11 ms·

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

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.
        jawarner 6y ago
        gwbas1c did not reject the idea that CoCs could be used as a weapon. They rejected that is their only use case. barumi referenced OP article as an example of CoC as a weapon. pindab0ter argues this not a fault in the CoC itself per se, but in how it was enforced.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > pindab0ter argues this not a fault in the CoC itself per se, but in how it was enforced. That's a rather charitable interpretation. The context here was weaponization of CoCs, and OP article was referenced as an example of this weaponization. It seems very clear to me that spindab0ter was arguing that this is not an example of weaponizing the CoC. Your alternative interpretation doesn't really resonate for me, because it sounds like a "no no, guys, there was nothing at fault in the CoC itself" to a subthread where nobody claimed there was anything wrong with the contents of the CoC in the first place.
        jawarner 6y ago
        pindab0ter's idea, as I read it, is that no, CoCs are not inherently weapons to exclude people for no reason. They typically language about what constitutes bigotry. In the OP, yes, the CoC was weaponized, but it doesn't reflect a necessary fault in CoCs in general. Edit: I'm not sure what is even meant by "weaponize." Is the implication that somebody at the conference had vendetta against OP? It's clear that CoCs give people more power, which is a weapon, in a sense. Would reporting someone for CoC violation for sexual misconduct at a conference be an example of weaponization?
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > pindab0ter's idea, as I read it, is that no, CoCs are not inherently weapons to exclude people for no reason. They typically language about what constitutes bigotry. In the OP, yes, the CoC was weaponized, but it doesn't reflect a necessary fault in CoCs in general. I don't think pindab0ter would agree with this interpretation. @pindab0ter, if you are still following the thread, can you clarify this with a yes/no answer: do you count the OP article as an example of CoC weaponization? > I'm not sure what is even meant by "weaponize." Is the implication that somebody at the conference had vendetta against OP? Yes. > It's clear that CoCs give people more power, which is a weapon, in a sense. Would reporting someone for CoC violation for sexual misconduct at a conference be an example of weaponization? Well, if you dislike someone's political views, and then you hatch a plan to make up fraudulent sexual misconduct allegations with the hope of "canceling" someone, I would describe that as "weaponizing" the CoC. But if the allegations are genuine and without ulterior motives, then I would not use that terminology.
    - gwbas1c 6y ago
      I was personally bothered by this response. Maybe it's worth looking at this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945750
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        May I ask why were you bothered by it?
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  > 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.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Yep, you wrote that above. But it doesn't help. Ordinary people still get in trouble because others enjoy being judge, jury and executioner.
lmm 6y ago
And yet they don't. I've never seen a CoC serve to effectively clarify what is or isn't bigotry. In fact they serve to make things murkier: people find it much easier to agree on whether someone's conduct was a priori acceptable than on whether it was or wasn't a CoC violation.
SamReidHughes 6y ago
CoC's were created because SJW's needed to pretend that sex differences in open source contribution aren't caused by intrinsic sex differences. Or maybe that's the naive explanation, and it's just to exercise power.
tomp 6y ago
Most CoCs state that discrimination based on religion is not acceptable, but don't mention political belief. Both are opinions, and I honestly don't see why one would be bigotry, but not the other. Hence the only thing I conclude is that CoCs are actually about politics, but framed in a very nice way, pretending to be based on empathy and inclusion, making them very hard to object to.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  There's a fine line. In the US, we've usually had reasonable parties in power, so it really didn't matter what your politics were. Now... Not so much; and it goes both ways, too. There are loonies on both sides of the aisle. I've always seen CoCs as needed for situations where a conference has a transgender person and a "poorly socialized conservative." Or a Christian proudly wearing a cross and a "poorly socialized liberal." Situations are even simpler; it could be a conference with a female speaker and a man who still believes in strict gender roles. Unfortunately, the above situations come down to "political belief."
  - jeltz 6y ago
    That is such an American PoV. Plenty of places in the world have or have had political persecution. It is a very real issue in large parts of the world. In general CoCs enforce a very American world view, one where I as a non-American do not feel welcome.
    - thaneross 6y ago
      As another non-American I feel similarly which supports the hypothesis that CoCs are primary political instruments.
- jawarner 6y ago
  CoCs are about politics to the extent that politics affects one's ability to be empathetic. If you believe that genetics cause women to perform worse in technical roles, that will be reflected in your social behavior. To use an extreme example for the sake of discussion, would you similarly feel that excluding a skinhead with Swastika face tattoos from a scientific conference constitutes an unacceptable example of political oppression? If not, is it because they cause minoritized people to feel unsafe and unwelcome? Where do you believe the line should be drawn?

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.
      - jawarner 6y ago
        gwbas1c did not reject the idea that CoCs could be used as a weapon. They rejected that is their only use case. barumi referenced OP article as an example of CoC as a weapon. pindab0ter argues this not a fault in the CoC itself per se, but in how it was enforced.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > pindab0ter argues this not a fault in the CoC itself per se, but in how it was enforced. That's a rather charitable interpretation. The context here was weaponization of CoCs, and OP article was referenced as an example of this weaponization. It seems very clear to me that spindab0ter was arguing that this is not an example of weaponizing the CoC. Your alternative interpretation doesn't really resonate for me, because it sounds like a "no no, guys, there was nothing at fault in the CoC itself" to a subthread where nobody claimed there was anything wrong with the contents of the CoC in the first place.
        jawarner 6y ago
        pindab0ter's idea, as I read it, is that no, CoCs are not inherently weapons to exclude people for no reason. They typically language about what constitutes bigotry. In the OP, yes, the CoC was weaponized, but it doesn't reflect a necessary fault in CoCs in general. Edit: I'm not sure what is even meant by "weaponize." Is the implication that somebody at the conference had vendetta against OP? It's clear that CoCs give people more power, which is a weapon, in a sense. Would reporting someone for CoC violation for sexual misconduct at a conference be an example of weaponization?
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > pindab0ter's idea, as I read it, is that no, CoCs are not inherently weapons to exclude people for no reason. They typically language about what constitutes bigotry. In the OP, yes, the CoC was weaponized, but it doesn't reflect a necessary fault in CoCs in general. I don't think pindab0ter would agree with this interpretation. @pindab0ter, if you are still following the thread, can you clarify this with a yes/no answer: do you count the OP article as an example of CoC weaponization? > I'm not sure what is even meant by "weaponize." Is the implication that somebody at the conference had vendetta against OP? Yes. > It's clear that CoCs give people more power, which is a weapon, in a sense. Would reporting someone for CoC violation for sexual misconduct at a conference be an example of weaponization? Well, if you dislike someone's political views, and then you hatch a plan to make up fraudulent sexual misconduct allegations with the hope of "canceling" someone, I would describe that as "weaponizing" the CoC. But if the allegations are genuine and without ulterior motives, then I would not use that terminology.
  - gwbas1c 6y ago
    I was personally bothered by this response. Maybe it's worth looking at this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945750
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      May I ask why were you bothered by it?
gwbas1c 6y ago
> 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.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Yep, you wrote that above. But it doesn't help. Ordinary people still get in trouble because others enjoy being judge, jury and executioner.

lmm 6y ago

And yet they don't. I've never seen a CoC serve to effectively clarify what is or isn't bigotry. In fact they serve to make things murkier: people find it much easier to agree on whether someone's conduct was a priori acceptable than on whether it was or wasn't a CoC violation.

SamReidHughes 6y ago

CoC's were created because SJW's needed to pretend that sex differences in open source contribution aren't caused by intrinsic sex differences. Or maybe that's the naive explanation, and it's just to exercise power.

tomp 6y ago

Most CoCs state that discrimination based on religion is not acceptable, but don't mention political belief. Both are opinions, and I honestly don't see why one would be bigotry, but not the other. Hence the only thing I conclude is that CoCs are actually about politics, but framed in a very nice way, pretending to be based on empathy and inclusion, making them very hard to object to.

gwbas1c 6y ago
There's a fine line. In the US, we've usually had reasonable parties in power, so it really didn't matter what your politics were. Now... Not so much; and it goes both ways, too. There are loonies on both sides of the aisle. I've always seen CoCs as needed for situations where a conference has a transgender person and a "poorly socialized conservative." Or a Christian proudly wearing a cross and a "poorly socialized liberal." Situations are even simpler; it could be a conference with a female speaker and a man who still believes in strict gender roles. Unfortunately, the above situations come down to "political belief."
- jeltz 6y ago
  That is such an American PoV. Plenty of places in the world have or have had political persecution. It is a very real issue in large parts of the world. In general CoCs enforce a very American world view, one where I as a non-American do not feel welcome.
  - thaneross 6y ago
    As another non-American I feel similarly which supports the hypothesis that CoCs are primary political instruments.
jawarner 6y ago
CoCs are about politics to the extent that politics affects one's ability to be empathetic. If you believe that genetics cause women to perform worse in technical roles, that will be reflected in your social behavior. To use an extreme example for the sake of discussion, would you similarly feel that excluding a skinhead with Swastika face tattoos from a scientific conference constitutes an unacceptable example of political oppression? If not, is it because they cause minoritized people to feel unsafe and unwelcome? Where do you believe the line should be drawn?