4 ms·

> What you mean by pushback? Demands for you to be removed from a project because you are not cis? Organized boycotts of the projects you participate in because

> What you mean by pushback? Demands for you to be removed from a project because you are not cis? Organized boycotts of the projects you participate in because you're a member? Could you give an example of the pushback like that? People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others. They've contacted senior management at various employers. They've registered spurious conduct complaints against me. When I owned a company, I narrowly avoided several disasters I don't even want to talk about involving physical security. I've been doxxed, threatened, and had threatening physical mail left in my mailbox. In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human. I'm genderfluid, but spend most of my experience feeling asexual. No one has ever seen me present as female in public. I can only imagine how much more insane it is for folks actually presenting across their assigned gender line. And I live in San Francisco. So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project. I hear you. It sounds rough, and I wish you luck. But I've been driven to the brink of suicide by harassers, my partner has only fared a bit better. I'm offering to switch positions if you'd like. Or maybe you could police your communities the way I'm obligated to police mine. > But if you believe that gives you justification to do to the other people the injustices that have been done to you - you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Your suffering is real, but it's no excuse to create more suffering for others. I think transparency and equal exposure IS a form of justice. I'd love to live my life in public without fear. It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity. So I'm afraid your complaint has fallen on ideologically deaf ears, you think something is axiomatically bad and I think it's axiomatically good. If they don't want the judgement of their peers, then they shouldn't live that life. Just like folks tell me. It's surely a choice to act that way. > You should not be proud about it. You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions, which is the fundamental thesis of nearly everyone's complaint in open source conduct standards these days. > , they are talking about CoC in their project But this is a lie right here, isn't it? It isn't "their" project. It's community owned and they could fork it, couldn't they? This would not even be possible if it were not accepted by the majority and the leadership. Let's not pretend that this is some minority forcing its will on the majority. Quite the contrary, the proposal of a "kill switch" is exactly the tactic adopted by a minority hoping to hold what they see as a point of leverage. They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority.

smsm42 8y ago
> People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others. This is terrible, and I hope your employer is sane enough to ignore those cooks. > In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human. I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it. > So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project. No, I never wrote anything of the sort to you. You seem to be a person capable of controlling your thoughts and basic reasoning, I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner. I never said it is "sad" that I might need "to behave myself". I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy, or a lynch mob is going to get you. If that what you mean by "behaving" then this would not happen. And I would expect yourself, as somebody who has been attacked exactly as somebody doing things in your life not in an orthodox way, may appreciate why it is sad. > It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity. There's nothing wrong with anonymity. You may prefer not being anonymous, but some other people might prefer otherwise. People harassing you is terrible. So is harassing other people, including because of things they disagree with you. I am not talking about making threats and harassment - if somebody attacks other person, exposing them is a good thing. But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong. The folks that are getting hurt by the lynch mob are predominantly not the anonymous trolls that mar yours and mine lives online. They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough. > You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions, I am not proud about it, because I have never defended such opinions. Not a single one. I did defend the right of people to hold variety of opinions, even those that you oppose. I hope you can distinguish between supporting the right to have an opinion and agreeing with each opinion that I think people have the right to hold. > It isn't "their" project. It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would. > they could fork it, couldn't they? They could, but that's not the point. The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you? > They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority. You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, and if you have the majority the minority can shut up and their concerns do not matter. Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority? I would think that as somebody who has been in a minority and had suffered from people that thought being in majority means being right, and you can dismiss concerns of people in the minority and silence their voices and disregard their wishes, you would appreciate how this point of view is incorrect and can cause harm?

smsm42 8y ago

> People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others. This is terrible, and I hope your employer is sane enough to ignore those cooks. > In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human. I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it. > So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project. No, I never wrote anything of the sort to you. You seem to be a person capable of controlling your thoughts and basic reasoning, I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner. I never said it is "sad" that I might need "to behave myself". I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy, or a lynch mob is going to get you. If that what you mean by "behaving" then this would not happen. And I would expect yourself, as somebody who has been attacked exactly as somebody doing things in your life not in an orthodox way, may appreciate why it is sad. > It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity. There's nothing wrong with anonymity. You may prefer not being anonymous, but some other people might prefer otherwise. People harassing you is terrible. So is harassing other people, including because of things they disagree with you. I am not talking about making threats and harassment - if somebody attacks other person, exposing them is a good thing. But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong. The folks that are getting hurt by the lynch mob are predominantly not the anonymous trolls that mar yours and mine lives online. They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough. > You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions, I am not proud about it, because I have never defended such opinions. Not a single one. I did defend the right of people to hold variety of opinions, even those that you oppose. I hope you can distinguish between supporting the right to have an opinion and agreeing with each opinion that I think people have the right to hold. > It isn't "their" project. It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would. > they could fork it, couldn't they? They could, but that's not the point. The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you? > They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority. You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, and if you have the majority the minority can shut up and their concerns do not matter. Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority? I would think that as somebody who has been in a minority and had suffered from people that thought being in majority means being right, and you can dismiss concerns of people in the minority and silence their voices and disregard their wishes, you would appreciate how this point of view is incorrect and can cause harm?