Devs quit Skullgirls and Indivisible studio Lab Zero Games, issues with studio owner

Quoting: shawnsterpSo, the questions run through my head: Are these mindsets indicative of the majority of linux users, or is it the usual vocal minority aholes that like to spend all day on comment sections / reddit? And if this IS the way most linux users act, how do I feel about being associated with them? And, is this actually more toxic than windows gamers / users?

My guess is that other communities are just as toxic, which is depressing to say the least. But, I don't really know. All I know is that the one that I am in IS toxic.

Well, first, consider yourself lucky. On this site, there is an argument happening between different sides; count up the posts and the posters and I think you'll find the solidly "oh no cancel culture" side doesn't make up a majority--and they're mostly fairly polite. I'm pretty sure in some places any voice on your side would be shouted down, and not pleasantly. (To be fair, in some other places anyone taking that side would be treated pretty viciously)
In this connection we should all be glad that Liam moderates this stuff and keeps these discussions relatively civil.

As to where Linux gaming culture fits in all this . . . well, there are at least three cultures mingling there. First, there's gaming culture overall, which traditionally has a reputation for toxic, antifeminist stuff and general crudeness. It would be a miracle if Linux gaming culture had none of that from broader gaming culture. Second, there's the "techie", "computer nerd" culture. It's actually kind of similar--a bit more intellectual, but traditionally very white male dominated and very reluctant to face its biases; on top of that there's a flavour of "meritocracy" that tends to advocate letting the talented, or in some cases the "talented", do whatever they want. Linux culture is in large part a subset of that culture, so . . .

To the extent that Linux culture has its own specific characteristics distinct from normal computer culture, it's ambiguous. Linux culture values freedom and individuality, which cuts two ways--on one hand there's the "freedom to act like a dick if I want" implication, but on the other there's the "don't judge people for being different, belonging to different categories" implication. Even this latter tends to result in a sort of "colour-blind" ethos that ignores built-in barriers--like "What? We're not treating her bad because she's a woman, we're treating her bad because she won't swap sexist jokes with us!" However, Linux culture is also dedicated to co-operation--the freedom in open source is about people freely building things together. This ethos doesn't have much patience for people messing other people over and making them not want to participate. And Linux people are used to being a minority, so they may extend the concept of Linux minorities wanting good treatment to the concept of other kinds of minorities wanting good treatment. Overall I'd want to claim that the specific Linux culture has a positive impact. But Linux gaming culture is still to a fair extent a piece of gaming and techie cultures, so go figure.

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: shawnsterpMy guess is that other communities are just as toxic

No need to guess, go look in the comments on any major PC gaming website for all sorts of subjects - they're all pretty terrible. We're somewhat unique, as we cover a niche and have a much lower volume of comments. However, like all communities, we also have some people with very polarizing ideas and some people feel the need to comment constantly on things they don't like. In short: all communities have weird people in them.

People know my stance on things though and the wider stance of GOL as a website: support developers, be kind to people, fuck racism and sexism.

Why not reverse the order of the comments section? Maybe make the most recent comments appear at the top of the page so the first comment right under the article doesn't end up being the first thing people see forever. I notice the same users rushing to post idiotic comments every time you post an article that has anything to do with discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Quoting: Sudo_haltStill, I'm against cance(r)l culture. The companies who have severed their ties should have waited for results of a court of law, and then taken action.

I was with you until that last statement. The companies certainly should not have waited for results of a (years long that will likely never happen) court trial to decide who they do and don't want to work with. The worlds of public relations and business relationships are very often ones of guilty until exonerated. It's not fair, and not right, but it's how the world has always worked. Individuals and companies make such decisions all the time based on such soft things as reputation and reviews. It's only the speed and visibility of information now and our divided society that's given such things the name "cancel culture" and thus invited people to take polarized views of the situation. As with all such things, it's a nuanced situation. Are some people being treated unfairly and too quickly? Yes. Is power being given to people who historically would have been marginalized and ignored? Yes. The middle ground awaits...

Part of what Patola seem to have been arguing about is this right here ;

QuoteWhile various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of – truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability – as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.[...]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards

(correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth)

---------------

You don't have to like his humour, you don't have to like his opinions, you don't have to like the guy at all. But you do have to accept his rights.

Even possible racism aside, making a joke relating to "I can't breath" is in poor taste given the circumstances. But bad humour isn't illegal. Even repeated bad humour isn't illegal. It's just that; bad humour.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' preamble:

QuoteWhereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people [...]

Another important part from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

QuoteArticle 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media

Other relevant articles: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19. (Don't worry, they are only one to a few sentences each, with no legalese.)

source: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng
here you can find the charter in 524 translations: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/SearchByLang.aspx

As for the workers;

Article 23, guarantees their right to a safe work environment, so if that has been breached they should be protected. This is generally also protected with relevant national or local worker protection laws.

And I'm glad they were financially stable enough to be able to quit en masse. Hopefully they will be able to find new employment shortly.

The USA isn't known for its stellar track record with regards to human rights, especially worker related, but they do mostly abide by them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOn this site, there is an argument happening between different sides; count up the posts and the posters and I think you'll find the solidly "oh no cancel culture" side doesn't make up a majority--and they're mostly fairly polite. I'm pretty sure in some places any voice on your side would be shouted down, and not pleasantly. (To be fair, in some other places anyone taking that side would be treated pretty viciously)

To expand on this point, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

Quoting: GuestSo workers organizing a union and fighting against this asshole is not an option... The option is crying at twitter, this is why i hate cancel culture, it's the same shit as protestants burning witches, that's why this born in the USA.

The option was quitting their jobs. This has been pointed out repeatedly. And yeah, they said why they quit; should they be wearing muzzles?
That said, I certainly support unionization. But it is very hard in the United States. There are a host of barriers both formal and informal. For instance, in the US you can be fired for no reason. You can't be fired for trying to organize a union (or for racist reasons etc.), but as long as the employer claim they just sacked you because they felt like it, that they're allowed to do. And they are well aware of this--firing would-be union organizers not-because-of-that is an American tradition. There are various barriers designed to slow down the process of reaching union certification, so that the employer can have plenty of time to bully the employees into not unionizing. Americans don't have card-check, for instance--they have to have a formal vote announced to the relevant government agency (and hence the employer) months in advance. The US has numerous law firms, some quite large, that officially specialize in union-busting. Mirv mentioned the contracts, which hadn't occurred to me.
But there are also cultural issues. The US tech sector is very anti-union, even more than the US overall; part of it is this whole ideology of "meritocracy", which is co-incidentally very convenient for bosses. Part of it is that most of the software business grew after the Reaganite anti-union shift in US culture, so it never had any union roots. But the point is, I'd say in the California tech sector a boss could very plausibly threaten that if you try to start a union you'll never work in the whole sector again. That's before you even get into tech-sector workers internalizing those anti-union ideas, making them hard to organize.

Quoting: GuestI hate racism more than any of you

You seem very sure. Shall we get out the racism-hate meter and measure?

Quoting: Guest, but this is pathetic, and when someone says something different you start crying about how this community is terrible, but the guy talking here was only saying that lynching people is not okay.

Frankly, someone who hates racism might perhaps want to think for two seconds before they start saying "People publicly saying what an asshole their boss is" == "lynching". It isn't a lynching, it isn't anything even remotely comparable to a lynching.

Quoting: GuestA guy making a joke with "i can't breath" is an asshole and a racist? YES

And yet, that isn't why they left. If you read what they said, at least three of them in very measured, careful language refer to a long term pattern of abusive behaviour against everyone at the firm, which the person had no interest in changing.

Quoting: GuestBut remember, you live in a country (USA,UK) where (by my point of view, hispanic mixed race) almost everyone is racist as fuck, and your only way of "fighting" this is lynching some guy here and there, while the real problem still exists and is becoming bigger and bigger. Because racism must be confronted philosophically and politically, and the most anti-racist thing USA has ever done was voting for a black guy that bombed Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc... Your whole system is fucked up.

Well, I'm a Canadian, so no, I don't live in that country. But yes, the whole US system is fucked up. Canadian too, to a somewhat lesser extent. And sure, major systemic change is needed for a host of reasons.
. . . And that means that until the systemic change happens, you should keep your mouth shut when your boss makes your employment so intolerable that you have to quit in the middle of the economy cratering? What?!
Your systemic point is off topic. Little individual instances of people calling out racism and assholery does not block systemic change.

Quoting: GuestI don't care what happens with this guy, i just don't get how he could be that powerful to make half the staff flee instead of getting what he deserved, an organized union of workers forcing him to stop being a dick.

I'll be frank: That is because you are ignorant. You're the one saying the system is fucked up and needs changing. Well guess what? The system is fucked up because it is dedicated to making sure asshole owners like him do have that much power. What do you think racism is for, anyway? It's to create groups who can be freely victimized, ie have more profits extracted from them, and to create an alternate target, a scapegoat to point the non-racialized bits of the working class at so they don't pay attention to the owners picking their pockets. Overall, a two-pronged strategy for giving that kind of person that much power. It's one strategy among many, and those strategies have been used very effectively in the US.

I think you've been culturally suckered. Despite hating racism, after buying some lines about "cancel culture" you're ending up in the position that racists are often in: Blaming the victims.

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: F.UltraBiased about racism? You do know that the alternative would be "pro racism" right?!

No, that's a false dilemma. And I would suggest not to go this way on this thread, this has nothing whatsoever to do with racism and the current topic is controversial enough.

Is it really? How else can one interpret "biased about racism"? If it was written that way by mistake then by all means, but if not then how on earth can one interpret it in any other way?

Quoting: shorbergPart of what Patola seem to have been arguing about is this right here ;

QuoteWhile various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of – truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability – as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.[...]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards

(correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth)

---------------

You don't have to like his humour, you don't have to like his opinions, you don't have to like the guy at all. But you do have to accept his rights.

I presume you're implying that in an age where anyone can say something and in effect be "publishing" their statement at a scale previously available only to newspapers etc., average people can and should now be considered "journalists" and judged by their adherence to journalistic codes.
But I'm not sure the existence of journalistic codes of how journalists talk about people actually implies a right of those people not to be talked about in other ways, particularly by non-journalists. And since a person's victims cannot really be considered "impartial" no matter how they actually speak, such a right (and the way some people here, including you, have been talking about it) would imply that all victims have to simply shut up, or at best hope that some journalist gatekeeper will speak for them--impartially, and all that. Of course with them not allowed to say anything there's nothing leading a journalist to realize there was something to report on. I seem to remember a more generally accepted right ("freedom of speech") that is violated by that idea. I also feel it violates common decency.

Incidentally, I read the statements by the people who made any. Being victims, they as I say can't be impartial. But they spoke quite carefully. The statements looked quite impartial and fair. And as to accountability--they're pre-accountable, they already lost their jobs! I can't judge for sure whether they were truthful . . . but most people don't quit their jobs for no reason, so I'm disposed not to call them liars from the get-go. You seem to be assuming that they are lying and defaming the guy and violating journalistic codes, but do you have evidence that they are in fact doing so? Why are you making that assumption?

Quoting: shorbergEven possible racism aside, making a joke relating to "I can't breath" is in poor taste given the circumstances. But bad humour isn't illegal. Even repeated bad humour isn't illegal. It's just that; bad humour.

Illegal? Did they put him in jail? Have they fined him? Given him onerous probation conditions and an officer checking up on him to see that he obeys them? No. They spoke about him in public. Surely their speech is just as much legal speech as his racist humour, and yet theirs, you seem to be seeking to criminalize.
I actually find it disturbing the extent to which commenters who want to shut these people up act as if all that is alleged is that he made some bad jokes. First, racist jokes are not just "bad humour" and repeatedly saying that really reminds me of the whole "Where's your sense of humour?" pseudo-defence traditionally used to make racist and sexist behaviour OK. But in any case, why are you carefully avoiding the allegations of a years-long practice of workplace bullying and harassment?

Quoting: shorbergFrom the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' preamble:

I'd find this whole section a lot less pompous if you could point to some right of this douchebag that they're violating. But all you're saying is that the free speech of some non-journalists which may violate the voluntary codes of conduct of at least some journalists represent both a violation of his rights and, somehow, a privately imposed legal penalty. Frankly, that's ridiculous.
If he thinks they're lying, he can sue. Or at least tweet back--it's not like he doesn't have access to the exact same platforms they do.

Quoting: shorbergAs for the workers;

Article 23, guarantees their right to a safe work environment

Oh, well that's all right then. I'm sure they were fine. Clearly, nothing bad happened and they didn't actually quit their jobs. Or at least, we can intuit that if they did quit their jobs it's only because they didn't understand that they're protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: shawnsterpSo, the questions run through my head: Are these mindsets indicative of the majority of linux users, or is it the usual vocal minority aholes that like to spend all day on comment sections / reddit? And if this IS the way most linux users act, how do I feel about being associated with them? And, is this actually more toxic than windows gamers / users?

My guess is that other communities are just as toxic, which is depressing to say the least. But, I don't really know. All I know is that the one that I am in IS toxic.

Well, first, consider yourself lucky. On this site, there is an argument happening between different sides; count up the posts and the posters and I think you'll find the solidly "oh no cancel culture" side doesn't make up a majority--and they're mostly fairly polite. I'm pretty sure in some places any voice on your side would be shouted down, and not pleasantly. (To be fair, in some other places anyone taking that side would be treated pretty viciously)
In this connection we should all be glad that Liam moderates this stuff and keeps these discussions relatively civil.

As to where Linux gaming culture fits in all this . . . well, there are at least three cultures mingling there. First, there's gaming culture overall, which traditionally has a reputation for toxic, antifeminist stuff and general crudeness. It would be a miracle if Linux gaming culture had none of that from broader gaming culture. Second, there's the "techie", "computer nerd" culture. It's actually kind of similar--a bit more intellectual, but traditionally very white male dominated and very reluctant to face its biases; on top of that there's a flavour of "meritocracy" that tends to advocate letting the talented, or in some cases the "talented", do whatever they want. Linux culture is in large part a subset of that culture, so . . .

To the extent that Linux culture has its own specific characteristics distinct from normal computer culture, it's ambiguous. Linux culture values freedom and individuality, which cuts two ways--on one hand there's the "freedom to act like a dick if I want" implication, but on the other there's the "don't judge people for being different, belonging to different categories" implication. Even this latter tends to result in a sort of "colour-blind" ethos that ignores built-in barriers--like "What? We're not treating her bad because she's a woman, we're treating her bad because she won't swap sexist jokes with us!" However, Linux culture is also dedicated to co-operation--the freedom in open source is about people freely building things together. This ethos doesn't have much patience for people messing other people over and making them not want to participate. And Linux people are used to being a minority, so they may extend the concept of Linux minorities wanting good treatment to the concept of other kinds of minorities wanting good treatment. Overall I'd want to claim that the specific Linux culture has a positive impact. But Linux gaming culture is still to a fair extent a piece of gaming and techie cultures, so go figure.

Add to that that the Linux community being a "nerd" community turned up to eleven consists to a somewhat high degree of people that are (and/or are feeling) marginalized by society at large and thus cannot really grasp that you can still be part of white/male privilege and still be marginalized.

Quoting: TiZHoly shit. I shouldn't be surprised that the comments of a Linux gaming website has such headass takes, but yet here I am. I don't know if it's my bad for thinking the climate might improve over time, or y'all's bad for going bad-faith against the victims and playing devil's advocate in favor of the abuser. It's always about "cancel culture! cancel culture! cancel culture!" I'm sick of hearing about the "cancel culture" boogeyman every time news of abuse comes out and a community takes action to make things right. If that means ousting someone in a position of power, I'm personally in favor of making sure the door hits them on the way out.

I'm glad the article at least is straight to the point with the facts of the matter. Those who left Lab Zero did so because Mike Z created an unsafe work environment with his behavior. There's no "snowflake" stuff at play here. If you think that an employee should endure that sort of behavior from an employer, you're messed in the head and part of what enables garbage people like him to continue to be garbage.

Cybik didn't even work for L0 in any sense of the word; he was a volunteer who kept the code in sync and he left in solidarity with the employees who quit. He's been doing all that work for free and he's got a better moral sense than half of the people in this comment area.

Don't know if you have seen this, but it's a good take on the whole "cancel culture" thing.

Cancel Culture Isn't A Thing, You Snowflakes - Some More News