4 ms·

I'll try to refine your argument a bit: codes of conduct have tended to become a distraction because of the sudden onslaught of such from a specific, highly pol

I'll try to refine your argument a bit: codes of conduct have tended to become a distraction because of the sudden onslaught of such from a specific, highly politicised group of people who have used the opportunity to try to enforce their way of looking at the world upon others by getting their 'code of conduct' - which reads like a political pamphlet - adopted by a number of high-visibility projects. Having a code of conduct in itself does not need to be distracting as long as that code is politically neutral and above all short and concise. A good example of such a code of conduct is the following: don't be a jerk Everybody knows what this means. Nearly everybody will agree on how to behave.

wvenable 6y ago
> don't be a jerk I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance. What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purposes, Fewer words is also possible but even in the total absence of a code of conduct most communities - 4chan et al excluded - will still have the unspoken assumption to not be a jerk. Having this encoded in a code of conduct at least makes sure those other, politically motivated 'codes' do not get a foothold.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk. As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to take back control over the meaning of words and the fact that words in fact have specific meanings which can not and should not be allowed to be changed on the spot to fit some narrative - viz. Websters dictionary suddenly changing the definition of the term 'preference' [1,2]. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-definition-1539088 https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-defini... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-sexual/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-se...
      - wvenable 6y ago
        You're arguing a meta-point rather than the issue in question. That sexism, racism, and harassment is not uncommon enough and these are real issues that need real solutions. Arguing about the meaning of words couldn't possibly be less to the point.
        Yetanfou 6y ago
        Is is very much the point here since it is these words, and the way their meaning has been made malleable to fit the narrative of the day, which enables these practices. As long as this practice is tolerated it will be difficult if not impossible to agree to a basic level of civic discourse. Without such an agreement it is impossible to 'agree to disagree' which has been one of the tenets of liberal democracies since the concept was first implemented. Just like he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the dictionary controls the discourse.

wvenable 6y ago

> don't be a jerk I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance. What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".

Yetanfou 6y ago
Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purposes, Fewer words is also possible but even in the total absence of a code of conduct most communities - 4chan et al excluded - will still have the unspoken assumption to not be a jerk. Having this encoded in a code of conduct at least makes sure those other, politically motivated 'codes' do not get a foothold.
- wvenable 6y ago
  I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk. As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to take back control over the meaning of words and the fact that words in fact have specific meanings which can not and should not be allowed to be changed on the spot to fit some narrative - viz. Websters dictionary suddenly changing the definition of the term 'preference' [1,2]. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-definition-1539088 https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-defini... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-sexual/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-se...
    - wvenable 6y ago
      You're arguing a meta-point rather than the issue in question. That sexism, racism, and harassment is not uncommon enough and these are real issues that need real solutions. Arguing about the meaning of words couldn't possibly be less to the point.
      - Yetanfou 6y ago
        Is is very much the point here since it is these words, and the way their meaning has been made malleable to fit the narrative of the day, which enables these practices. As long as this practice is tolerated it will be difficult if not impossible to agree to a basic level of civic discourse. Without such an agreement it is impossible to 'agree to disagree' which has been one of the tenets of liberal democracies since the concept was first implemented. Just like he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the dictionary controls the discourse.