3 ms·

> The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines takes the opposite approach and begins with addressing the recipient of a message, instructing them to hear what is said

> The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines takes the opposite approach and begins with addressing the recipient of a message, instructing them to hear what is said to them in good faith. Talking to the recipient first, before the speaker starts the conversation off wrongly,places the bulk of the emotional labor on the recipient of a message rather than on the sender. Emotional labor? Give me a break. Being inclusive does not require anything more than the absence of barriers. What does the author mean specifically when they advise that we alter our approach to match the cultural norms of other groups? My "approach" in writing online is to talk to a person, not specifically a male or a white person or whatever distinction you care to name. The internet has always been great that way. No matter who you are in real life, in IRC you're just a nick, and on mailing lists you're just an email address. That's what drew many of us to it in the first place. It seems bizarre to now claim that in fact the opposite is true.

asqueella 8y ago
While I feel that Serge (the OP) is being too harsh on the RMS' announcement, which obviously was born in attempt to reconcile the differences between the people who insist on introducing "a proper CoC" and the people who feel that "it is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently", your comment is going too far in the different direction. Emotional labor is a thing. As someone who both prefers direct communication and (thinks that he) can relate to what other people feel, I'm always facing a choice between spending some emotional effort to be "nicer" or having my counterparty deal with it. I tend to choose the former and it does feel like labor. Absence of barriers is also not the same as making one feel welcome. But I feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard; and since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems foolish to battle it.
- emacsen 8y ago
  > I feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard; and since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems foolish to battle it. You may be right that I'm being harsh, at the same time, I don't see this the KGC as a neutral thing. It says "Here is the line", but sets that line very far from aspirational. If anything, it seems designed to address how people are to interpret his comments. We can (and need to) do better.

asqueella 8y ago

While I feel that Serge (the OP) is being too harsh on the RMS' announcement, which obviously was born in attempt to reconcile the differences between the people who insist on introducing "a proper CoC" and the people who feel that "it is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently", your comment is going too far in the different direction. Emotional labor is a thing. As someone who both prefers direct communication and (thinks that he) can relate to what other people feel, I'm always facing a choice between spending some emotional effort to be "nicer" or having my counterparty deal with it. I tend to choose the former and it does feel like labor. Absence of barriers is also not the same as making one feel welcome. But I feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard; and since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems foolish to battle it.

emacsen 8y ago
> I feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard; and since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems foolish to battle it. You may be right that I'm being harsh, at the same time, I don't see this the KGC as a neutral thing. It says "Here is the line", but sets that line very far from aspirational. If anything, it seems designed to address how people are to interpret his comments. We can (and need to) do better.