4 ms·

> There's always someone who tries to read between the lines and strawman people for what they did not say/express. The claim that there is always someone crea

• de_watcher 8y ago
  I'll assume good faith before we overflow the stack.
  • codeulike 8y ago
    I was going to make a comment like this but yours is much better.
• Spivak 8y ago
  I think this would be covered under assuming people are acting in good faith but I absolutely agree this is something that should be stated explicitly. Don't treat someone who says they felt hurt or excluded as someone overly sensitive. Because even when someone gets the wrong impression you may find it valuable to reflect on why that impression was received in the first place. And please don't treat people who try to point out exclusionary or hurtful language like they're your adversary or trying to control you -- it can be incredibly hard for people of disprivileged demographics to speak up for themselves. I have to rely on the defense of others constantly because when I speak for myself I'm not taken seriously.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• jelly 8y ago
  "There's always one" is a common rhetorical device whose meaning is closer to "There's often one, and I easily forget the times there's not." I don't think the parent's intention was to make such a claim.
  • cipherzero 8y ago
    Whether GP meant to make a strawman or not, i found the comment to be a good reminder to apply the strategy GP espoused. Hopefully that’s how it’s perceived- and not as an indictment of hypocrisy.
• gweinberg 8y ago
  Well, in the case of volunteer software projects, I think people who make significant contributions should be cut a great deal of slack, whereas those who criticize contributors without contributing themselves aren't entitled to any slack at all.
  • Spivak 8y ago
    I mean that's pretty much how it works in practice, I don't think there's really a need to codify "you can get away with being insufferable so long as you're valuable enough." It's not exactly a goal to strive for and more something that is tolerated until another options presents.
  • ljm 8y ago
    I think there's a huge difference between cutting slack and assuming positive intent, in the same way that there's a huge difference between criticism and constructive feedback. Cutting slack is essentially turning the other cheek to otherwise unwelcome behaviour, for whatever reason that might be. I don't believe it's healthy at all to cut slack for some people and not others. On the contrary, it's incredibly healthy to give everyone the exact same assumption of positive intent up until it's proven otherwise. Those making significant contributions should be doing their best to set the example, to show what the high standard is, and if you let them off the hook you're not holding them to account. You're putting them above the guidelines and essentially enabling them. This doesn't mean that everyone should be criticised equally, but nobody should be above receiving constructive feedback on their communication just because they've contributed a lot of work. And on that level, it also stands to reason that feedback has to be delivered compassionately and appropriately, and it works a lot better if that's done in the context of a trusting relationship or through people who are skilled in engaging in such conversations. A newcomer to the community who criticises everybody else is not communicating kindly or compassionately. The assumption of positive intent may suggest that they're not familiar with the guidelines, so the constructive feedback would be to present those guidelines and point out where the newcomer may have fallen short. Hard work, but communities are hard work.