6 ms·

How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is

How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?

xanaxagoras 5y ago
No.
mountainboy 5y ago
leftist policies are offensive. what are we going to do about that?
brighton36 5y ago
Throughout history, men have bonded by expressing humor, angst, and emotions regarding sex. It may be an outrage by the moral fashion of today. But, you would have a hard time making the case that this behavior is unusual by incumbent standards of collaboration.
calvinmorrison 5y ago
.
- i_cannot_hack 5y ago
  You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    .
    - scotty79 5y ago
      It's not just the leftists. Fox News also has to keep things fresh (or at least reheated for their viewers). It seems like a lot of people in USA got addicted to feeling outrage and it sells.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      I doubt quoting the Unabomber's manifesto will convince more people.
      - calvinmorrison 5y ago
        .
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      For anyone wondering: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It was a very "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Snark is not an inappropriate response.
    - i_cannot_hack 5y ago
      It is inappropriate if you want to convince people of your viewpoint, which is what I stated. The aptness with respect to other goals could vary of course.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        This is a casual conversation, not a trial. Refusing to treat inappropriate questions seriously discourages more questions like that in the future, which is also a solid goal.
        i_cannot_hack 5y ago
        In that case I'm sure you could think of better way to discourage nonproductive dialogue - rather than being snarky - if that is the stated goal. At least something less self-defeating. Either way I think the question was warranted. Especially since the long passage from the Unabomber's manifesto they chose to quote when pressed for a response was rather illuminating regarding their beliefs.
taneq 5y ago
I'm offended by your insinuation. Take that back and apologise right now!
knubie 5y ago
The problem is that almost anything, no matter how benign can be considered "offensive". A phrase as innocuous as "pregnant women" has become offensive under this ideology. The goal posts are constantly moving and if you're caught on the wrong side you get persecuted.
gorgoiler 5y ago
It’s not one or the other: offensive behaviour and competitive purity-spiralling should both be rejected in equal measure.
tenaciousDaniel 5y ago
But that's kind of the point, no? You could literally just have your comment as the CoC and it would be good enough to cover the joke in question. So why is the pull request necessary? It very obviously opens up the potential to be abused by people who would love to kick others out of the community because they don't like their political opinions.
parroty 5y ago
Let me explain. See, first people were irate that the code of conduct existed at all, they felt that having a definition of harassment was bad because "some people get offended at everything". Then they were angry when that definition was narrowed, because they felt that it didn't protect them enough. Obviously, the code of conduct is the only thing in common here, so that must be the problem. Remember, the code of conduct is bad because "some people" make it their business to get offended all the time - that could have a chilling effect on discussions! That's why we need freedom warriors to protect us with over-the-top vitriol and hyperbole every time a code of conduct is brought up.
noxer 5y ago
How about not laughing about an "offensive joke" them? If you dont find it funny it wasn't for you. The jokes where not made to make you cry they where made to make people laugh it just doesn't fit your humor.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  .
  - noxer 5y ago
    I have no clue what you talk about TBH. Not laughing about something that one does not find funny but at the same time also dont cry or have a mental breakdown isnt really a political concept. Its what just about everyone does and we should not pay attention to thous few who dont.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    FWIW, possessive "its."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
conradfr 5y ago
Oh how far we have strayed from the early Internet.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  I was there and in most places people were way nicer than now.
  - conradfr 5y ago
    But banter, irony and jokes were more accepted and not policed and politicized.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      banter, irony and jokes are still accepted in all communities I'm know of, and I'm active in various popular FLOSS projects. I've never heard of a CoC prohibiting such things.

xanaxagoras 5y ago

No.

mountainboy 5y ago

leftist policies are offensive. what are we going to do about that?

brighton36 5y ago

Throughout history, men have bonded by expressing humor, angst, and emotions regarding sex. It may be an outrage by the moral fashion of today. But, you would have a hard time making the case that this behavior is unusual by incumbent standards of collaboration.

calvinmorrison 5y ago

i_cannot_hack 5y ago
You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  .
  - scotty79 5y ago
    It's not just the leftists. Fox News also has to keep things fresh (or at least reheated for their viewers). It seems like a lot of people in USA got addicted to feeling outrage and it sells.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    I doubt quoting the Unabomber's manifesto will convince more people.
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      .
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    For anyone wondering: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  It was a very "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Snark is not an inappropriate response.
  - i_cannot_hack 5y ago
    It is inappropriate if you want to convince people of your viewpoint, which is what I stated. The aptness with respect to other goals could vary of course.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      This is a casual conversation, not a trial. Refusing to treat inappropriate questions seriously discourages more questions like that in the future, which is also a solid goal.
      - i_cannot_hack 5y ago
        In that case I'm sure you could think of better way to discourage nonproductive dialogue - rather than being snarky - if that is the stated goal. At least something less self-defeating. Either way I think the question was warranted. Especially since the long passage from the Unabomber's manifesto they chose to quote when pressed for a response was rather illuminating regarding their beliefs.

taneq 5y ago

I'm offended by your insinuation. Take that back and apologise right now!

knubie 5y ago

The problem is that almost anything, no matter how benign can be considered "offensive". A phrase as innocuous as "pregnant women" has become offensive under this ideology. The goal posts are constantly moving and if you're caught on the wrong side you get persecuted.

gorgoiler 5y ago

It’s not one or the other: offensive behaviour and competitive purity-spiralling should both be rejected in equal measure.

tenaciousDaniel 5y ago

But that's kind of the point, no? You could literally just have your comment as the CoC and it would be good enough to cover the joke in question. So why is the pull request necessary? It very obviously opens up the potential to be abused by people who would love to kick others out of the community because they don't like their political opinions.

parroty 5y ago

Let me explain. See, first people were irate that the code of conduct existed at all, they felt that having a definition of harassment was bad because "some people get offended at everything". Then they were angry when that definition was narrowed, because they felt that it didn't protect them enough. Obviously, the code of conduct is the only thing in common here, so that must be the problem. Remember, the code of conduct is bad because "some people" make it their business to get offended all the time - that could have a chilling effect on discussions! That's why we need freedom warriors to protect us with over-the-top vitriol and hyperbole every time a code of conduct is brought up.

noxer 5y ago

How about not laughing about an "offensive joke" them? If you dont find it funny it wasn't for you. The jokes where not made to make you cry they where made to make people laugh it just doesn't fit your humor.

calvinmorrison 5y ago
.
- noxer 5y ago
  I have no clue what you talk about TBH. Not laughing about something that one does not find funny but at the same time also dont cry or have a mental breakdown isnt really a political concept. Its what just about everyone does and we should not pay attention to thous few who dont.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  FWIW, possessive "its."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

conradfr 5y ago

Oh how far we have strayed from the early Internet.

goodpoint 5y ago
I was there and in most places people were way nicer than now.
- conradfr 5y ago
  But banter, irony and jokes were more accepted and not policed and politicized.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    banter, irony and jokes are still accepted in all communities I'm know of, and I'm active in various popular FLOSS projects. I've never heard of a CoC prohibiting such things.