3 ms·

I'm not exactly sure where you draw the difference. Minority opinions are sometimes helpful in creating products that work for everyone (my favorite example her

I'm not exactly sure where you draw the difference. Minority opinions are sometimes helpful in creating products that work for everyone (my favorite example here being a hand dryer that did not recognize black skin). It can be useful to amplify such voices. If you want to call that "SJWism", fine. But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere. You can ALWAYS voice your concerns in a productive manner in the "meritocratic" ideal. Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group. Let's take the assumption that women need every fucking thing explained to them - which is quite alive and really fucking annoying. I don't think that's banworthy, but certainly noteworthy and, if you wanna continue to talk down to your peers, maybe you need a break from the mailing list after all.

core-questions 7y ago
> But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life! The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits, and this is triply true when the product itself costs nothing - people use what works. If a particular development style ends up resulting in more contributors and better code, so be it; but there's no guarantee of that whatsoever. Some of the best code in the world has been written by megalomaniacs who would never pass a CoC sniff test. > Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group. Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.
- sascha_sl 7y ago
  > Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign. Oh, I'm not the only one to notice the rampant transphobia in UK media and the labour party, nice. See how easy I proved your premise wrong?
  - core-questions 7y ago
    You haven't proved anything other than the fact that you know exactly what I meant, and are using tactical nihilism to pretend that a tiny fraction of the population not having their every whim catered to is an issue the rest of us should care about.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - thu2111 7y ago
    The Labour party is having a leadership election in which Rebecca Long Bailey is an outspoken proponent of trans rights and issues. The statement you're trying (and failing) to disprove said "are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign" but she's clearly both allowed to positively acknowledge trans rights in a political campaign and is actually doing so. Thus your attempted counter-example is wrong, and I think you knew that. As for straight white men, I'm trying to remember the last time the leader of a political party or writer of a newspaper column went to bat for those people's rights. Can't actually recall one.
- ringzero 7y ago
  > Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign. You should seriously re-examine that argument, because it couldn’t be further from the truth. Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through. I can give you a more blunt and concrete example: most media spends a disproportionate amount of time shitting on trans people, casting them in every undesirable light you can think of. Yeppp downvotes without comments. It’s reddit 2.0 up in here
  - core-questions 7y ago
    OK, please show me a politician in a major political party seriously advocating on behalf of the group you know I am referring to in the last two decades. Even the Idiot in Chief won't put a name to it. > Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through. I'm not in favour of this. But when the group I didn't mention becomes a minority, I wonder whether anyone will have the same considerations for them as they've had for everyone else. (I won't downvote you, I want the argument. I've upvoted you. If you find it toxic, of course, you're welcome to go have a different conversation elsewhere, just like anyone on an open source project is welcome to move the fuck on with their life instead of moralizing at others).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - ringzero 7y ago
      > I'm not in favour of this. But when the group I didn't mention becomes a minority, I wonder whether anyone will have the same considerations for them as they've had for everyone else. Oh, a literal nazi sympathizer, perfect. What a good-faith conversation this has been
- Karrot_Kream 7y ago
  > The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits Huh? That's certainly not what the free market dictates at all. There's no sense of "merit" imbued anywhere inside anything in the free market. There are assumptions behind the shapes of the supply and demand functions (namely convexity) and a belief in price signaling information. That's all.
ForHackernews 7y ago
> You can ALWAYS voice your concerns in a productive manner in the "meritocratic" ideal. You, and perhaps most people believe that, but there's a vocal minority who considers even the concept of meritocracy as an aspirational ideal to be offensive. cf. Github having to throw out their dumb pompous rug: https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/
- Trombone12 7y ago
  Pretty clearly the deal there is that false claims that a place is meritocratic makes the actual injustices worse.

core-questions 7y ago

> But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life! The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits, and this is triply true when the product itself costs nothing - people use what works. If a particular development style ends up resulting in more contributors and better code, so be it; but there's no guarantee of that whatsoever. Some of the best code in the world has been written by megalomaniacs who would never pass a CoC sniff test. > Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group. Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.

sascha_sl 7y ago
> Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign. Oh, I'm not the only one to notice the rampant transphobia in UK media and the labour party, nice. See how easy I proved your premise wrong?
- core-questions 7y ago
  You haven't proved anything other than the fact that you know exactly what I meant, and are using tactical nihilism to pretend that a tiny fraction of the population not having their every whim catered to is an issue the rest of us should care about.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- thu2111 7y ago
  The Labour party is having a leadership election in which Rebecca Long Bailey is an outspoken proponent of trans rights and issues. The statement you're trying (and failing) to disprove said "are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign" but she's clearly both allowed to positively acknowledge trans rights in a political campaign and is actually doing so. Thus your attempted counter-example is wrong, and I think you knew that. As for straight white men, I'm trying to remember the last time the leader of a political party or writer of a newspaper column went to bat for those people's rights. Can't actually recall one.
ringzero 7y ago
> Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign. You should seriously re-examine that argument, because it couldn’t be further from the truth. Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through. I can give you a more blunt and concrete example: most media spends a disproportionate amount of time shitting on trans people, casting them in every undesirable light you can think of. Yeppp downvotes without comments. It’s reddit 2.0 up in here
- core-questions 7y ago
  OK, please show me a politician in a major political party seriously advocating on behalf of the group you know I am referring to in the last two decades. Even the Idiot in Chief won't put a name to it. > Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through. I'm not in favour of this. But when the group I didn't mention becomes a minority, I wonder whether anyone will have the same considerations for them as they've had for everyone else. (I won't downvote you, I want the argument. I've upvoted you. If you find it toxic, of course, you're welcome to go have a different conversation elsewhere, just like anyone on an open source project is welcome to move the fuck on with their life instead of moralizing at others).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ringzero 7y ago
    > I'm not in favour of this. But when the group I didn't mention becomes a minority, I wonder whether anyone will have the same considerations for them as they've had for everyone else. Oh, a literal nazi sympathizer, perfect. What a good-faith conversation this has been
Karrot_Kream 7y ago
> The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits Huh? That's certainly not what the free market dictates at all. There's no sense of "merit" imbued anywhere inside anything in the free market. There are assumptions behind the shapes of the supply and demand functions (namely convexity) and a belief in price signaling information. That's all.

ForHackernews 7y ago

> You can ALWAYS voice your concerns in a productive manner in the "meritocratic" ideal. You, and perhaps most people believe that, but there's a vocal minority who considers even the concept of meritocracy as an aspirational ideal to be offensive. cf. Github having to throw out their dumb pompous rug: https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/

Trombone12 7y ago
Pretty clearly the deal there is that false claims that a place is meritocratic makes the actual injustices worse.