6 ms·

You are of course correct. As soon as he linked to Geekfeminism I knew we weren't going to be getting anywhere. That my point of view must be silenced at all c

You are of course correct. As soon as he linked to Geekfeminism I knew we weren't going to be getting anywhere. That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main reasons why I would never support the Geekfeminism people. Contrary to what the parent comment states, he is most definitely not willing to question his own base assumptions and political goals.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main reasons why I would never support the Geekfeminism people. There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to repeatedly have the same argument. New arguments need new information, and the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time. Project mailing lists and other communication channels, for instance, are the wrong place for repeated introductory conversations demanding justifications for a code of conduct. And that's a very common problem. Considering I didn't start with the set of base assumptions I have now, and had to learn them over time, I'm always willing to question them. That I don't personally find any of your arguments even remotely compelling towards that end doesn't make those assumptions immutable. To explicitly state some of the assumptions that I suspect we disagree on: 1) If you refuse to exclude anyone from a project, then you're by default excluding people who are not willing to put up with a hostile environment. 2) Since you can't avoid excluding people, better to exclude people who make the project less welcoming. 3) Don't let the people you want to exclude write the policy. 4) Don't let the people who would fare just fine in a project without a code of conduct drive the requirements; get the requirements from people who wouldn't. Apart from that, the other reason I don't particularly care about having this argument here is that it's unlikely to have as much effect as having it elsewhere.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  I don't see much point in discussing Geekfeminism. You see it as a valuable resource, I see it as a corrupting force in our industry. We're not going to come together there. As for base assumptions, I see we also differ wildly. Mine are: * Code quality matters above all else. * People that don't contribute code don't get a seat at the table. * There's no inherent value in letting as many people as possible contribute to the project. Quality over quantity. I'm leaving out anything having to do with feminism because we're not going to agree on anything about it.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    Yeah, if you believe code is more important than people, rather than code existing to serve people, this isn't going to go anywhere. There's another assumption you're implying but leaving out: "The set of people who show up and contribute under those conditions will inherently be the best and produce the best results". And that assumption is subject to a lot of confirmation bias; if you don't set out to question that assumption, you'll tend to get results that give you no reason to doubt it, precisely because it's harder to notice the absence of something.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      I believe people are A LOT tougher than groups like Geekfeminism give them credit for. Telling them to "get good at coding then come back and contribute" is actually better for people than "come on in, we focus on being super inclusive" or even worse "you don't code at all, but please chime in on our project". People need internal drive to excel, no external welcoming will make that happen. Coding well is damn hard, by its very nature it's not a very inclusive thing. Very few have the capacity to do it well. I prefer to focus on them than on the masses that will never be great coders. I don't think pretending like everyone can and should be involved is useful. I'm a minority from a poor background. No one encouraged me to code, I couldn't even afford the tools I needed. I would read computer magazines in the supermarket and write psudeo-code on paper at home. I'm now a very successful software engineer. Regardless of how unimportant you think my own experience is, it IS quite possible to succeed if you're talented and from an under represented group, no "safe spaces" needed. Just tenacity, an interest in the subject matter and self-drive.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        I'm not talking about ability to code, and projects don't necessarily need to invite people who don't already know how; that's a separate issue. It might be a good idea, and I do think you're also undervaluing non-code contributions, but that's not at all the kind of "welcoming" I'm talking about here. For the people who do know how to code, there's an additional barrier of dealing with people who (for a few examples) like to shout about how anyone who could possibly write such terrible code should die to save important people the trouble of dealing with them, or who talk about "how to explain to your wife or girlfriend", or who give conference presentations featuring lingerie models and pornstars. Nobody should have to put up with that, or should be told to grow a thicker skin. Not wanting to put up with that does not mean someone doesn't know how to code. And allowing that kind of thing in your project disproportionately tends to exclude some groups more than others.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to repeatedly have the same argument. If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you. > the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time. To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument. The Discovery Institute also has a repository of what it asserts are refutations of evolution, but (assuming you're not a creationist) I doubt you'd rush out and read them all just on my say-so. Same deal here.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you. Granted. I've certainly spent a pile of time commenting in this thread, and none of it was new. But just as it's reasonable to link to a FAQ rather than answer the same question for the Nth time, it's also not unreasonable to link to a detailed response to an argument rather than reiterating it for the Nth time, especially when it's far better supported and researched than something off-the-cuff. > To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument. Sure. And if someone really wanted to try to argue against those points, by all means do so (in an appropriate forum and context, not on a project mailing list for instance). But ignoring those arguments because of the site they're on or the people who made them is a perfectly sensible reason to end the discussion, just as if someone said "I'm ignoring everything you just said, my arguments still hold, so there". I'm disinclined to read a pile of arguments in favor of creationism for exactly the same reasons I'm disinclined to directly get into an argument with a creationist: there's no possible way it's worth my time to do so. If I've found myself making some set of poor life choices that led me to become involved in such a debate, then of course I'd read and respond to arguments made in it, as with any other discussion. I'd also be inclined to consider whether I'm primarily trying to convince that person, or primarily convince the set of as-yet uncommitted bystanders while writing off that person as likely a hopeless cause.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main reasons why I would never support the Geekfeminism people. There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to repeatedly have the same argument. New arguments need new information, and the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time. Project mailing lists and other communication channels, for instance, are the wrong place for repeated introductory conversations demanding justifications for a code of conduct. And that's a very common problem. Considering I didn't start with the set of base assumptions I have now, and had to learn them over time, I'm always willing to question them. That I don't personally find any of your arguments even remotely compelling towards that end doesn't make those assumptions immutable. To explicitly state some of the assumptions that I suspect we disagree on: 1) If you refuse to exclude anyone from a project, then you're by default excluding people who are not willing to put up with a hostile environment. 2) Since you can't avoid excluding people, better to exclude people who make the project less welcoming. 3) Don't let the people you want to exclude write the policy. 4) Don't let the people who would fare just fine in a project without a code of conduct drive the requirements; get the requirements from people who wouldn't. Apart from that, the other reason I don't particularly care about having this argument here is that it's unlikely to have as much effect as having it elsewhere.

exstudent2 11y ago
I don't see much point in discussing Geekfeminism. You see it as a valuable resource, I see it as a corrupting force in our industry. We're not going to come together there. As for base assumptions, I see we also differ wildly. Mine are: * Code quality matters above all else. * People that don't contribute code don't get a seat at the table. * There's no inherent value in letting as many people as possible contribute to the project. Quality over quantity. I'm leaving out anything having to do with feminism because we're not going to agree on anything about it.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Yeah, if you believe code is more important than people, rather than code existing to serve people, this isn't going to go anywhere. There's another assumption you're implying but leaving out: "The set of people who show up and contribute under those conditions will inherently be the best and produce the best results". And that assumption is subject to a lot of confirmation bias; if you don't set out to question that assumption, you'll tend to get results that give you no reason to doubt it, precisely because it's harder to notice the absence of something.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    I believe people are A LOT tougher than groups like Geekfeminism give them credit for. Telling them to "get good at coding then come back and contribute" is actually better for people than "come on in, we focus on being super inclusive" or even worse "you don't code at all, but please chime in on our project". People need internal drive to excel, no external welcoming will make that happen. Coding well is damn hard, by its very nature it's not a very inclusive thing. Very few have the capacity to do it well. I prefer to focus on them than on the masses that will never be great coders. I don't think pretending like everyone can and should be involved is useful. I'm a minority from a poor background. No one encouraged me to code, I couldn't even afford the tools I needed. I would read computer magazines in the supermarket and write psudeo-code on paper at home. I'm now a very successful software engineer. Regardless of how unimportant you think my own experience is, it IS quite possible to succeed if you're talented and from an under represented group, no "safe spaces" needed. Just tenacity, an interest in the subject matter and self-drive.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I'm not talking about ability to code, and projects don't necessarily need to invite people who don't already know how; that's a separate issue. It might be a good idea, and I do think you're also undervaluing non-code contributions, but that's not at all the kind of "welcoming" I'm talking about here. For the people who do know how to code, there's an additional barrier of dealing with people who (for a few examples) like to shout about how anyone who could possibly write such terrible code should die to save important people the trouble of dealing with them, or who talk about "how to explain to your wife or girlfriend", or who give conference presentations featuring lingerie models and pornstars. Nobody should have to put up with that, or should be told to grow a thicker skin. Not wanting to put up with that does not mean someone doesn't know how to code. And allowing that kind of thing in your project disproportionately tends to exclude some groups more than others.
13thLetter 11y ago
> There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to repeatedly have the same argument. If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you. > the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time. To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument. The Discovery Institute also has a repository of what it asserts are refutations of evolution, but (assuming you're not a creationist) I doubt you'd rush out and read them all just on my say-so. Same deal here.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you. Granted. I've certainly spent a pile of time commenting in this thread, and none of it was new. But just as it's reasonable to link to a FAQ rather than answer the same question for the Nth time, it's also not unreasonable to link to a detailed response to an argument rather than reiterating it for the Nth time, especially when it's far better supported and researched than something off-the-cuff. > To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument. Sure. And if someone really wanted to try to argue against those points, by all means do so (in an appropriate forum and context, not on a project mailing list for instance). But ignoring those arguments because of the site they're on or the people who made them is a perfectly sensible reason to end the discussion, just as if someone said "I'm ignoring everything you just said, my arguments still hold, so there". I'm disinclined to read a pile of arguments in favor of creationism for exactly the same reasons I'm disinclined to directly get into an argument with a creationist: there's no possible way it's worth my time to do so. If I've found myself making some set of poor life choices that led me to become involved in such a debate, then of course I'd read and respond to arguments made in it, as with any other discussion. I'd also be inclined to consider whether I'm primarily trying to convince that person, or primarily convince the set of as-yet uncommitted bystanders while writing off that person as likely a hopeless cause.