44 ms·

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draco

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

closeparen 6y ago
This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned: 1) Liberal values are associated with privilege. 2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.
- notJim 6y ago
  Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value, last I checked. It is far more authoritarian for the standards to be unwritten, because then instead of applying them to everyone, the people in charge can do whatever they want. Throwing out the whole concept of having agreed-upon rules because of one bad outcome seems like a major step backwards to me.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value A Liberal is anti-arbitrary power. In the context of formal governments and legal systems, that includes having written laws. I would argue having a vague CoC which is designed to be interpreted and applied arbitrarily by power tripping bureaucrats actually increases arbitrary power. Through the CoC, the committee here was empowered to persecute any action they didn't like. That's the opposite of Liberalism.
    - notJim 6y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. The CoC was written down, which means we can critique it and change it, and hold them accountable to following it (which they failed to do.) And as you see, they are responding to feedback about their handling of it, although I'd guess we'd agree that their response thus far is pretty inadequate. But I'd be inclined to continue to pressure them to step up. If you advocate for getting rid of CoCs, IMO, you have to have an answer for how actual harassment should be dealt with. Many people I've spoken to did not feel safe at tech events of the past because of rampant harassment that would be swept under the rug. The tech industry of 2020 is not prepared to return to that world. It seems like step one of dealing with harassment is to define it, which is the problem CoCs should solve. If you think they are failing, what is your alternative, if it's not to improve them?
      - free_rms 6y ago
        They busted him for polite disagreement! Which the other party was totally cool with! Here's an idea, limit CoCs to actual harassment, with a warning. It's not harassment, definitionally, unless you persist after being asked to stop. And it should be actual harassment, targeted at a person, rather than "this person's views or public statements offend me".
  - free_rms 6y ago
    This situation looks exactly like the people in charge doing whatever they want IMO.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  Systems without a CoC are just as authoritarian, but the rules just are unwritten and favor the privileged.
GiorgioG 6y ago
> I don't mean this as an attack, You actually do mean this as an attack - you quite literally accused me of being "_dramatically_ privileged" Maybe you meant it as an attack and maybe you didn't. If there was a HN CoC, maybe I'm the kind of asshole that would try to accuse you of abuse. See how easy it is to abuse the system?
- geofft 6y ago
  Er, how is saying that someone is "_dramatically_ privileged" an attack? It's a judgment-neutral observation. When I say that sshd runs a privileged process, I don't mean to say that sshd is morally bad (or whatever), just that it needs to be more careful than less-privileged code and that it can do things more easily than less-privileged code can. It's the same meaning of "privileged" here. (And yes, you could bring up to the moderators that this is an attack, but you could do that in the absence of any written rules, too, and if the moderators are the sort of people who would agree with that argument, then neither having nor not having written rules would save this forum.)
  - robjan 6y ago
    You can observe whether sshd is running a privileged process because you have all of the information available to make that judgement. You can't observe whether a random person is privileged because it's relative and related to your opinion and biases.
    - geofft 6y ago
      True, but then it's at most a false claim. It's still not an attack. If I say ping is privileged and you say you're on a distro with unprivileged ping, I haven't in any way denounced ping.
      - robjan 6y ago
        That's a false analogy. Saying something incorrect about a computer is different from using an incorrect/biased statement to try to shut a person down.
jf- 6y ago
I agree that some conduct guidelines are justified, but should be minimal. The feeling against them is due to overreach, where they stray away from codifying generally acceptable behaviour and move into territory that the general population would find incomprehensible, such as not being able to say that someone with the opposite opinion is wrong.
eznzt 6y ago
If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem
- viraptor 6y ago
  They're meant as a reminder for people who actually read them, but otherwise they're meant as a list for enforcement. They're something to point to as "you knew the rules - that's why we're removing that person". That's why in this case the affected person complained about the CoC using very ambiguous rules that were up for personal interpretation.
- dagmx 6y ago
  How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour? Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Is it just arbitrary? Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      The worst thing is when nobody is actually offended or hurt, and someone says your behavior could be considered offensive or insulting or whatever and takes action based on that. That's just someone wanting to exert their power for the wrong reasons.
      - Joker_vD 6y ago
        That reminds me of that event when a person with screen name "Christian", of all things, filed an issue at VS Code around the, ah, New Year festivities, demanding to remove the Santa hat from the status bar because it's offensive. And the VS Code team promptly reacted, by agreeing, changing it for a snowflake (I still have no idea if it was ironic, or not, and whether they've noticed it later) and pushing out an emergency hot fix. That did piss off quite a number of people, who filed much more hard-pressing (in their opinion) issues (like, some useful editor functionality being broken) and received precisely zero feedback.
dylan604 6y ago
I too dislike code of conduct type of stuff, but more along the reasoning you mentioned. I dislike that they are even needed in the first place. The fact that you have to be told to not belittle, harass, abuse, etc another user/participant/person is just difficult to understand.
- GiorgioG 6y ago
  It shouldn't be that hard to to follow the "Don't be an asshole" rule, unfortunately for the rest of us, 0.001% can't figure out how to get along with other humans. I think CoCs just become a new tool for a different subset of assholes to abuse. Yes it does suck for those who have a legitimate issue. I've yet to see how CoCs solve that problem in practice.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    As I see it, a CoC gives good leadership a way to punish people who are assholes without causing too much of a backlash. Without it people would argue about fair process, not knowing it was wrong, cultural differences, etc, etc. It's hard to enforce a don't be an asshole rule when you mostly have soft power at your disposal. Of course, it also gives bad leadership a tool with which to punish people without causing too much backlash.
1123581321 6y ago
Do you think it’s possible to empathize with people who are harassed, or experience harassment, and oppose codes of conduct? Assume that empathy includes caring about protecting people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- diehunde 6y ago
  Sounds like "I empathize with them but I don't care about protecting them"
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    Thanks. I edited to clarify empathy includes caring about protecting them.
  - andybak 6y ago
    Not to me it doesn't. I'm on the fence on this issue but it's sounds like you're willfully misreading that statement.
  - Veen 6y ago
    To me it sounds like: "I empathize and care, but I don't think CoCs are the best way to solve the problem because they i) don't solve the problem and ii) bring about harmful unintended consequences".
- notJim 6y ago
  I think it is, but what alternative is there? CoCs were created for a reason, so simply getting rid of them feels like it would lead us back to where we started.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  People don't want empathy. They want solutions that fix the existing and long-standing problems. Lacking a better solution, CoCs are here to stay. So if you really oppose CoCs, the burden of creating a better solution is on you.
ciarannolan 6y ago
> [...] but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged. I don't like this personal attack and I feel less safe on this board because of it. Will someone go after this poster on my behalf please?
eckza 6y ago
Your statement presumes that: 1) a Code of Conduct is necessary to enforce order 2) a Code of Conduct will prevent or discourage disorder I think that 1) and 2) are both demonstrably false.

closeparen 6y ago

This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned: 1) Liberal values are associated with privilege. 2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.

notJim 6y ago
Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value, last I checked. It is far more authoritarian for the standards to be unwritten, because then instead of applying them to everyone, the people in charge can do whatever they want. Throwing out the whole concept of having agreed-upon rules because of one bad outcome seems like a major step backwards to me.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value A Liberal is anti-arbitrary power. In the context of formal governments and legal systems, that includes having written laws. I would argue having a vague CoC which is designed to be interpreted and applied arbitrarily by power tripping bureaucrats actually increases arbitrary power. Through the CoC, the committee here was empowered to persecute any action they didn't like. That's the opposite of Liberalism.
  - notJim 6y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. The CoC was written down, which means we can critique it and change it, and hold them accountable to following it (which they failed to do.) And as you see, they are responding to feedback about their handling of it, although I'd guess we'd agree that their response thus far is pretty inadequate. But I'd be inclined to continue to pressure them to step up. If you advocate for getting rid of CoCs, IMO, you have to have an answer for how actual harassment should be dealt with. Many people I've spoken to did not feel safe at tech events of the past because of rampant harassment that would be swept under the rug. The tech industry of 2020 is not prepared to return to that world. It seems like step one of dealing with harassment is to define it, which is the problem CoCs should solve. If you think they are failing, what is your alternative, if it's not to improve them?
    - free_rms 6y ago
      They busted him for polite disagreement! Which the other party was totally cool with! Here's an idea, limit CoCs to actual harassment, with a warning. It's not harassment, definitionally, unless you persist after being asked to stop. And it should be actual harassment, targeted at a person, rather than "this person's views or public statements offend me".
- free_rms 6y ago
  This situation looks exactly like the people in charge doing whatever they want IMO.
tchaffee 6y ago
Systems without a CoC are just as authoritarian, but the rules just are unwritten and favor the privileged.

GiorgioG 6y ago

> I don't mean this as an attack, You actually do mean this as an attack - you quite literally accused me of being "_dramatically_ privileged" Maybe you meant it as an attack and maybe you didn't. If there was a HN CoC, maybe I'm the kind of asshole that would try to accuse you of abuse. See how easy it is to abuse the system?

geofft 6y ago
Er, how is saying that someone is "_dramatically_ privileged" an attack? It's a judgment-neutral observation. When I say that sshd runs a privileged process, I don't mean to say that sshd is morally bad (or whatever), just that it needs to be more careful than less-privileged code and that it can do things more easily than less-privileged code can. It's the same meaning of "privileged" here. (And yes, you could bring up to the moderators that this is an attack, but you could do that in the absence of any written rules, too, and if the moderators are the sort of people who would agree with that argument, then neither having nor not having written rules would save this forum.)
- robjan 6y ago
  You can observe whether sshd is running a privileged process because you have all of the information available to make that judgement. You can't observe whether a random person is privileged because it's relative and related to your opinion and biases.
  - geofft 6y ago
    True, but then it's at most a false claim. It's still not an attack. If I say ping is privileged and you say you're on a distro with unprivileged ping, I haven't in any way denounced ping.
    - robjan 6y ago
      That's a false analogy. Saying something incorrect about a computer is different from using an incorrect/biased statement to try to shut a person down.

jf- 6y ago

I agree that some conduct guidelines are justified, but should be minimal. The feeling against them is due to overreach, where they stray away from codifying generally acceptable behaviour and move into territory that the general population would find incomprehensible, such as not being able to say that someone with the opposite opinion is wrong.

eznzt 6y ago

If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

viraptor 6y ago
They're meant as a reminder for people who actually read them, but otherwise they're meant as a list for enforcement. They're something to point to as "you knew the rules - that's why we're removing that person". That's why in this case the affected person complained about the CoC using very ambiguous rules that were up for personal interpretation.
dagmx 6y ago
How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour? Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Is it just arbitrary? Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    The worst thing is when nobody is actually offended or hurt, and someone says your behavior could be considered offensive or insulting or whatever and takes action based on that. That's just someone wanting to exert their power for the wrong reasons.
    - Joker_vD 6y ago
      That reminds me of that event when a person with screen name "Christian", of all things, filed an issue at VS Code around the, ah, New Year festivities, demanding to remove the Santa hat from the status bar because it's offensive. And the VS Code team promptly reacted, by agreeing, changing it for a snowflake (I still have no idea if it was ironic, or not, and whether they've noticed it later) and pushing out an emergency hot fix. That did piss off quite a number of people, who filed much more hard-pressing (in their opinion) issues (like, some useful editor functionality being broken) and received precisely zero feedback.

dylan604 6y ago

I too dislike code of conduct type of stuff, but more along the reasoning you mentioned. I dislike that they are even needed in the first place. The fact that you have to be told to not belittle, harass, abuse, etc another user/participant/person is just difficult to understand.

GiorgioG 6y ago
It shouldn't be that hard to to follow the "Don't be an asshole" rule, unfortunately for the rest of us, 0.001% can't figure out how to get along with other humans. I think CoCs just become a new tool for a different subset of assholes to abuse. Yes it does suck for those who have a legitimate issue. I've yet to see how CoCs solve that problem in practice.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  As I see it, a CoC gives good leadership a way to punish people who are assholes without causing too much of a backlash. Without it people would argue about fair process, not knowing it was wrong, cultural differences, etc, etc. It's hard to enforce a don't be an asshole rule when you mostly have soft power at your disposal. Of course, it also gives bad leadership a tool with which to punish people without causing too much backlash.

1123581321 6y ago

Do you think it’s possible to empathize with people who are harassed, or experience harassment, and oppose codes of conduct? Assume that empathy includes caring about protecting people.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
diehunde 6y ago
Sounds like "I empathize with them but I don't care about protecting them"
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Thanks. I edited to clarify empathy includes caring about protecting them.
- andybak 6y ago
  Not to me it doesn't. I'm on the fence on this issue but it's sounds like you're willfully misreading that statement.
- Veen 6y ago
  To me it sounds like: "I empathize and care, but I don't think CoCs are the best way to solve the problem because they i) don't solve the problem and ii) bring about harmful unintended consequences".
notJim 6y ago
I think it is, but what alternative is there? CoCs were created for a reason, so simply getting rid of them feels like it would lead us back to where we started.
tchaffee 6y ago
People don't want empathy. They want solutions that fix the existing and long-standing problems. Lacking a better solution, CoCs are here to stay. So if you really oppose CoCs, the burden of creating a better solution is on you.

ciarannolan 6y ago

> [...] but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged. I don't like this personal attack and I feel less safe on this board because of it. Will someone go after this poster on my behalf please?

eckza 6y ago

Your statement presumes that: 1) a Code of Conduct is necessary to enforce order 2) a Code of Conduct will prevent or discourage disorder I think that 1) and 2) are both demonstrably false.