3 ms·

I must say that he has represented and defended himself very well here, and as a newcomer to this issue I am impressed with his analysis. However if it was poss

I must say that he has represented and defended himself very well here, and as a newcomer to this issue I am impressed with his analysis. However if it was possible to turn against him for what I understand to be such small accusations, such as simply disagreeing with one usage of CoCs in a particular setting, how might the project deal with a member who argues against code of conducts in general? Or how about the Node code of conduct? It does not seem fair to me to exclude someone beacuse they are engaging in the process of discussion about a project policy, even if that policy is a touchy subject like the code of conduct. If there is nobody to debate such policies because they are immediately shoved out the second that they do, does that not say something about the policy being questioned too?

yebyen 9y ago
Yes, I will admit I don't know anything about this situation and I haven't followed the story, but I agree that there is a general sub-culture today in many organizations of intolerance. People have questions, and if they can ask them tactfully and diplomatically, they should not be eviscerated for "being on the wrong side of the debate." Whichever side is doing the eviscerating. There are two sides to a debate, otherwise it is some kind of fascism where there can be only one side. (Unless one side says the other side is sub-human! Then they are wrong, and you should not listen. I only say this because, I do read the news and it looks like one really has to say this today to avoid being misunderstood. But taking that position, to me, would be an example of jumping the shark. I'm almost sure that's not what is happening here. I'm happy to listen if someone has more information.) Ninja edit: I read the link to find out the story, and I don't specifically know any more than I knew when I started writing above. I believe that I have seen "this" before, though. It looks like "this" is a witch-hunt. But all of the context has evidently been removed so that outsiders don't see a biased view. So I guess I can't really know what this is about! Does this mean all views are biased?

yebyen 9y ago

Yes, I will admit I don't know anything about this situation and I haven't followed the story, but I agree that there is a general sub-culture today in many organizations of intolerance. People have questions, and if they can ask them tactfully and diplomatically, they should not be eviscerated for "being on the wrong side of the debate." Whichever side is doing the eviscerating. There are two sides to a debate, otherwise it is some kind of fascism where there can be only one side. (Unless one side says the other side is sub-human! Then they are wrong, and you should not listen. I only say this because, I do read the news and it looks like one really has to say this today to avoid being misunderstood. But taking that position, to me, would be an example of jumping the shark. I'm almost sure that's not what is happening here. I'm happy to listen if someone has more information.) Ninja edit: I read the link to find out the story, and I don't specifically know any more than I knew when I started writing above. I believe that I have seen "this" before, though. It looks like "this" is a witch-hunt. But all of the context has evidently been removed so that outsiders don't see a biased view. So I guess I can't really know what this is about! Does this mean all views are biased?