5 ms·

I don't think you get it. It doesn't matter what some guy posts on some message board (unless it's a threat, an incitement of violence, or something along thos

by tps5 9y ago

I don't think you get it. It doesn't matter what some guy posts on some message board (unless it's a threat, an incitement of violence, or something along those lines). It doesn't matter if he says he believes in "Gorean philosophy," whatever the hell that is. What matters are his actions. If he's treating women disrespectfully then, by all means, throw him out. But he's allowed to believe whatever the hell he wants, and the idea that he should face repercussions for his beliefs is wrong, whatever age he was when he came to those beliefs. Sure, there's going to be some correlation between holding misogynistic beliefs and inappropriate behavior toward women, but we don't punish the beliefs, we just punish the behavior. That's what makes this a free society.

therpe1 9y ago
This is a distinction without difference. No meaningful line can be drawn between "belief" and "behavior." Somebody who holds hateful beliefs will act on those beliefs whether it's donating to a political candidate who wishes to provide government support to the hateful ideology or it's protesting the targets of that hate or it's just posting on a bulletin board and attempting to spread the hate to others. Here's a much simpler and more radical idea: let each group decide, based upon their own values, what criteria will be applied to their members. Internet communities are not a public spaces that belong to all. They're not managed by the government. They're not even a "protected" space like private corporations. They're not even clubs whose membership confers significant socio-economic benefits. They are free, private associations in the purest sense of the word. Think of people gathering to have a chat at a bar or hobbyists getting together on the weekend to build matchbox race cars. Given this, it's right and proper that the people of the Drupal Community don't want to hang out with some creep who hates women and have ejected him. It's their community, let them decide.
Pxtl 9y ago
I do get it. That's why I started from the important of professionalism, of separating the professional from the personal. But I'm also pointing out the other side: that maybe, just maybe, this kind of thing crosses the line. If it was just his beliefs we wouldn't know about them in the first place. But obviously, we know about them, which means it's not just his beliefs it's his statements. If I went around on some other private forum and said "tps5 is sub-human and should be subservient to me" you'd have reason to say "I will not work with Pxtl and I'm disappointed that this project is working with him, his behavior is seriously not okay". If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?
- atom-morgan 9y ago
  > If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay? If you didn't bring that into the workplace, yes. You can believe it and not act towards implementing it.
- giaour 9y ago
  If you acted on that belief in a public or professional capacity, then that would not be OK. "Acted" need not be defined overly restrictively -- openly advocating for a specific policy or state of affairs, running for office on a specific platform, even openly declaring membership in an organization that seeks to enact your beliefs could all be construed as actions given the right circumstances. If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    > If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy. Yeah, the fact that the letter doesn't mention that this was a BSDM thing - that these statements are part of a sex-play thing and should be regarded in that context - is kind of frustrating. I don't think casual readers are expected to know what "Gorean Philosophy" is. I mention this because last time I saw "comments came out from a public figure on a private paywalled forum" it was about holocaust denial and the commentator was a journalist. This thing being a sex thing hadn't entered my mind at all.
- interfixus 9y ago
  I have given you an upvote, although I starkly disagree with what you're saying. Your comment is greying out. HN's own petite version of silly distolerance - disagree, hence downvote. It isn't civilized at all.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Of course people will have tolerance for some ideas and expressions and intolerance for others. Of course! We tend not to like reddit-style jokes here, and downvote those. Who speaks up for the reddit-style jokers, though? If you really want to share ideas, and they're not well-received here, you can either refine/modify your ideas/delivery, or go somewhere else. Complaining about downvotes, though? Man, there's a reason that's specifically called out in the guidelines.
M_Grey 9y ago
So often you get stories in which a certain type of person cries, "Thought Police!" as a way to deflect from the core issues, but... this really is an example of that. As you say, the thoughts you have and express on your own time, which in no way change your professionalism, are your thoughts, period. I can't even imagine the life I would have led, the friends and colleagues I would never have had if "What you think is unacceptable, regardless of how well you act," was some kind of standard. I also wonder how the hell some people think minds are to be changed, if the way they want to deal with them is quarantine. Most of the time, you need have some mutual knowledge and respect between two parties for one to really reach the other.
- Pxtl 9y ago
  Let's reductio ad absurdum: what if one of your friends was a literal nazi. Never gassed any Jews, but thought it was a good idea. Wouldbe okay with that?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - M_Grey 9y ago
    No, but I don't see that as being remotely similar to someone who roleplays a bigot during sex. If I had a friend who liked to dress up like Himmler and get roundly spanked, I'm not going to judge him for it. If I have a friend who calmly remarks that maybe "Hitler really did nothing wrong," I'm going to be furious and horrified. Lets really try not to judge people for their kinks, because they tend to be strange, inexplicable, and personal.
    - Pxtl 9y ago
      Again, when this letter was first posted, there was no mention of this being a sex thing. As far as well all knew, the matter was about actual misogyny, not kink.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Not the OP, but I definitely would not be ok with that. Making me wonder if such a person would be my friend in the first place because we'd clash pretty badly over that. If I found out I would probably try real hard to convince them of the error of their ways (according to me, at least) and if that was unsuccessful I'd stop being their friend.
watwut 9y ago
I care less about whether he is full gentlemen and more about whether I can be promoted into leadership position if he is decision maker. If there is ambigous situation between me and college being given responsibility, will I have disadvantage? That is I think where that theor breaks. Sex jokes making dude can still be more fair then respectful gentleman wit bias.

by tps5 9y ago

therpe1 9y ago

This is a distinction without difference. No meaningful line can be drawn between "belief" and "behavior." Somebody who holds hateful beliefs will act on those beliefs whether it's donating to a political candidate who wishes to provide government support to the hateful ideology or it's protesting the targets of that hate or it's just posting on a bulletin board and attempting to spread the hate to others. Here's a much simpler and more radical idea: let each group decide, based upon their own values, what criteria will be applied to their members. Internet communities are not a public spaces that belong to all. They're not managed by the government. They're not even a "protected" space like private corporations. They're not even clubs whose membership confers significant socio-economic benefits. They are free, private associations in the purest sense of the word. Think of people gathering to have a chat at a bar or hobbyists getting together on the weekend to build matchbox race cars. Given this, it's right and proper that the people of the Drupal Community don't want to hang out with some creep who hates women and have ejected him. It's their community, let them decide.

Pxtl 9y ago

I do get it. That's why I started from the important of professionalism, of separating the professional from the personal. But I'm also pointing out the other side: that maybe, just maybe, this kind of thing crosses the line. If it was just his beliefs we wouldn't know about them in the first place. But obviously, we know about them, which means it's not just his beliefs it's his statements. If I went around on some other private forum and said "tps5 is sub-human and should be subservient to me" you'd have reason to say "I will not work with Pxtl and I'm disappointed that this project is working with him, his behavior is seriously not okay". If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?

atom-morgan 9y ago
> If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay? If you didn't bring that into the workplace, yes. You can believe it and not act towards implementing it.
giaour 9y ago
If you acted on that belief in a public or professional capacity, then that would not be OK. "Acted" need not be defined overly restrictively -- openly advocating for a specific policy or state of affairs, running for office on a specific platform, even openly declaring membership in an organization that seeks to enact your beliefs could all be construed as actions given the right circumstances. If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy.
- Pxtl 9y ago
  > If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy. Yeah, the fact that the letter doesn't mention that this was a BSDM thing - that these statements are part of a sex-play thing and should be regarded in that context - is kind of frustrating. I don't think casual readers are expected to know what "Gorean Philosophy" is. I mention this because last time I saw "comments came out from a public figure on a private paywalled forum" it was about holocaust denial and the commentator was a journalist. This thing being a sex thing hadn't entered my mind at all.
interfixus 9y ago
I have given you an upvote, although I starkly disagree with what you're saying. Your comment is greying out. HN's own petite version of silly distolerance - disagree, hence downvote. It isn't civilized at all.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Of course people will have tolerance for some ideas and expressions and intolerance for others. Of course! We tend not to like reddit-style jokes here, and downvote those. Who speaks up for the reddit-style jokers, though? If you really want to share ideas, and they're not well-received here, you can either refine/modify your ideas/delivery, or go somewhere else. Complaining about downvotes, though? Man, there's a reason that's specifically called out in the guidelines.

M_Grey 9y ago

So often you get stories in which a certain type of person cries, "Thought Police!" as a way to deflect from the core issues, but... this really is an example of that. As you say, the thoughts you have and express on your own time, which in no way change your professionalism, are your thoughts, period. I can't even imagine the life I would have led, the friends and colleagues I would never have had if "What you think is unacceptable, regardless of how well you act," was some kind of standard. I also wonder how the hell some people think minds are to be changed, if the way they want to deal with them is quarantine. Most of the time, you need have some mutual knowledge and respect between two parties for one to really reach the other.

Pxtl 9y ago
Let's reductio ad absurdum: what if one of your friends was a literal nazi. Never gassed any Jews, but thought it was a good idea. Wouldbe okay with that?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- M_Grey 9y ago
  No, but I don't see that as being remotely similar to someone who roleplays a bigot during sex. If I had a friend who liked to dress up like Himmler and get roundly spanked, I'm not going to judge him for it. If I have a friend who calmly remarks that maybe "Hitler really did nothing wrong," I'm going to be furious and horrified. Lets really try not to judge people for their kinks, because they tend to be strange, inexplicable, and personal.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    Again, when this letter was first posted, there was no mention of this being a sex thing. As far as well all knew, the matter was about actual misogyny, not kink.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Not the OP, but I definitely would not be ok with that. Making me wonder if such a person would be my friend in the first place because we'd clash pretty badly over that. If I found out I would probably try real hard to convince them of the error of their ways (according to me, at least) and if that was unsuccessful I'd stop being their friend.

watwut 9y ago

I care less about whether he is full gentlemen and more about whether I can be promoted into leadership position if he is decision maker. If there is ambigous situation between me and college being given responsibility, will I have disadvantage? That is I think where that theor breaks. Sex jokes making dude can still be more fair then respectful gentleman wit bias.