3 ms·
I'm probably going to burn myself here, we'll see. It seems to be written to protect minorities from majorities, as opposed to protecting everyone equally. For
by iLoch 11y ago
I'm probably going to burn myself here, we'll see. It seems to be written to protect minorities from majorities, as opposed to protecting everyone equally. For example they mention that they will not be handling complaints related to "reverse-isms" such as "reverse-racism" which is actually just racism. And this is coming from a CoC which is designed to be adopted by projects.
Their argument is that "straight white males" can't be subject to racism or sexism simply because of their race and gender. This would obviously generate controversy and is generally a racist and sexist statement, which is likely why they put the project on hold - it could create a lot of negative news coverage for GitHub.
- rndgermandude 11y agoTo give a little context, it reads: > We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ This was taken from http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ with one omission: > The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist) I'd agree that the reverse-isms do not exist. Sexism is sexism no matter who it affects. But it is not clear to me if the text should be interpreted this way...
- 13thLetter 11y agoSo to be clear, if someone was talking about "male tears" or saying that all white people were [X], you believe that this code of conduct would be enforced against those people? Because I don't. If the CoC was genuinely designed to oppose discriminatory behavior against everyone, why would its authors be clinging so tightly to this bit of language that could be interpreted as greenlighting certain types of discrimination? It's unnecessary, so why not remove it?