4 ms·

Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it. I just wish you didn't consider e

by jordigh 11y ago

Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it. I just wish you didn't consider enemies the women who are trying to make things better for women, and that you would not consider the majority opinion of Reddit to be correct. I wonder how big this cultural divide really is, or if it just seems this big online. In my usual workplaces, nobody would be as systematically angry as you seem to be about a woman and a company asking other people to be nice.

striking 11y ago
It doesn't seem to me that the user you're replying to is "systematically angry." Furthermore, the independent contractors were truly independent, and the Twitter meltdown and smearing were real. Those are real, harmful actions which should not be ignored. Furthermore, people are attempting to hold on to their ability to speak freely, to not have to monitor their own speech. There is no way to stop other people from being offended. No matter what you do, it will be offensive to someone. So should that person have the right to police you and to take down something that's yours? And what if you disagree with that person?
- zajd 11y ago
  No, I can assure you "then they added a CoC endorsing anti-white racism and anti-male sexism" is a phrase that betrays his political bent.
  - okasaki 11y ago
    Which is? Also, why are you assuming they are a man?
    - zajd 11y ago
      Bahahaha I love comments like this. Honestly I assumed it because his comments just read like a bitter MRA. But if you want, you can click his profile and confirm it for yourself like I did. "Why do you assume a member who spouts KKK rhetoric is a white person?!?" -okasaki
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    Well, it does say they "won't act on reverse-racism or reverse-sexism", so, depending on how you interpret that I can see what he's trying to say at least. "Endorses" is strong, but "ignores" would be correct. And one could imply something about the authors of this CoC from that.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      If you take action to ban all things in some group A, and then make an explicit exception to not ban some subgroup B, it seems pretty close to endorsing subgroup B. If they had not called the exception, but instead just ignored reports about it, that would seem more like ignoring. For a comparison, say you have a party at your house that gets out of hand. Too many strangers show up. So you explicitly state that all guests are required to leave. There is a difference between telling some people they can stay (or saying I won't call the cops if you stay, but I'll call the cops on anyone else who stays) and just ignoring the few people who don't leave.
  - striking 11y ago
    Political opinions != anger, no?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    That is generally what reverse racism and reverse sexism is understood to mean. People on either side of the argument, when asked to define those two terms, would give similar definitions. If anything betrays their political bent, it is that they view this as a negative thing. But the same could be said of those who do not view this as a negative thing.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion. Honestly, saying that anything you do will be offensive is a weak evasion of personal responsibility. It's like saying that you might as well eat Big Macs for every meal since all food can be unhealthy, under certain circumstances. While the premise is technically true, the conclusion is flawed. It's a spectrum, with behavior on one end being better than behavior on the other end. To your last point, of course some rando who's offended by my statement should haven't the right to police me or take down something I wrote. But they do have the right to respond to what I wrote, point it out to others, argue with me, criticize me for it, etc. And I have the right to argue back, ignore them, or even – as crazy as it sounds – consider if their feelings might be sincere and worth me reevaluating my statement. Anyway, this became longer than I intended. I'm just trying to say that, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, as fellow creatures inhabiting this pale blue dot, we have an obligation to deal kindly with one another. The fact that some people are jerks doesn't obviate that.
  - striking 11y ago
    The repositories mentioned in the post three levels above yours were taken down. There was no arguing back or ignoring. I am not advocating of getting rid of kindness, and I think that preventing racism is a noble idea. And I'm not obviating a responsibility to avoid offending people by commenters who want to be taken seriously. But in the end, it is nearly impossible to entirely rid yourself of offense. Freedom of speech is necessary for productive environments, and it's been proven that people behave differently and speak differently when they know they're being watched. There's a difference between attempting to be taken seriously and being disingenuous about who you are and they way you think. I believe in freedom of speech above all.
    - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
      Well said.
    - 11y ago
PLCC 11y ago
I don't see any anger. Just a list of events that happened.
jazzyk 11y ago
"women who are trying to make things better for women" Please explain how removing a rug promoting meritocracy makes things better for women.
- jordigh 11y ago
  https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of-the-meritocracy https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of... Remember that the term "meritocracy" was coined in a satirical essay about a dystopian society. It was not meant to have positive connotations.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    I still don't quite get it - meritocracy should invite all to participate and have their contributions considered equally, that's what open source development in this style is about. To say it's not something we should strive for seems ridiculous.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      It's a long article, and judging by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes? I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to begin with, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages. But the actual article, which I have my doubts you've read, explains this better.
      - ultramancool 11y ago
        > It's a long article, and by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes? Sorry, I had read it before. I just didn't really get an opportunity to discuss it. > I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to get those advantages, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages. I'm not saying perfect meritocracy is something we have, but it's something we should strive for and act under at least. We shouldn't over or undervalue contributions just because someone is a certain race/gender/etc in my opinion. It's patronizing and to do so seems only to contribute to the problem further.
Goronmon 11y ago
Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it. Seems strange to feign ambivalence while still responding to the post in question. If you really "didn't want to get into a shouting match", shouldn't you have just not responded at all?
- jordigh 11y ago
  I just didn't want to get into a point-by-point rebuttal with the original author. I'd rather talk about other things, like why "meritocracy" is a problem. A lot of people are surprised by it, since it seems like a good idea on the face of it.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I just wish you didn't consider enemies the women who are trying to make things better for women Grandparent never said that at all. Why would you even think grandparent intended this? >In my usual workplaces, nobody would be as systematically angry as you seem to be about a woman and a company asking other people to be nice. Once again, grandparent isn't systematically angry as a woman and a company asking other people to be nice. Where did you get this from?

by jordigh 11y ago

striking 11y ago

It doesn't seem to me that the user you're replying to is "systematically angry." Furthermore, the independent contractors were truly independent, and the Twitter meltdown and smearing were real. Those are real, harmful actions which should not be ignored. Furthermore, people are attempting to hold on to their ability to speak freely, to not have to monitor their own speech. There is no way to stop other people from being offended. No matter what you do, it will be offensive to someone. So should that person have the right to police you and to take down something that's yours? And what if you disagree with that person?

zajd 11y ago
No, I can assure you "then they added a CoC endorsing anti-white racism and anti-male sexism" is a phrase that betrays his political bent.
- okasaki 11y ago
  Which is? Also, why are you assuming they are a man?
  - zajd 11y ago
    Bahahaha I love comments like this. Honestly I assumed it because his comments just read like a bitter MRA. But if you want, you can click his profile and confirm it for yourself like I did. "Why do you assume a member who spouts KKK rhetoric is a white person?!?" -okasaki
- ultramancool 11y ago
  Well, it does say they "won't act on reverse-racism or reverse-sexism", so, depending on how you interpret that I can see what he's trying to say at least. "Endorses" is strong, but "ignores" would be correct. And one could imply something about the authors of this CoC from that.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    If you take action to ban all things in some group A, and then make an explicit exception to not ban some subgroup B, it seems pretty close to endorsing subgroup B. If they had not called the exception, but instead just ignored reports about it, that would seem more like ignoring. For a comparison, say you have a party at your house that gets out of hand. Too many strangers show up. So you explicitly state that all guests are required to leave. There is a difference between telling some people they can stay (or saying I won't call the cops if you stay, but I'll call the cops on anyone else who stays) and just ignoring the few people who don't leave.
- striking 11y ago
  Political opinions != anger, no?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  That is generally what reverse racism and reverse sexism is understood to mean. People on either side of the argument, when asked to define those two terms, would give similar definitions. If anything betrays their political bent, it is that they view this as a negative thing. But the same could be said of those who do not view this as a negative thing.
Tenhundfeld 11y ago
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion. Honestly, saying that anything you do will be offensive is a weak evasion of personal responsibility. It's like saying that you might as well eat Big Macs for every meal since all food can be unhealthy, under certain circumstances. While the premise is technically true, the conclusion is flawed. It's a spectrum, with behavior on one end being better than behavior on the other end. To your last point, of course some rando who's offended by my statement should haven't the right to police me or take down something I wrote. But they do have the right to respond to what I wrote, point it out to others, argue with me, criticize me for it, etc. And I have the right to argue back, ignore them, or even – as crazy as it sounds – consider if their feelings might be sincere and worth me reevaluating my statement. Anyway, this became longer than I intended. I'm just trying to say that, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, as fellow creatures inhabiting this pale blue dot, we have an obligation to deal kindly with one another. The fact that some people are jerks doesn't obviate that.
- striking 11y ago
  The repositories mentioned in the post three levels above yours were taken down. There was no arguing back or ignoring. I am not advocating of getting rid of kindness, and I think that preventing racism is a noble idea. And I'm not obviating a responsibility to avoid offending people by commenters who want to be taken seriously. But in the end, it is nearly impossible to entirely rid yourself of offense. Freedom of speech is necessary for productive environments, and it's been proven that people behave differently and speak differently when they know they're being watched. There's a difference between attempting to be taken seriously and being disingenuous about who you are and they way you think. I believe in freedom of speech above all.
  - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
    Well said.
  - 11y ago

PLCC 11y ago

I don't see any anger. Just a list of events that happened.

jazzyk 11y ago

"women who are trying to make things better for women" Please explain how removing a rug promoting meritocracy makes things better for women.

jordigh 11y ago
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of-the-meritocracy https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of... Remember that the term "meritocracy" was coined in a satirical essay about a dystopian society. It was not meant to have positive connotations.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  I still don't quite get it - meritocracy should invite all to participate and have their contributions considered equally, that's what open source development in this style is about. To say it's not something we should strive for seems ridiculous.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    It's a long article, and judging by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes? I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to begin with, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages. But the actual article, which I have my doubts you've read, explains this better.
    - ultramancool 11y ago
      > It's a long article, and by the timestamps, you had less than five minutes to read it. Did you really read it in less than five minutes? Sorry, I had read it before. I just didn't really get an opportunity to discuss it. > I suppose I need to give my slightly inaccurate summary: trying to judge people just based upon their contributions ends up only benefiting the elite who had unfair advantages to get those advantages, and intentionally silences any effort to compensate people who have inherent social disadvantages. I'm not saying perfect meritocracy is something we have, but it's something we should strive for and act under at least. We shouldn't over or undervalue contributions just because someone is a certain race/gender/etc in my opinion. It's patronizing and to do so seems only to contribute to the problem further.

Goronmon 11y ago

Sigh... there is so much wrong with what you've posted here, but I don't want to get into a screaming match with you about it. Seems strange to feign ambivalence while still responding to the post in question. If you really "didn't want to get into a shouting match", shouldn't you have just not responded at all?

jordigh 11y ago
I just didn't want to get into a point-by-point rebuttal with the original author. I'd rather talk about other things, like why "meritocracy" is a problem. A lot of people are surprised by it, since it seems like a good idea on the face of it.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>I just wish you didn't consider enemies the women who are trying to make things better for women Grandparent never said that at all. Why would you even think grandparent intended this? >In my usual workplaces, nobody would be as systematically angry as you seem to be about a woman and a company asking other people to be nice. Once again, grandparent isn't systematically angry as a woman and a company asking other people to be nice. Where did you get this from?