9 ms·

Expanding on one of the comments that might clear up what we're actually talking about (which wasn't made especially clear otherwise): >> "The Gorean philosoph

by Udo 10y ago

Expanding on one of the comments that might clear up what we're actually talking about (which wasn't made especially clear otherwise): >> "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead." Even assuming this is Larry's philosophy, it is pretty much the same philosophy shared by many women & men in various conservative religious faiths, including branches of Christianity, Judaism, & Islam—only they add in the idea that it is divinely ordered. Are we now going to expel all who hold such religious beliefs? << I agree this philosophy is hard to swallow, but the commenter's point about religious belief is well made. Apart from the issue that this is in fact a widely-held belief I would suggest communities allow their members to hold any belief in private, as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value, and as long as that person does not act based on that belief during community interactions. It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things, and they have to work with you. Furthermore, we seem to have forgotten that it's even feasible to have good relationships and friendships with people we fundamentally disagree with. In this context, if you're running an open source project, it's expected that people hold an even more varied spectrum of beliefs than would be the case in a traditional company. As long as members can professionally conduct themselves in that environment, firing them is not a productive solution. Presumably the person in question has pledged to uphold Drupal's community values and at first glance it looks like that pledge has not been broken.

humanrebar 10y ago
> ...as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value... I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. > It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things... In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". But in reality, you just described real tolerance right here. It's a good balance because we can absolutely agree to disagree and be part of a healthy community anyway. Keeping "tolerance" as tolerance is the best recipe for actual diversity of identity and thought in my opinion. EDIT: Clarified my phrasing a bit.
- Udo 10y ago
  > I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in question are unethical.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    I think tolerance, professionalism, and pragmatism all fit well together. Replacing tolerance with "tolerance"? The track record isn't strong. I don't follow the caveat for unethical behavior. Do you expect the organization to align to your ethics? Everyone is unethical to someone. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't.
    - Udo 10y ago
      > The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't. Indeed, that's why I used the word ethics instead of morals ;)
- enord 10y ago
  It feels like this new "tolerance" somehow connotates "without bias" instead of "despite bias", which opens an avenue for persecuting perceived or potential bias (by some reasoning from base moral values) as a thought crime. This makes anything less than complete moral alignment a cause for bias and therefore "intolerance". Tolerance and persecution together in harmony.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    On top of that, "without bias" seems to mean "with my bias".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Pxtl 10y ago
This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married to the idea - it's just part of the box of stuff they grew up believing passively. This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. I have a lot more trouble with the idea of politely ignoring somebody who actively evangelizes this kind of idea rather than being simply passively being raised with it. Where do you draw the line? How far do you go in ignoring the fact that key people in your community are, to be blunt: hateful? Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art. His ideas were "normal" in his country - should that have been ignored? Reprimanded as long as he kept his politics out of his art?
- andoon 10y ago
  >This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. As long as holding that belief doesn't affect in any way his behaviour towards women as a contributor of that project, then his beliefs are none of the project's business.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  > That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Searching out which people have chosen a philosophy as an adult is how witch hunts start and are justified. I've heard complaints about McCarthyism and the Red Scare over the years, and I thought the moral was "witch hunts are bad." However, it looks clear to me that other people think the main problem was that McCarthy picked the wrong targets. If he hadn't chased leftist beliefs, then perhaps he never would have been vilified.

by Udo 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> ...as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value... I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. > It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things... In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". But in reality, you just described real tolerance right here. It's a good balance because we can absolutely agree to disagree and be part of a healthy community anyway. Keeping "tolerance" as tolerance is the best recipe for actual diversity of identity and thought in my opinion. EDIT: Clarified my phrasing a bit.

Udo 10y ago
> I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in question are unethical.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  I think tolerance, professionalism, and pragmatism all fit well together. Replacing tolerance with "tolerance"? The track record isn't strong. I don't follow the caveat for unethical behavior. Do you expect the organization to align to your ethics? Everyone is unethical to someone. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't.
  - Udo 10y ago
    > The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't. Indeed, that's why I used the word ethics instead of morals ;)
enord 10y ago
It feels like this new "tolerance" somehow connotates "without bias" instead of "despite bias", which opens an avenue for persecuting perceived or potential bias (by some reasoning from base moral values) as a thought crime. This makes anything less than complete moral alignment a cause for bias and therefore "intolerance". Tolerance and persecution together in harmony.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  On top of that, "without bias" seems to mean "with my bias".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Pxtl 10y ago

This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married to the idea - it's just part of the box of stuff they grew up believing passively. This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. I have a lot more trouble with the idea of politely ignoring somebody who actively evangelizes this kind of idea rather than being simply passively being raised with it. Where do you draw the line? How far do you go in ignoring the fact that key people in your community are, to be blunt: hateful? Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art. His ideas were "normal" in his country - should that have been ignored? Reprimanded as long as he kept his politics out of his art?

andoon 10y ago
>This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. As long as holding that belief doesn't affect in any way his behaviour towards women as a contributor of that project, then his beliefs are none of the project's business.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
maxlybbert 10y ago
> That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Searching out which people have chosen a philosophy as an adult is how witch hunts start and are justified. I've heard complaints about McCarthyism and the Red Scare over the years, and I thought the moral was "witch hunts are bad." However, it looks clear to me that other people think the main problem was that McCarthy picked the wrong targets. If he hadn't chased leftist beliefs, then perhaps he never would have been vilified.