9 ms·

Misspelled throwaway because want to talk about this and not have people misunderstand and hate me. There was a similar small bruhaha in the Rust community sev

Misspelled throwaway because want to talk about this and not have people misunderstand and hate me. There was a similar small bruhaha in the Rust community severals weeks ago. They hired a community manager who has leanings (nothing wrong with that), but had made tweets like "kill all men". Believe no actual ill will was intended, but you could see why it may trigger people. In the thread announcing this person's new role, a few people brought up issues like this (that wasn't an isolated sentiment, it was a pattern of behavior) and the mods for a while simply deleted any criticism, then they made a hard rule that nobody could talk about it (because that was related to personal issues). This rule was in the interest of preventing harassment (which yeah, legit reason), but it was completely tone deaf. You can't appoint a community manager who has made pointed statements about people in your community and then shut down discussion in the interest of tolerance. Check out the thread, it looks like a warzone. It turned me off Rust a little bit. https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announcement_ashley_williams_joins_the_core_team/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announcement_a... I wish we could talk about these things openly, the way we are handling these discussions only isolates us.

atom-morgan 9y ago
The very act of censoring people bringing up her past behavior is very indicative that they're fully aware of the double standards within their community.
- wonderwonder 9y ago
  Indeed. I don't think people should be punished their entire lives for statements they made in the past. A very simple, "we are aware of the statments that X has made in the past and they have assured us that they regret them and will not be a concern going forward." would go a long way. But if the individual stands by those same public comments calling for violence against a particular race or ethnicity then cause for concern is justified. By silencing that concern they are not doing themselves or anyone else a favor.
  - RandomTisk 9y ago
    Accepting an apology means the deed can no longer be used as a Casus Belli for activism. There's a whole political movement predicated on this idea.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    At Mozilla it's more complicated because they fired the CEO who gave money to a conservative cause in the past.
    - jonny_eh 9y ago
      To be fair, it was for the anti-gay marriage prop, not just some generic right wing thing.
      - xya3453 9y ago
        To be fair, promoting gendercide is not even in the same ballpark as only supporting heterosexual marriage.
      - jeffdavis 9y ago
        There are always facts particular to each case. That's why arguments can continue forever -- there is always some mitigating factor you can point to that makes your side OK. But if you are objective about it you would probably come to the conclusion that conservative political viewpoints or support will hurt you in the SF area, but even radical liberal viewpoints will not. The prop was, by any measure, mainstream at the time. It may have been on the wrong side of history, but remember that even Obama expressed a lack of support for gay marriage in the past. Any political issue seems like the most important thing in the world if you look closely enough and lose perspective. Let's move on. Any political position even close to the mainstream should not cost you your job unless you are a politician. But political stuff, for the most part, should not take over the workplace either.
huffpopo 9y ago
I'm willing to let her insitements for genocide slide, it happens to the best of us, but what really worries me is her plan to "improve Cargo by incorporating best practices from npm".
- dijit 9y ago
  You might be willing, but I am not. If I wrote "Kill all x" people would call me out for the absolute horror that statement implies. It doesn't matter if you perceive the party to be in a position of power or not. > "Kill all Americans." > "Kill all Google employees." > "Kill all politicians." Each of these statements is profoundly evil- If you make something akin to this genuinely, then you are worthy of criticism for making them. Unless you retract them, which she has not.
  - huffpopo 9y ago
    I'm not really letting it slide, I was extending the premise by pretending to be a sympathetic genocidal nazi, which I hope is still absurd enough to be presumed sarcasm. I'm aware that the joke may not age well so I was happy to get it in while I still can. The CoC complaint is amazing and has me really worried about Rust and I wonder where the adults are. Usually Meta Language people are meritocracy driven so I'm surprised to see a feminist infiltration. GoLang I could understand... https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_violations_by_nodejs_board_member/ https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...
    - dijit 9y ago
      Oh right, it totally went over my head. I apologise.
      - huffpopo 9y ago
        No apology needed, it was a subtle joke. It looks we both got flagged for it.
Clanan 9y ago
> "kill all men" > no actual ill will was intended Pick one.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  It could be intended as a joke or hyperbole so those two statements aren't mutually exclusive
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    What's the likelihood that "Kill all X" would be taken as a joke, when X = Jewish people? Black people? Women? Asians?
    - camgunz 9y ago
      There's a false equivalence. There's never been male genocide, so "kill all men" is basically a joke. But there's nothing funny about advocating for genocide against the Jewish people, because that actually happened. That's why the standard for orientation discrimination doesn't apply to straight people. It's why the standard for race discrimination doesn't apply to white people. And it's why the standard for sex discrimination doesn't apply to cis men. The history is just very different.
      - alexozer 9y ago
        Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Last I heard, it was best to treat people equally.
        camgunz 9y ago
        > Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Not at all! I'm saying that the history of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US, and that the experience of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US. For example, women are far, far more likely to be physically assaulted by a man than a man is by a woman. And we're not just talking about a dozen or so cases: violence against women is epidemic in the US (and most of the world). So rather than using "ancestors", we can use "people currently alive". And rather than "superficial characteristics like skin color and sex" we can use "ascribed statuses" like race and sex. Or we can leave sex out of it. Let's say there was a group of men who have, for centuries, been victimized by the rest of men. They've been abducted, sold, tortured, murdered, humiliated and exploited for centuries. That's the story of Black men (and women, of course) in America. We can't make some simple rules about "fairness" and leave it at that. We have to understand the history of people, the history of our culture, and the current ways our culture oppresses people before we can even begin to talk about fairness. If we want to be fair towards Black people we have to take into account the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, and institutional racism. If we want to be fair towards women we have to take into account chattel, disenfranchisement, sexism, and rape culture. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_"
arprocter 9y ago
Mirror of thread pre post removals: https://www.removeddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announcement_ashley_williams_joins_the_core_team/ https://www.removeddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announceme...
- atom-morgan 9y ago
  And the thread of other CoC violations. https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_violations_by_nodejs_board_member/ https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...
ImSkeptical 9y ago
>but had made tweets like "kill all men". Personally, I have no problem with people saying things like this, especially in their personal lives. I like banter. But part of banter is that both sides are allowed to play. If someone can express extreme ideas like "kill all men" I should be able to make equally extreme jokes, but in different ideological directions. What bothers me is not the language, but the unfairness. I can understand not permitting banter at work or in organizations. It makes some people uncomfortable. But what I can't understand is just allowing banter of some ideological bent.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > I can understand not permitting banter at work or in organizations. It makes some people uncomfortable. But what I can't understand is just allowing banter of some ideological bent. I can. The point of "[only] allowing banter of [a particular] ideological bent" is to enforce conformity to that ideology. When that happens fairness isn't a priority. > What bothers me is not the language, but the unfairness. Me too.
- TheFuryan 9y ago
  Remember that the reason Damore had to be fired was: "Imagine if he was allowed to manage women or work with them (after his memo was leaked)."
  - simonpenn 9y ago
    I've worked under an HR staff member who had this pin on her bag. I lived, and that job was good enough, but the thought was always in the back of my mind: what if I piss her off some day and she falls back on her prejudices + her position to make my life miserable? I would support a blanket ban on all things like that _in the workplace_.
    - fjsolwmv 9y ago
      What pin?
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
camgunz 9y ago
I'm tired of people using the shallowest understanding of bigotry in order to harass those who call out bigotry. When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it". When a racial justice advocate says "kill all white people" they're saying "white people are literally murdering people of color and I'm angry about it". When a white male software engineer at Google makes the argument to everyone at the company that women are biologically less suited to be engineers, he's invoking an incomprehensible history of physical, financial, and cultural oppression -- a mindset that we still struggle to escape today. They are not the same thing. Please start thinking more deeply about these issues and please do some research. Racism, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia are all far more complicated than a few language rules.
- whatok 9y ago
  If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?
  - camgunz 9y ago
    If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.
    - whatok 9y ago
      I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 9y ago
had made tweets like "kill all men"...Believe no actual ill will was intended If someone thinks "kill all X" is okay, depending on the value of X, then there's something really weird going on! What if X is any of these? Women, Black people, Jews, Lesbians, Asians, Gay people, Republicans, or Rich People? Back in the good old days, "prejudice" meant judging people on their surface characteristics as opposed to on their merits, and such a statement would have been seen as highly suspect. Now, it's seen as the kind of stuff "Social Justice Advocates" say? People who are "community managers" have such a distorted sense of fairness that they can't parse what they're doing? I guess even supposedly intelligent tech people believe this "X-ism == Prejudice + Power" crap? Sorry, but racism is judging people by only their race, and sexism is judging people only by their sex. The direction of the arrow does not matter. Anyone who believes something like that hasn't learned skeptical thought, and anyone who promulgates that is supporting a supremacist position of one group dominating another. Power is contextual. This is clearly true, as demonstrated by history. Anyone who promulgates "X-ism == Prejudice + Power" as if Power is a global, unchanging vector is either dishonest, disconnected from reality, or ignorant of history.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Really? Those are the only three options?

atom-morgan 9y ago

The very act of censoring people bringing up her past behavior is very indicative that they're fully aware of the double standards within their community.

wonderwonder 9y ago
Indeed. I don't think people should be punished their entire lives for statements they made in the past. A very simple, "we are aware of the statments that X has made in the past and they have assured us that they regret them and will not be a concern going forward." would go a long way. But if the individual stands by those same public comments calling for violence against a particular race or ethnicity then cause for concern is justified. By silencing that concern they are not doing themselves or anyone else a favor.
- RandomTisk 9y ago
  Accepting an apology means the deed can no longer be used as a Casus Belli for activism. There's a whole political movement predicated on this idea.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  At Mozilla it's more complicated because they fired the CEO who gave money to a conservative cause in the past.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    To be fair, it was for the anti-gay marriage prop, not just some generic right wing thing.
    - xya3453 9y ago
      To be fair, promoting gendercide is not even in the same ballpark as only supporting heterosexual marriage.
    - jeffdavis 9y ago
      There are always facts particular to each case. That's why arguments can continue forever -- there is always some mitigating factor you can point to that makes your side OK. But if you are objective about it you would probably come to the conclusion that conservative political viewpoints or support will hurt you in the SF area, but even radical liberal viewpoints will not. The prop was, by any measure, mainstream at the time. It may have been on the wrong side of history, but remember that even Obama expressed a lack of support for gay marriage in the past. Any political issue seems like the most important thing in the world if you look closely enough and lose perspective. Let's move on. Any political position even close to the mainstream should not cost you your job unless you are a politician. But political stuff, for the most part, should not take over the workplace either.

huffpopo 9y ago

I'm willing to let her insitements for genocide slide, it happens to the best of us, but what really worries me is her plan to "improve Cargo by incorporating best practices from npm".

dijit 9y ago
You might be willing, but I am not. If I wrote "Kill all x" people would call me out for the absolute horror that statement implies. It doesn't matter if you perceive the party to be in a position of power or not. > "Kill all Americans." > "Kill all Google employees." > "Kill all politicians." Each of these statements is profoundly evil- If you make something akin to this genuinely, then you are worthy of criticism for making them. Unless you retract them, which she has not.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  I'm not really letting it slide, I was extending the premise by pretending to be a sympathetic genocidal nazi, which I hope is still absurd enough to be presumed sarcasm. I'm aware that the joke may not age well so I was happy to get it in while I still can. The CoC complaint is amazing and has me really worried about Rust and I wonder where the adults are. Usually Meta Language people are meritocracy driven so I'm surprised to see a feminist infiltration. GoLang I could understand... https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_violations_by_nodejs_board_member/ https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...
  - dijit 9y ago
    Oh right, it totally went over my head. I apologise.
    - huffpopo 9y ago
      No apology needed, it was a subtle joke. It looks we both got flagged for it.

Clanan 9y ago

> "kill all men" > no actual ill will was intended Pick one.

tdb7893 9y ago
It could be intended as a joke or hyperbole so those two statements aren't mutually exclusive
- stcredzero 9y ago
  What's the likelihood that "Kill all X" would be taken as a joke, when X = Jewish people? Black people? Women? Asians?
  - camgunz 9y ago
    There's a false equivalence. There's never been male genocide, so "kill all men" is basically a joke. But there's nothing funny about advocating for genocide against the Jewish people, because that actually happened. That's why the standard for orientation discrimination doesn't apply to straight people. It's why the standard for race discrimination doesn't apply to white people. And it's why the standard for sex discrimination doesn't apply to cis men. The history is just very different.
    - alexozer 9y ago
      Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Last I heard, it was best to treat people equally.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        > Are you saying that we should treat entire classes of modern people differently based on the events involving ancestors with similar superficial characteristics like skin color and sex? Not at all! I'm saying that the history of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US, and that the experience of women in the US is different than the history of men in the US. For example, women are far, far more likely to be physically assaulted by a man than a man is by a woman. And we're not just talking about a dozen or so cases: violence against women is epidemic in the US (and most of the world). So rather than using "ancestors", we can use "people currently alive". And rather than "superficial characteristics like skin color and sex" we can use "ascribed statuses" like race and sex. Or we can leave sex out of it. Let's say there was a group of men who have, for centuries, been victimized by the rest of men. They've been abducted, sold, tortured, murdered, humiliated and exploited for centuries. That's the story of Black men (and women, of course) in America. We can't make some simple rules about "fairness" and leave it at that. We have to understand the history of people, the history of our culture, and the current ways our culture oppresses people before we can even begin to talk about fairness. If we want to be fair towards Black people we have to take into account the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, and institutional racism. If we want to be fair towards women we have to take into account chattel, disenfranchisement, sexism, and rape culture. Not doing this is essentially breaking someone's leg before a sprint, and when they lose and they say "Wow, that was super unfair!" we say "Wow you had the same rules! What are you upset about? That whole leg breaking thing happened a _long time ago_"

arprocter 9y ago

Mirror of thread pre post removals: https://www.removeddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announcement_ashley_williams_joins_the_core_team/ https://www.removeddit.com/r/rust/comments/7nx3cm/announceme...

atom-morgan 9y ago
And the thread of other CoC violations. https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_violations_by_nodejs_board_member/ https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...

ImSkeptical 9y ago

>but had made tweets like "kill all men". Personally, I have no problem with people saying things like this, especially in their personal lives. I like banter. But part of banter is that both sides are allowed to play. If someone can express extreme ideas like "kill all men" I should be able to make equally extreme jokes, but in different ideological directions. What bothers me is not the language, but the unfairness. I can understand not permitting banter at work or in organizations. It makes some people uncomfortable. But what I can't understand is just allowing banter of some ideological bent.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> I can understand not permitting banter at work or in organizations. It makes some people uncomfortable. But what I can't understand is just allowing banter of some ideological bent. I can. The point of "[only] allowing banter of [a particular] ideological bent" is to enforce conformity to that ideology. When that happens fairness isn't a priority. > What bothers me is not the language, but the unfairness. Me too.
TheFuryan 9y ago
Remember that the reason Damore had to be fired was: "Imagine if he was allowed to manage women or work with them (after his memo was leaked)."
- simonpenn 9y ago
  I've worked under an HR staff member who had this pin on her bag. I lived, and that job was good enough, but the thought was always in the back of my mind: what if I piss her off some day and she falls back on her prejudices + her position to make my life miserable? I would support a blanket ban on all things like that _in the workplace_.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    What pin?
- fjsolwmv 9y ago

camgunz 9y ago

I'm tired of people using the shallowest understanding of bigotry in order to harass those who call out bigotry. When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it". When a racial justice advocate says "kill all white people" they're saying "white people are literally murdering people of color and I'm angry about it". When a white male software engineer at Google makes the argument to everyone at the company that women are biologically less suited to be engineers, he's invoking an incomprehensible history of physical, financial, and cultural oppression -- a mindset that we still struggle to escape today. They are not the same thing. Please start thinking more deeply about these issues and please do some research. Racism, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia are all far more complicated than a few language rules.

whatok 9y ago
If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?
- camgunz 9y ago
  If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.
  - whatok 9y ago
    I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

stcredzero 9y ago

had made tweets like "kill all men"...Believe no actual ill will was intended If someone thinks "kill all X" is okay, depending on the value of X, then there's something really weird going on! What if X is any of these? Women, Black people, Jews, Lesbians, Asians, Gay people, Republicans, or Rich People? Back in the good old days, "prejudice" meant judging people on their surface characteristics as opposed to on their merits, and such a statement would have been seen as highly suspect. Now, it's seen as the kind of stuff "Social Justice Advocates" say? People who are "community managers" have such a distorted sense of fairness that they can't parse what they're doing? I guess even supposedly intelligent tech people believe this "X-ism == Prejudice + Power" crap? Sorry, but racism is judging people by only their race, and sexism is judging people only by their sex. The direction of the arrow does not matter. Anyone who believes something like that hasn't learned skeptical thought, and anyone who promulgates that is supporting a supremacist position of one group dominating another. Power is contextual. This is clearly true, as demonstrated by history. Anyone who promulgates "X-ism == Prejudice + Power" as if Power is a global, unchanging vector is either dishonest, disconnected from reality, or ignorant of history.

tptacek 9y ago
Really? Those are the only three options?