16 ms·

I suppose I just disagree with you, then. From the Inclusivity Working Group Github: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friend

I suppose I just disagree with you, then. From the Inclusivity Working Group Github: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds." That seems like a solid goal to me. Their tactics may be petty or ineffective (removing Crockford is a pretty bold step), but that's different the strategy. Do you believe that that goal is not worthwhile? If it's not, why?

waterphone 10y ago
It's not a worthy goal, no. It's an actively harmful goal. It takes simply working on a good project to be so overly politicized that everyone has to be constantly on their toes about what they do or say and their priority is becoming pleasing the SJW overlords of their project instead of just doing good work. I'm all for anyone who wants to contribute contributing, but scanning code for words that might offend someone is not contribution, it's childish whining.
pavanky 10y ago
> "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds." That seems like a solid goal to me. When you have people who have different opinions of what "safe" is, you can end up having a bit of friction.
NhanH 10y ago
Weasel words. What exactly is "safe" and "friendly"? What exactly does an "unsafe" project look like in the context? "Friendly" is practically entirely subjective. And frankly, I can make an argument that for group over certain size, the only way "friendly" is a goal would be a censored-ridden groupthink environment. People are different, and like it or not, they are not gonna be friendly toward one another. Note that the opposite of "friendly" isn't just "hostile" or "animosity". It could also just be "respectful" or "professional". Oh hey, if I am playing the twist-your-word game, that goal could be rewritten as: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and unprofessional place for people from diverse backgrounds." When they are excluding someone (Crockford in this case), they are excluding people. And the onus is on them to prove that this will be more beneficial in the long run. The bigger problem is that for those feel-good org and goal, there is no accountability ever, and it seems like they are externalizing a lot of troubles to the larger community who doesn't care much about their cause. Finally, I don't care about their stated goal: sounds like a witch hunt, acts like a witch hunt and you can't stop me from questioning your goal.
overgard 10y ago
"Safe" and "friendly" are so vague as to be useless. I feel "unsafe" around social justice warriors because I have to watch every trivial word I say, or they'll dial things up to 11 and go after my career, and listening to PC talk "triggers" me.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  I've come to the conclusion that walking on eggshells is pointless. I know that I am not a bad person, that I have no ill intent, and that I do not seek to offend of exclude anyone regardless of our differences. This incident reinforces my view - it appears that Mr. Crockford's keynote invitation was rescinded not because of any specific action on his part, but because "his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak."[1] That is completely subjective, and as such there is no rational means to judge whether your own words or actions will lead to such treatment or not. [1] http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html
mst 10y ago
I think that in practice people worry that the tactics used indicate that actual inclusivity isn't the true goal, and the true goal is to create a new hierarchy with 'their sort of people' at the top and therefore 'our sort of people' being thrown out - i.e. inclusivity of everybody who agrees with us and let's just round everybody else off to bigots. My personal opinion is roughly that, yes, that's potentially a failure mode, and one we should watch for, but that people are probably far more worried than they need to be about it - and also that the tendency to dismiss such worries with "but how can you be against inclusivity" is rather missing the point and just makes things worse.
rocqua 10y ago
If one interprets: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds." as opposing the words 'promiscuous' and 'weak' as in the article, the goal seems shitty to me. The article makes this assumption and then shows how shitty things are based on that assumption. I like this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426199
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Pretty much every real-world villain ever has spoken in soaring words about how they were dedicated to freedom and liberty and justice. Or, these days, "safety," "friendliness," "tolerance," "diversity," and "inclusivity." Just because somebody uses applause words doesn't make them the good guys; we really should have internalized that by now.

waterphone 10y ago

It's not a worthy goal, no. It's an actively harmful goal. It takes simply working on a good project to be so overly politicized that everyone has to be constantly on their toes about what they do or say and their priority is becoming pleasing the SJW overlords of their project instead of just doing good work. I'm all for anyone who wants to contribute contributing, but scanning code for words that might offend someone is not contribution, it's childish whining.

pavanky 10y ago

> "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds." That seems like a solid goal to me. When you have people who have different opinions of what "safe" is, you can end up having a bit of friction.

NhanH 10y ago

Weasel words. What exactly is "safe" and "friendly"? What exactly does an "unsafe" project look like in the context? "Friendly" is practically entirely subjective. And frankly, I can make an argument that for group over certain size, the only way "friendly" is a goal would be a censored-ridden groupthink environment. People are different, and like it or not, they are not gonna be friendly toward one another. Note that the opposite of "friendly" isn't just "hostile" or "animosity". It could also just be "respectful" or "professional". Oh hey, if I am playing the twist-your-word game, that goal could be rewritten as: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and unprofessional place for people from diverse backgrounds." When they are excluding someone (Crockford in this case), they are excluding people. And the onus is on them to prove that this will be more beneficial in the long run. The bigger problem is that for those feel-good org and goal, there is no accountability ever, and it seems like they are externalizing a lot of troubles to the larger community who doesn't care much about their cause. Finally, I don't care about their stated goal: sounds like a witch hunt, acts like a witch hunt and you can't stop me from questioning your goal.

overgard 10y ago

"Safe" and "friendly" are so vague as to be useless. I feel "unsafe" around social justice warriors because I have to watch every trivial word I say, or they'll dial things up to 11 and go after my career, and listening to PC talk "triggers" me.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
I've come to the conclusion that walking on eggshells is pointless. I know that I am not a bad person, that I have no ill intent, and that I do not seek to offend of exclude anyone regardless of our differences. This incident reinforces my view - it appears that Mr. Crockford's keynote invitation was rescinded not because of any specific action on his part, but because "his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak."[1] That is completely subjective, and as such there is no rational means to judge whether your own words or actions will lead to such treatment or not. [1] http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html

mst 10y ago

I think that in practice people worry that the tactics used indicate that actual inclusivity isn't the true goal, and the true goal is to create a new hierarchy with 'their sort of people' at the top and therefore 'our sort of people' being thrown out - i.e. inclusivity of everybody who agrees with us and let's just round everybody else off to bigots. My personal opinion is roughly that, yes, that's potentially a failure mode, and one we should watch for, but that people are probably far more worried than they need to be about it - and also that the tendency to dismiss such worries with "but how can you be against inclusivity" is rather missing the point and just makes things worse.

rocqua 10y ago

If one interprets: "Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds." as opposing the words 'promiscuous' and 'weak' as in the article, the goal seems shitty to me. The article makes this assumption and then shows how shitty things are based on that assumption. I like this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12426199

mzw_mzw 10y ago

Pretty much every real-world villain ever has spoken in soaring words about how they were dedicated to freedom and liberty and justice. Or, these days, "safety," "friendliness," "tolerance," "diversity," and "inclusivity." Just because somebody uses applause words doesn't make them the good guys; we really should have internalized that by now.