7 ms·

> Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. But that's their only usecase, isn't it? CoCs are just a convenient document aimed at helping out C

by barumi 6y ago

> Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. But that's their only usecase, isn't it? CoCs are just a convenient document aimed at helping out Cardinal Richelieus finding ways to hang you under the guise of breaking acceptable conduct. I mean, CoCs aren't aimed at changing people and make everyone nice. CoCs are aimed at providing a basis to persecute those who arguably don't comply with a given notion of acceptable conduct, punish them for their sins, and turn them into examples to enforce a chilling effect on the community. This example shows a CoC working exactly as it was intended to work. People have turned a blind eye to the oppressive and abusive nature of the CoC concept because they tend to believe that it can only ever oppress those we deem undesirable. But unless you're the one doing the oppression, nothing ensures that the rules only apply to those you don't like.

moron4hire 6y ago
They don't have to be that way. I admit that many of them are just that sort of thing. But they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. I think part of the problem is that most CoCs are copy-paste jobs. They're put in place as a matter of fashion. What they really need to be is a statement on the commitments of the leadership. And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments.
- barumi 6y ago
  > They don't have to be that way. They really have, because that's the sole reason they exist. It's like arguing that a oppressive totalitarian regime doesn't have to oppress their citizens. > (...) they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. CoCs aren't welcoming letters. CoCs are designed with the express purpose of letting you know that you will be punished if you do or say anything that the leader's deem unacceptable, and to be used as the basis for persecuting and punishing you if you still fail to fall in line and comply with the leadership's will. Hell, you don't need to communicate to anyone that they can and will be safe. Either that's already implied, or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it. In fact, it's patently wrong that the goal is safety. It is not. The goal is compliance and submissiveness.
  - moron4hire 6y ago
    > Either that's already implied, A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe. It's continued assertions that bludgeoning people is the sole reason CoCs exist that make those people feel like they are being completely ignored. > or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it That is literally what I said. "And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments."
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe But what does that even mean in the context of an open source project? How is anyone actually “unsafe” from someone who may be on another continent and have no idea where they live? The word “unsafe” doesn’t mean anything any more, it’s just used to silence debate. “I feel unsafe so you should merge my PR without doing any code review” is what they mean.
      - scatters 6y ago
        Really, finding out where someone lives is not that hard, especially if they have a professional or social life. And you can do significant damage to someone's career without knowing where they live.
        skinkestek 6y ago
        CoCs has made life scarier. It wasn't until PyCon that I considered anyone could be for for a joke(?) told to a friend next to you, overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate!.
        goatinaboat 6y ago
        overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate But not a developer themselves. The industry is overrun with these “tech-adjacent” roles that add only marginal value, if any. Members of this group seem to be the driving force behind CoCs.
gwbas1c 6y ago
No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. If you don't understand why it's necessary at times to clearly state what bigotry is, and why it's unacceptable, than you need to learn a bit more about diversity topics. They (CoC)s shouldn't be used to play power games. It's totally appropriate to call out situations where a CoC is used incorrectly.
- barumi 6y ago
  > No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. Oh really? This discussion is about someone that was persecuted and punished for violating a CoC. Do you see any bigotry involved in this story?
  - pindab0ter 6y ago
    This discussion is about someone being punished by a committee for something that wasn’t in the CoC, as you can read in the article.
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      No true scotsman.
      - jawarner 6y ago
        I don't think that fits here.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        It does. According to Wikipedia, No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any new specific objective rule or criterion: "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group. Now, with this definition in mind, let's review the context of this discussion: > Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. > But that's their only usecase, isn't it? > No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. > Oh really? This discussion is about someone that was persecuted and punished for violating a CoC. Do you see any bigotry involved in this story? > This discussion is about someone being punished by a committee for something that wasn’t in the CoC, as you can read in the article. So there was a debate about whether CoCs can be used as a weapon. gwbas1c rejected the idea that CoCs could be used as a weapon. barumi referenced OP article as a counter-example, to demonstrate an instance where a CoC was used as a weapon. pindab0ter then resorted to a "no true scotsman" fallacy to reject this counter-example. According to pindab0ter, this was not a "true" example of someone utilizing a CoC for attacking people, because the victim feels like they did not violate the CoC to an extent where such an attack was justified. This line of reasoning can be used to exclude all examples of people using a CoC as a weapon. After all, if someone feels like they violated a CoC and deserved their punishment, then they wouldn't characterize the situation as an "attack" in the first place.
Cytobit 6y ago
> But that's their only usecase, isn't it? I thought they were used to codify acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

by barumi 6y ago

moron4hire 6y ago

They don't have to be that way. I admit that many of them are just that sort of thing. But they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. I think part of the problem is that most CoCs are copy-paste jobs. They're put in place as a matter of fashion. What they really need to be is a statement on the commitments of the leadership. And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments.

barumi 6y ago
> They don't have to be that way. They really have, because that's the sole reason they exist. It's like arguing that a oppressive totalitarian regime doesn't have to oppress their citizens. > (...) they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. CoCs aren't welcoming letters. CoCs are designed with the express purpose of letting you know that you will be punished if you do or say anything that the leader's deem unacceptable, and to be used as the basis for persecuting and punishing you if you still fail to fall in line and comply with the leadership's will. Hell, you don't need to communicate to anyone that they can and will be safe. Either that's already implied, or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it. In fact, it's patently wrong that the goal is safety. It is not. The goal is compliance and submissiveness.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  > Either that's already implied, A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe. It's continued assertions that bludgeoning people is the sole reason CoCs exist that make those people feel like they are being completely ignored. > or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it That is literally what I said. "And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments."
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe But what does that even mean in the context of an open source project? How is anyone actually “unsafe” from someone who may be on another continent and have no idea where they live? The word “unsafe” doesn’t mean anything any more, it’s just used to silence debate. “I feel unsafe so you should merge my PR without doing any code review” is what they mean.
    - scatters 6y ago
      Really, finding out where someone lives is not that hard, especially if they have a professional or social life. And you can do significant damage to someone's career without knowing where they live.
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        CoCs has made life scarier. It wasn't until PyCon that I considered anyone could be for for a joke(?) told to a friend next to you, overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate!.
        goatinaboat 6y ago
        overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate But not a developer themselves. The industry is overrun with these “tech-adjacent” roles that add only marginal value, if any. Members of this group seem to be the driving force behind CoCs.

gwbas1c 6y ago

No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. If you don't understand why it's necessary at times to clearly state what bigotry is, and why it's unacceptable, than you need to learn a bit more about diversity topics. They (CoC)s shouldn't be used to play power games. It's totally appropriate to call out situations where a CoC is used incorrectly.

barumi 6y ago
> No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. Oh really? This discussion is about someone that was persecuted and punished for violating a CoC. Do you see any bigotry involved in this story?
- pindab0ter 6y ago
  This discussion is about someone being punished by a committee for something that wasn’t in the CoC, as you can read in the article.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    No true scotsman.
    - jawarner 6y ago
      I don't think that fits here.
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        It does. According to Wikipedia, No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any new specific objective rule or criterion: "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group. Now, with this definition in mind, let's review the context of this discussion: > Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. > But that's their only usecase, isn't it? > No, CoCs are meant to clearly state that bigotry is unacceptable. > Oh really? This discussion is about someone that was persecuted and punished for violating a CoC. Do you see any bigotry involved in this story? > This discussion is about someone being punished by a committee for something that wasn’t in the CoC, as you can read in the article. So there was a debate about whether CoCs can be used as a weapon. gwbas1c rejected the idea that CoCs could be used as a weapon. barumi referenced OP article as a counter-example, to demonstrate an instance where a CoC was used as a weapon. pindab0ter then resorted to a "no true scotsman" fallacy to reject this counter-example. According to pindab0ter, this was not a "true" example of someone utilizing a CoC for attacking people, because the victim feels like they did not violate the CoC to an extent where such an attack was justified. This line of reasoning can be used to exclude all examples of people using a CoC as a weapon. After all, if someone feels like they violated a CoC and deserved their punishment, then they wouldn't characterize the situation as an "attack" in the first place.

Cytobit 6y ago

> But that's their only usecase, isn't it? I thought they were used to codify acceptable and unacceptable conduct.