4 ms·

I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.

by Flow 9y ago

sitepodmatt 9y ago
Agreed. These people are essentially bullies acting from their ivory tower of unchallengable beliefs and morals. Their non-sense such as "he holds views that are in opposition with the values of the Drupal project." actually do more to suppress tolerance, diversity, and inclusion than encourage it. tl;dr think like me or I throw the dummy out the pram. I wish techies would get back to focusing on tech, it seems every other tweet and hacker news post is something meta about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, racism etc..
- nebabyte 9y ago
  They're in a capitalist meritocracy, this sort of nonsense is just their hilarious attempt to recoup the costs they sunk into this project. Branch off into your own community and accept that you made a mistake jumping in without testing whether your "leader" was acceptable to your standard of "tolerance". It's not on them to change how they run something you literally gave up control over just because it was convenient for you at the time. Lol @ them listing their donations and time 'wasted' on something they had no idea or assurance of control over. I'm reminded of the Bane scene. "I gave you a lot of money..." "And this gives you power over me?" Next time, get it in (legal) writing, folks! :)
- bonaldi 9y ago
  Well, in part everything you complain about is because the tech industry is suffering from the "focusing on the tech". Focusing on the tech unquestioningly meant only the privileged (in one sense or another) were able to get access to the community, and so it has unwittingly become exclusionary. While we were all "focusing on the tech", the number of women and minorities in tech somehow and mysteriously plummeted. And software was made, even by big companies, that excluded huge swathes of people (hello Apple Health). And companies were made that badly suffered from this too (Uber). So, belatedly, the community is addressing that, by trying to actively work towards diversity, inclusion, tolerance, etc. Tech being tech, this has meant a whole assload of bike-shedding and "works for me, close as wontfix", as this thread yet again evidences. Doesn't mean we still don't have the bugs, and should still be trying to figure out how to fix them.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Trundle 9y ago
I've been doing something similar with 'multicultural' for a while now. People that are for it seem to mostly only want it in so far as culture is the things that make a good party/restaurant theme.
dullgiulio 9y ago
The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on. The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
  - jolux 9y ago
    Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
    - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
      This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
      - jolux 9y ago
        Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.

by Flow 9y ago

I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.

Agreed. These people are essentially bullies acting from their ivory tower of unchallengable beliefs and morals. Their non-sense such as "he holds views that are in opposition with the values of the Drupal project." actually do more to suppress tolerance, diversity, and inclusion than encourage it. tl;dr think like me or I throw the dummy out the pram. I wish techies would get back to focusing on tech, it seems every other tweet and hacker news post is something meta about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, racism etc..

nebabyte 9y ago
They're in a capitalist meritocracy, this sort of nonsense is just their hilarious attempt to recoup the costs they sunk into this project. Branch off into your own community and accept that you made a mistake jumping in without testing whether your "leader" was acceptable to your standard of "tolerance". It's not on them to change how they run something you literally gave up control over just because it was convenient for you at the time. Lol @ them listing their donations and time 'wasted' on something they had no idea or assurance of control over. I'm reminded of the Bane scene. "I gave you a lot of money..." "And this gives you power over me?" Next time, get it in (legal) writing, folks! :)
bonaldi 9y ago
Well, in part everything you complain about is because the tech industry is suffering from the "focusing on the tech". Focusing on the tech unquestioningly meant only the privileged (in one sense or another) were able to get access to the community, and so it has unwittingly become exclusionary. While we were all "focusing on the tech", the number of women and minorities in tech somehow and mysteriously plummeted. And software was made, even by big companies, that excluded huge swathes of people (hello Apple Health). And companies were made that badly suffered from this too (Uber). So, belatedly, the community is addressing that, by trying to actively work towards diversity, inclusion, tolerance, etc. Tech being tech, this has meant a whole assload of bike-shedding and "works for me, close as wontfix", as this thread yet again evidences. Doesn't mean we still don't have the bugs, and should still be trying to figure out how to fix them.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Trundle 9y ago

I've been doing something similar with 'multicultural' for a while now. People that are for it seem to mostly only want it in so far as culture is the things that make a good party/restaurant theme.

dullgiulio 9y ago

The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
I'd argue allowing some intolerance is required because no system is 100% anything. Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on. The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
- jolux 9y ago
  Karl Popper wrote on this subject and I've yet to find a suitable rebuttal. The intolerant cannot be tolerated because doing so would lead to the elimination of tolerance. His justification is whether the intolerant are willing to discuss things rationally or whether they will steamroll you without any concern for intellectual integrity.
  - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
    This is a black and white interpretation. Here's your refutation: When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
    - jolux 9y ago
      Ok, but there is very clearly a boundary on acceptable behavior that we classify as not just "being yourself." How are you planning to draw that line? This isn't some unanswerable subjectivity we're talking about, and it's more a testament to the paucity of education in America that we can't recognize rational discussion from irrational anymore. For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.