.com/rachelmyers/status/629981737121021953

https://twitter.com/agelender/status/629080326736773120 https://twitter.com/agelender/status/573560084837498880

If you are legally required to take something down it is kind of different from when you freely choose to do so because you find the content objectionable on ideological grounds. In this case you decided to act against the principles of free speech and network neutrality of your own free will.

Some for instance (GitHub, BitBucket, Google Code) also decided to remove the satirical "C+=" repo from their service, you didn't: https://gitlab.com/femsf/c-plus-equality

For interested parties, there is actually a server that has existed for a while, but this is mostly about the choices you make as a company in the wake of GitHub deleting repos over the use of the word "retarded" and employing an intentionally discriminatory Code of Conduct: https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master

Nobody is arguing this isn't your right as a company, they are just questioning your judgment and reason and if their projects are safe with a company that will remove something that doesn't intellectually agree with the political stance of its CEO.

All these people you saw surging to your service the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003334

Most of them don't want to deal with the volatility of a professional environment where someone just has to be "offended" and their work could be arbitrarily pulled.

An AMA which he held deliberately vague and where he made various of the claims that critics of "GamerGate" make to begin with, for which he was amply downvoted at times: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...

Again, what does this say about an ideology that sees someone writing for a giant publication as "tainted" simply for posting in a certain Subreddit, even if he largely agrees with them?

In fact it was founded by Rutledge Daugette in March 2013, over a year before "GamerGate" started in August 2014. So apparently the site was "set up by evil GamerGaters" over a year and a half before it ever existed in prescient foreknowledge and expectation.

What this should tell you both about said claim and the people making it I would like to leave up to you.

In fact it was founded by Rutledge Daugette in March 2013, over a year before "GamerGate".

What this should tell you both about said claim and the person making it I would like to leave to you.