4 ms·

> but it's not necessarily a bad thing to explicitly list traits commonly targeted by bullies and harassers. I see a big problem by them omitting protection fo

• JoshTriplett 8y ago
  That's a common problem, and one heavily abused and weaponized. If you want to argue about the level of taxation, the right size of government, regulations on business, whether public or private is the most efficient way to accomplish a goal, or myriad other areas of policy like those, go right ahead. Those kinds of things are absolutely reasonable subjects for healthy and reasonable debate. (They're rarely on-topic for a software project, but in some types of communities, or in companies, or in random side conversations, sometimes they are.) Those are almost never the kinds of political opinions that people have in mind when they're suggesting that "political opinions" should be an explicitly protected category, though. It's funny how the people worried most about whether they'll feel unwelcome for their political opinions are often those whose political opinions revolve around making others unwelcome, or hurting others, or questioning (or asking with superficial politeness about) others' right to exist. Those kind of "political opinions" do not and should not get any protections, in a code of conduct or anywhere else. You're legally allowed to say them, but you should not expect to do so without any consequence.
  • DC-3 8y ago
    What about religions that make others unwelcome, hurt others, or question their right to exist? Should they get protections in a code of conduct or anywhere else?
    • tptacek 8y ago
      The Linux kernel Code of Conduct takes litigating the religious affiliations of kernel contributors right off the table.
  • quotemstr 8y ago
    The freedom to propose ideas that don't offend anyone is no freedom at all. You're arguing that people can discuss among themselves what doesn't matter much, but only an ideologically correct few get to weigh in on topics that really matter. This is the governing philosophy of the Ayatollahs of Iran, who let lay people debate and hold elections, but who reserve real power for themselves. What you've proposed is no different.
    • JoshTriplett 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      • meowface 8y ago
        I would cite many of the critiques of the so-called paradox in that Wikipedia article as reasons not to give it too much credence. I think it's more something to be considered philosophically rather than any sort of hard rule. It's obviously true to an extent, like for some rhetoric which directly leads to violence, but a lot of people seem to use this concept as justification to suppress all speech they could consider remotely intolerant.
  • furgooswft13 8y ago
    > If you want to argue about the level of taxation, the right size of government, regulations on business, whether public or private is the most efficient way to accomplish a goal, or myriad other areas of policy like those, go right ahead. You list a bunch of self-approved topics that you believe are okay to talk about. How about arguing for stricter immigration laws, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, skepticism on transgender orthodoxy, skepticism about the existence of a female wage gap, anti affirmative action, anti gun control, climate change skepticism etc. Are those not okay? These are common political opinions that are routinely twisted into "questioning other's right to exist", or denial of basic human rights/decency, or sexist/racist, while they are usually no such thing. Even partial disagreement and skepticism is often elevated to that level. This is the real abuse and weaponization here. I think you'd need to look long and hard to find anyone in open source projects seriously advocating for some group to be wiped off the face of the earth. Yet these topics are likely to make some uncomfortable, or depending on the person, even unwelcome. So are they verboten? Remember this CoC explicitly states it applies both inside and outside project spaces. Ask Brendan Eich how that turned out. The problem, put simply, is that very often people will take someone's political opinion, even nuanced disagreement, as a personal attack, regardless of the actual interpersonal relationship. This is why either "political opinion" needs to be protected, or the whole thing scrapped. IMO preferably the latter, then we can once again realize that everybody has opinions that others might consider outrageously wrong and stupid, but can still work together/be friends as long as people are not actively dicks to each other.
    • JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > anti-gay marriage, skepticism on transgender orthodoxy > routinely twisted into "questioning other's right to exist", or denial of basic human rights/decency, or sexist/racist Interesting list. Doesn't take much twisting. You're providing a good demonstration of the point here. You don't get to feel comfortable advocating those things, at the expense of the people who live those things. Your comfort, versus their lives. (Forestalling the obvious response: yes, I did intentionally select the most problematic points you raised to respond to, because they demonstrate the primary problem with attempting to protect "political opinion" in a code of conduct.) > So are they verboten? Remember this CoC explicitly states it applies both inside and outside project spaces. Inside a project they're almost universally off-topic. In the rare cases where they're not, it's often because a project actually intersects with such issues, such as needing to handle personal data or similar. As for outside a project, the topics you listed vary greatly. I seriously doubt you'd find anyone's role in a project at risk because of their thoughts on climate change. On the other hand, if you actively campaign against other people's rights, you may well find that people don't want to work with you. > I think you'd need to look long and hard to find anyone in open source projects seriously advocating for some group to be wiped off the face of the earth. Not particularly long nor hard, no; I run into them regularly. > This is why either "political opinion" needs to be protected, or the whole thing scrapped. Even leaving aside whether there's any problem here at all, since when have the choices been "perfect solution or no solution"? If you've got a limited amount of water you start by using it on the houses that are on fire, not the ones who want their grass watered.
  • rspeer 8y ago
    Thank you for saying this. Unfortunately, now you know what HN thinks about gay and trans people having equal rights.