5 ms·

The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifica

The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants) The Contributor Covenant also encourages and protects policing other contributor's activity outside of the community, not relating to the project or anyone connected with the project. This has the effect of encouraging people to dig through your Twitter history trying to find something "problematic" that you said 10 years ago. If you can't be part of a project without harassing others because they are white and stalking them outside of the community, maybe you should rethink your involvement. I certainly would not want to work with you.

mprev 8y ago
Citations would be great, yes please.
- apostacy 8y ago
  Many codes of conduct include language like this. > Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort.... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 In other words, you can engage in harassment, and it will specifically be permitted, depending on the perceived identity of the victim or the harasser.
  - jfengel 8y ago
    I don't believe that's what it says. They talk about specific things that they don't act on, which are not in and of themselves harassment. That is to say, if somebody is harassing you, you need to have a better justification that it is indeed harassment than merely that it's "reverse racism". Similarly, they're saying that if somebody refuses to explain "cultural appropriation" again, that isn't in itself harassment. I'm perplexed as to why they even felt compelled to say that, since these aren't harassment. As far as I can tell, the point is to specifically call out techniques that are frequently used to harass people, badgering them to justify the same arguments repeatedly, or using frequent reports in the hopes of getting them removed. These are things that occur in a lot of online communities, taking advantage of the large numbers of people in the majority to shut down people who aren't. Moderation is an imperfect process, and they appear to be publicly acknowledging ways in which it fails. And that they will attempt to compensate for it, in ways which are easily misrepresented as "abuse" by people in the best position to benefit from a nominally "fair" process. It's clear that it's not a declaration that marginalized people can engage in harassment.
    - apostacy 8y ago
      See, this is a major flaw, because the definitions of harassment are further obfuscated. By having exceptions for bad behavior based on the self-identified identity of those involved, you are leaving open room for abuse. This ambiguity and imbalance leads to those situations where someone can justifiably engage in meta-discussion about what these rules even mean, or how they should be applied (since it is based on subjective and improvable concepts, like social perception and ethnicity). If a clear stand was taken on what was acceptable, it would be very difficult for trolls to stir up trouble by questioning the rules. Also, it is very self serving and convenient to simply say that anyone criticizing the rules must be a troll. Maybe they actually are pointing out legitimate flaws? You wouldn't HAVE these problems if your rules were more clear and fair. As for your example of "cultural appropriation", I am baffled how this would even come up in a discussion about software. So yes, if someone does make such a bizarre claim, then the onus is certainly on them to justify such claims. And accusations of racism absolutely can be harassment. Trolls know this, and they have a good laugh at our expense. Honestly I can't think of any patterns of speech which couldn't, in some context, be harassment. So it makes no sense to write things like that off. And what do you mean by "calling out?" What one person calls calling out, another person calls disrupting and harassing. I think many people who criticize a CoC are themselves, in their minds, calling something out. And who decides what is a valid "sense of safety", that so many of these rules are predicated on? Can a "majority oppressor" feel unsafe, or is it only those who have favor with the mods? One could easily use these rules against social justice goals. The flaws and open-endedness of these rules absolutely lend themselves to consolidation of power, corruption, and community harm.
chowells 8y ago
> The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants) This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out harassment. Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your exclusionary actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude someone in the first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your contributions if you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here, leave." If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white, I suggest you might benefit from a deep examination of the experiences of actual marginalized groups. There's a good chance you're just not aware of the reality others have to deal with. And there's no way to know without a lot of self-directed study. No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind, be willing to explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the conclusion that you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know, take the rational approach to one's own ignorance.
- apostacy 8y ago
  > This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out harassment. Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your exclusionary actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude someone in the first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your contributions if you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here, leave." I'm afraid it is true. "Calling out harassment" as you call it is incredibly vague, and harassment and trolling could easily be framed in those terms. But, even so, they don't even make that distinction. They simply say that you can essentially do no wrong if you make the unverified claim of being a "marginalized person". Look at these terms: * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ * Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/107#issuecomment-182791714 https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/107#issuec... If you are labeled as "oppressive", your trolls get immunity. And who defines what "oppressive" means? Simply expressing gentle disagreement or criticism of a "marginalized persons" pull request can be considered oppressive. Even not sufficiently affirming or validating someone can get you labeled this way. And trolls DO use this. Trolls absolutely make a game of turning communities against each other. I've seen it happen. > If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white. Gonna have to stop you right there. You don't know anything about my ethnicity, and it does not matter. You need to be able to make a point without falling back on that. > No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind, be willing to explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the conclusion that you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know, take the rational approach to one's own ignorance. These condescending platitudes are not helpful, and say more about you than anyone else.

mprev 8y ago

Citations would be great, yes please.

apostacy 8y ago
Many codes of conduct include language like this. > Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort.... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 In other words, you can engage in harassment, and it will specifically be permitted, depending on the perceived identity of the victim or the harasser.
- jfengel 8y ago
  I don't believe that's what it says. They talk about specific things that they don't act on, which are not in and of themselves harassment. That is to say, if somebody is harassing you, you need to have a better justification that it is indeed harassment than merely that it's "reverse racism". Similarly, they're saying that if somebody refuses to explain "cultural appropriation" again, that isn't in itself harassment. I'm perplexed as to why they even felt compelled to say that, since these aren't harassment. As far as I can tell, the point is to specifically call out techniques that are frequently used to harass people, badgering them to justify the same arguments repeatedly, or using frequent reports in the hopes of getting them removed. These are things that occur in a lot of online communities, taking advantage of the large numbers of people in the majority to shut down people who aren't. Moderation is an imperfect process, and they appear to be publicly acknowledging ways in which it fails. And that they will attempt to compensate for it, in ways which are easily misrepresented as "abuse" by people in the best position to benefit from a nominally "fair" process. It's clear that it's not a declaration that marginalized people can engage in harassment.
  - apostacy 8y ago
    See, this is a major flaw, because the definitions of harassment are further obfuscated. By having exceptions for bad behavior based on the self-identified identity of those involved, you are leaving open room for abuse. This ambiguity and imbalance leads to those situations where someone can justifiably engage in meta-discussion about what these rules even mean, or how they should be applied (since it is based on subjective and improvable concepts, like social perception and ethnicity). If a clear stand was taken on what was acceptable, it would be very difficult for trolls to stir up trouble by questioning the rules. Also, it is very self serving and convenient to simply say that anyone criticizing the rules must be a troll. Maybe they actually are pointing out legitimate flaws? You wouldn't HAVE these problems if your rules were more clear and fair. As for your example of "cultural appropriation", I am baffled how this would even come up in a discussion about software. So yes, if someone does make such a bizarre claim, then the onus is certainly on them to justify such claims. And accusations of racism absolutely can be harassment. Trolls know this, and they have a good laugh at our expense. Honestly I can't think of any patterns of speech which couldn't, in some context, be harassment. So it makes no sense to write things like that off. And what do you mean by "calling out?" What one person calls calling out, another person calls disrupting and harassing. I think many people who criticize a CoC are themselves, in their minds, calling something out. And who decides what is a valid "sense of safety", that so many of these rules are predicated on? Can a "majority oppressor" feel unsafe, or is it only those who have favor with the mods? One could easily use these rules against social justice goals. The flaws and open-endedness of these rules absolutely lend themselves to consolidation of power, corruption, and community harm.

chowells 8y ago

> The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants) This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out harassment. Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your exclusionary actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude someone in the first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your contributions if you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here, leave." If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white, I suggest you might benefit from a deep examination of the experiences of actual marginalized groups. There's a good chance you're just not aware of the reality others have to deal with. And there's no way to know without a lot of self-directed study. No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind, be willing to explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the conclusion that you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know, take the rational approach to one's own ignorance.

apostacy 8y ago
> This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out harassment. Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your exclusionary actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude someone in the first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your contributions if you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here, leave." I'm afraid it is true. "Calling out harassment" as you call it is incredibly vague, and harassment and trolling could easily be framed in those terms. But, even so, they don't even make that distinction. They simply say that you can essentially do no wrong if you make the unverified claim of being a "marginalized person". Look at these terms: * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ * Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/107#issuecomment-182791714 https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/107#issuec... If you are labeled as "oppressive", your trolls get immunity. And who defines what "oppressive" means? Simply expressing gentle disagreement or criticism of a "marginalized persons" pull request can be considered oppressive. Even not sufficiently affirming or validating someone can get you labeled this way. And trolls DO use this. Trolls absolutely make a game of turning communities against each other. I've seen it happen. > If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white. Gonna have to stop you right there. You don't know anything about my ethnicity, and it does not matter. You need to be able to make a point without falling back on that. > No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind, be willing to explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the conclusion that you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know, take the rational approach to one's own ignorance. These condescending platitudes are not helpful, and say more about you than anyone else.