13 ms·

I support codes of conduct but this is EXACTLY the thing that opponents point to when they oppose them. I expected this post to be a rant against codes of condu

I support codes of conduct but this is EXACTLY the thing that opponents point to when they oppose them. I expected this post to be a rant against codes of conduct and instead it wound up leaving me wondering if NumFOCUS and JupyterCon was in the wrong here...this guy offered criticism and that is NOT a fucking violation of ANY CoC -- if you can't handle criticism, don't make public statements. The hilarious is that Joel Grus didn't care -- like what the hell...this is why sometimes I feel like proponents of CoCs are at times their own worst enemy when it comes to attaining wide support for them.

btilly 6y ago
I support codes of conduct but this is EXACTLY the thing that opponents point to when they oppose them. Why don't you come to to the dark side and oppose codes of conduct then? I consider the purported goals of codes of conduct to be laudable. But this kind of thing becomes inevitable when SJWs aka political correctness police get power through trying to enforce codes of conduct. It isn't that sometimes proponents of CoCs are their own worst enemies. It is that there are people seeking power through CoCs who are honestly bad actors. And we shouldn't be putting people we can't trust into a position to control the speech of others.
- refulgentis 6y ago
  It, seemingly, isn't inevitable - I can count on one, _maybe_ two hands the number of unfair incidents I've heard since I started hearing people trumpeting the dark side view that 100% absolutely all power is put into service of evil, always.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Most people who are targeted aren't going to go telling the internet about it. And people who curb their behavior unreasonably out of fear aren't going to advertise that either. What you hear about is only the tip of the iceberg of what really happens.
    - refulgentis 6y ago
      I'm taking umbrage with the "But this kind of thing becomes inevitable" part
  - robbyoconnor 6y ago
    I initially thought "oh, another guy whining" but this seems to not be the case here but rather a case of a really piss-poor code of conduct.
    - pindab0ter 6y ago
      The author quotes the CoC in his article and none of the points come even close to being a base to judge him on. This instance is about power abuse by a committee that doesn’t even have a basis in the CoC.
- robbyoconnor 6y ago
  Because this isn't a case of a codes of conduct being universally bad, but rather a case of one instance of it being bad. A GOOD code of conduct will be specific and lay out what is acceptable without vagueness.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Most people know what is or isn't acceptable through common sense. A racist or sexual assaulter isn't going to think "Wait, does this violate the code of conduct?" Every conference doesn't need to go to the trouble of working out some flawless unambiguous list of rules and every attendee doesn't need to read them. If someone is causing a problem eject, ban, or call the police. No CoC needed.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      And three sentences of "We don't tolerate abuse, discrimination, or harassment of any speaker or participant at XYZCon. If you have a problem, contact a staff member. If you cause a problem, you may be asked to leave, be banned from future events, and/or the police may be called.
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Exactly. In generations past this was called "respecting boundaries" and was something we do as a social activity -- we literally teach others how we are willing to be treated (or more generally, we teach others what behavior will be accepted in that social group). Despite the increasing anonymity of the world (in that we don't physically live and interact in the same physical space), I think conferences are still small enough social groups that such approaches do work. I've been to some where despite the presence of thousands of people, noteworthy news takes less than a few minutes to travel throughout the conference.
    - fdw 6y ago
- spacekitcat 6y ago
  Can you provide a concrete example of this “political correctness” you are opposed to?
  - garmaine 6y ago
    The OP did.
    - spacekitcat 6y ago
      No, OP really didn’t.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    As it is popularly opposed and used it is equivalent to "Newspeak". For example we had the definition of racism changed. Racism wasn't attributing negative properties to skin color, it has extended to unfalsifiable bias. Also some skin colors are never racist while other always are. Disagreeing means you are racist. You have a rule against racism in your COC and pretend someone is biased and you conjured an excuse to exclude someone without any sensible rationale. It is not difficult to understand the objection. edit: Other examples are behavioral expectations like having to bow before a cross, working in the kitchen, acknowledging your guilt....
    - spacekitcat 6y ago
      Do you think there are negative sub conscious biases around race? Do you think racism has the same consequences for all races, for example, someone who is a member of a minority group vs someone who is not for a particular region?
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Second question: No. I think I know where the original idea came from. Racism against the majority group is relatively benign compared to that against a minority. It is unlikely that racism can phase them to a relevant degree. But that stops to be the case when you have companies and media personalities starting to discriminate on the basis of skin color. Furthermore I think the most racist people are those that have no problem with being racist at all and those that believe there needs to be some compensatory justice. And this is far more pronounced racism than bias in any form. first question: Yes/No. I think there is an initial bias that is quickly overcome on contact because the other one is not you. Same prejudices can exist against unknown people in general. I doubt it is too relevant in exchanges. It can however be the reason for prejudices against people against other that they not ever been in contact with. I also believe that you need different types of people in a functioning society. For disabled people it might be advantageous to have people ignoring their condition and just pretending that they belong just as everybody else. But you need also people that know that isn't always the case. Everyone wants to make things accessible but if you ask yourself if you always keep that promise the answer is probably 'no'. That is why the latter group is also needed, but there can be conflicts if a differing context isn't cleared up. The first group might have a problem with 'political correctness' in this context.
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  Your argument as stated also applies to e.g. unions, police, workers' councils or any other place where individuals are elected to "protect" the group. And it is undeniable that these have overall improved the situations of these groups. The argument is flawed in that it does not consider the upsides of instituting them. This does not mean that CoCs are unequivocally the best solution. But fully ignoring their benefits due to the potential for abuse is not inherently sound.
  - btilly 6y ago
    It can apply to those situations, but the fact that in those cases the people most likely to be affected have a voice in who gets chosen is an incentive to good behavior that is missing in this case. If you're running a conference, you APPOINT who will be deciding whether the CoC has been violated. If you appoint people who are not trusted by activists, you will face criticism from said activists. If you appoint people who are trusted by activists, you've appointed people who likely got ahead by getting activists fired up in the past. What they did in the past they will do in the future, and you've just given them the platform on which they will do it. That's a catch-22 for the organizer, and a set of perverse incentives that makes it easy for the people I don't want to see in that position to get in that position.
ben0x539 6y ago
> The hilarious is that Joel Grus didn't care It's probably not the case here, but imo it's a feature of CoCs that they protect people who can't publicly object themselves for whatever reason. Like, for an extreme example, if I know I'm gonna get harassed if I make noise about someone's genuinely harmful behavior, then it's good that I can publicly be like "oh no it's fine don't worry" and there's still a process to stop them from harming more people.
- robbyoconnor 6y ago
  Except it wasn't harassment -- guess what? People can say you're wrong. Check your ego at the door if you give a public talk. They shouldn't say "he's a fucking idiot" but saying "I feel that got X,Y, and Z wrong and here's why:" is not a fucking CoC violation. I support codes of conduct and always will but this is where things went topsy-turvy, do not try to roll your own and try to be specific.
  - ben0x539 6y ago
    I'm not saying it was harassment, I'm using an extreme example to make the point that "the supposedly aggrieved party says it was fine" shouldn't by itself be considered sufficient evidence that the CoC wasn't broken and that action shouldn't be taken.
    - robbyoconnor 6y ago
      Fair point.
  - josefx 6y ago
    > People can say you're wrong. Check your ego at the door if you give a public talk. There are probably tons of lectures on how to disagree with someone while phrasing it neutrally. For example "you are wrong" vs. "I disagree with your point" . I couldn't imagine using such a style constantly without slipping up every now and then but it is probably double plus good in an environment that forces you to walk on eggshells.
- 6y ago
mk81 6y ago
>> I support the thoughtful enforcement of Code of Conducts to address blah blah blah, but ... >I support codes of conduct but ... CoCs are crap and you both know it
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Deflect 6y ago
Where did you see he didn't care? https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/1321627567737069568?s=19 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/1321627567737069568?s=19 he said their decision was fucked up.
- Strom 6y ago
  The phrase didn't care in this context means that he was OK with his opinion being called wrong, not that he literally doesn't care either way.
  - robbyoconnor 6y ago
    Precisely what was said above is what I meant.

btilly 6y ago

I support codes of conduct but this is EXACTLY the thing that opponents point to when they oppose them. Why don't you come to to the dark side and oppose codes of conduct then? I consider the purported goals of codes of conduct to be laudable. But this kind of thing becomes inevitable when SJWs aka political correctness police get power through trying to enforce codes of conduct. It isn't that sometimes proponents of CoCs are their own worst enemies. It is that there are people seeking power through CoCs who are honestly bad actors. And we shouldn't be putting people we can't trust into a position to control the speech of others.

refulgentis 6y ago
It, seemingly, isn't inevitable - I can count on one, _maybe_ two hands the number of unfair incidents I've heard since I started hearing people trumpeting the dark side view that 100% absolutely all power is put into service of evil, always.
- btilly 6y ago
  Most people who are targeted aren't going to go telling the internet about it. And people who curb their behavior unreasonably out of fear aren't going to advertise that either. What you hear about is only the tip of the iceberg of what really happens.
  - refulgentis 6y ago
    I'm taking umbrage with the "But this kind of thing becomes inevitable" part
- robbyoconnor 6y ago
  I initially thought "oh, another guy whining" but this seems to not be the case here but rather a case of a really piss-poor code of conduct.
  - pindab0ter 6y ago
    The author quotes the CoC in his article and none of the points come even close to being a base to judge him on. This instance is about power abuse by a committee that doesn’t even have a basis in the CoC.
robbyoconnor 6y ago
Because this isn't a case of a codes of conduct being universally bad, but rather a case of one instance of it being bad. A GOOD code of conduct will be specific and lay out what is acceptable without vagueness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Most people know what is or isn't acceptable through common sense. A racist or sexual assaulter isn't going to think "Wait, does this violate the code of conduct?" Every conference doesn't need to go to the trouble of working out some flawless unambiguous list of rules and every attendee doesn't need to read them. If someone is causing a problem eject, ban, or call the police. No CoC needed.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    And three sentences of "We don't tolerate abuse, discrimination, or harassment of any speaker or participant at XYZCon. If you have a problem, contact a staff member. If you cause a problem, you may be asked to leave, be banned from future events, and/or the police may be called.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Exactly. In generations past this was called "respecting boundaries" and was something we do as a social activity -- we literally teach others how we are willing to be treated (or more generally, we teach others what behavior will be accepted in that social group). Despite the increasing anonymity of the world (in that we don't physically live and interact in the same physical space), I think conferences are still small enough social groups that such approaches do work. I've been to some where despite the presence of thousands of people, noteworthy news takes less than a few minutes to travel throughout the conference.
  - fdw 6y ago
spacekitcat 6y ago
Can you provide a concrete example of this “political correctness” you are opposed to?
- garmaine 6y ago
  The OP did.
  - spacekitcat 6y ago
    No, OP really didn’t.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  As it is popularly opposed and used it is equivalent to "Newspeak". For example we had the definition of racism changed. Racism wasn't attributing negative properties to skin color, it has extended to unfalsifiable bias. Also some skin colors are never racist while other always are. Disagreeing means you are racist. You have a rule against racism in your COC and pretend someone is biased and you conjured an excuse to exclude someone without any sensible rationale. It is not difficult to understand the objection. edit: Other examples are behavioral expectations like having to bow before a cross, working in the kitchen, acknowledging your guilt....
  - spacekitcat 6y ago
    Do you think there are negative sub conscious biases around race? Do you think racism has the same consequences for all races, for example, someone who is a member of a minority group vs someone who is not for a particular region?
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Second question: No. I think I know where the original idea came from. Racism against the majority group is relatively benign compared to that against a minority. It is unlikely that racism can phase them to a relevant degree. But that stops to be the case when you have companies and media personalities starting to discriminate on the basis of skin color. Furthermore I think the most racist people are those that have no problem with being racist at all and those that believe there needs to be some compensatory justice. And this is far more pronounced racism than bias in any form. first question: Yes/No. I think there is an initial bias that is quickly overcome on contact because the other one is not you. Same prejudices can exist against unknown people in general. I doubt it is too relevant in exchanges. It can however be the reason for prejudices against people against other that they not ever been in contact with. I also believe that you need different types of people in a functioning society. For disabled people it might be advantageous to have people ignoring their condition and just pretending that they belong just as everybody else. But you need also people that know that isn't always the case. Everyone wants to make things accessible but if you ask yourself if you always keep that promise the answer is probably 'no'. That is why the latter group is also needed, but there can be conflicts if a differing context isn't cleared up. The first group might have a problem with 'political correctness' in this context.
MauranKilom 6y ago
Your argument as stated also applies to e.g. unions, police, workers' councils or any other place where individuals are elected to "protect" the group. And it is undeniable that these have overall improved the situations of these groups. The argument is flawed in that it does not consider the upsides of instituting them. This does not mean that CoCs are unequivocally the best solution. But fully ignoring their benefits due to the potential for abuse is not inherently sound.
- btilly 6y ago
  It can apply to those situations, but the fact that in those cases the people most likely to be affected have a voice in who gets chosen is an incentive to good behavior that is missing in this case. If you're running a conference, you APPOINT who will be deciding whether the CoC has been violated. If you appoint people who are not trusted by activists, you will face criticism from said activists. If you appoint people who are trusted by activists, you've appointed people who likely got ahead by getting activists fired up in the past. What they did in the past they will do in the future, and you've just given them the platform on which they will do it. That's a catch-22 for the organizer, and a set of perverse incentives that makes it easy for the people I don't want to see in that position to get in that position.

ben0x539 6y ago

> The hilarious is that Joel Grus didn't care It's probably not the case here, but imo it's a feature of CoCs that they protect people who can't publicly object themselves for whatever reason. Like, for an extreme example, if I know I'm gonna get harassed if I make noise about someone's genuinely harmful behavior, then it's good that I can publicly be like "oh no it's fine don't worry" and there's still a process to stop them from harming more people.

robbyoconnor 6y ago
Except it wasn't harassment -- guess what? People can say you're wrong. Check your ego at the door if you give a public talk. They shouldn't say "he's a fucking idiot" but saying "I feel that got X,Y, and Z wrong and here's why:" is not a fucking CoC violation. I support codes of conduct and always will but this is where things went topsy-turvy, do not try to roll your own and try to be specific.
- ben0x539 6y ago
  I'm not saying it was harassment, I'm using an extreme example to make the point that "the supposedly aggrieved party says it was fine" shouldn't by itself be considered sufficient evidence that the CoC wasn't broken and that action shouldn't be taken.
  - robbyoconnor 6y ago
    Fair point.
- josefx 6y ago
  > People can say you're wrong. Check your ego at the door if you give a public talk. There are probably tons of lectures on how to disagree with someone while phrasing it neutrally. For example "you are wrong" vs. "I disagree with your point" . I couldn't imagine using such a style constantly without slipping up every now and then but it is probably double plus good in an environment that forces you to walk on eggshells.
6y ago

mk81 6y ago

>> I support the thoughtful enforcement of Code of Conducts to address blah blah blah, but ... >I support codes of conduct but ... CoCs are crap and you both know it

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Deflect 6y ago

Where did you see he didn't care? https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/1321627567737069568?s=19 https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/1321627567737069568?s=19 he said their decision was fucked up.

Strom 6y ago
The phrase didn't care in this context means that he was OK with his opinion being called wrong, not that he literally doesn't care either way.
- robbyoconnor 6y ago
  Precisely what was said above is what I meant.