5 ms·

As I understand it, some people who want to make sexist jokes on the mailing list with impunity pointed to the language about tolerating opposing views to claim

by not2b 5y ago

As I understand it, some people who want to make sexist jokes on the mailing list with impunity pointed to the language about tolerating opposing views to claim that their desire to belittle women on the mailing list must be tolerated. Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance edit: evidently someone thinks this comment is worthy of a downvote. I didn't say whether I approved of this action or not. I looked through the threads to find out why the decision was made. I don't think a sincere effort to provide more information should be punished because of disagreement.

tenaciousDaniel 5y ago
But...like...just say no? Am I missing something? If the current CoC covers offensive jokes like the one in question, then simply assert that the CoC covers it and be done with it. If someone is willing to go through the CoC with a fine tooth comb, they're likely going to find something they could potentially use to defend themselves. Just say no! The changes open up so much interpretation that anyone could use it to kick out people for all sorts of silly reasons.
- krageon 5y ago
  > just say no It is somewhat of a modern cultural failing that we cannot moderate without having a CoC to point to and say "see? You're bad, it says so here". A good moderator can make the value judgements necessary to keep a community relatively healthy. For some reason a lot of folks have forgotten a CoC does not change that at all.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I think that the problem is that some people read CoCs as essentially _legal documents_; and thus attempt to act as CoC lawyers. Thus the "I'm allowed make sexist jokes with impunity because Ruby's constitution says that opposing views must be tolerated" take. Obviously, CoCs generally aren't written as foolproof legal documents, and there's no caselaw or court system, so this is kind of absurd. But one approach to rules-lawyering is always to tighten the rules to remove the loopholes that are being exploited, so... Personally I think it'd be better to add language emphasising that the CoC is merely a _guideline_, and that the moderators are judge, jury and executioner.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
I did not downvote you, but unfortunately you trivialize Popper by invoking his paradox of intolerance in such context. Popper lived in a world where democracy was threatened by very powerful totalitarian movements and its demise in Europe at least was a very credible scenario. His paradox of tolerance addresses those violent, brutal movements that left a trail of blood and destruction on the continent. There is zero evidence that Popper intended to micropolice or censor uncouth / rude verbal or written interactions among people. He was mostly concerned about outright tyranny and genocide. And there is a long way from bad jokes to tyranny and genocide, even though the Anglo-Saxon world has evolved a rather thin skin in the last decades and seems to think otherwise. Making sexist jokes on a mailing list should probably be rebuked or punished by moderators for being in bad taste, but not because of Popper's ideas. A person joking about some girls age almost certainly does not want to enslave/kill women and does not have to be forcibly prevented from doing so.
jeltz 5y ago
I down voted you because I felt your comment was off topic to the comment you replied to. I do not see any reason the old CoC or no CoC at all would have preventing banning that user. Just because you should assume good intent does not mean you cannot ban or give a talking to user who make sexist jokes. I see no paradox of tolerance here.
rajin444 5y ago
This is not a good use of the paradox of tolerance. There was no threat of the ruby mailing lists being taken over by sexists using violence. Popper was talking about groups like the Nazis coming to power. When overwhelming violence is near, you have to make a choice or else you’ll lose the capacity to make that choice. And even then, determining when overwhelming violence is near is extremely difficult and should be the absolute last resort. It’s astounding how often this is linked with respect to online discussion.
naasking 5y ago
> Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance From Popper's own words at the link: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. Can sexist humour be kept in check with rational argument and public opinion?

by not2b 5y ago

tenaciousDaniel 5y ago

But...like...just say no? Am I missing something? If the current CoC covers offensive jokes like the one in question, then simply assert that the CoC covers it and be done with it. If someone is willing to go through the CoC with a fine tooth comb, they're likely going to find something they could potentially use to defend themselves. Just say no! The changes open up so much interpretation that anyone could use it to kick out people for all sorts of silly reasons.

krageon 5y ago
> just say no It is somewhat of a modern cultural failing that we cannot moderate without having a CoC to point to and say "see? You're bad, it says so here". A good moderator can make the value judgements necessary to keep a community relatively healthy. For some reason a lot of folks have forgotten a CoC does not change that at all.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I think that the problem is that some people read CoCs as essentially _legal documents_; and thus attempt to act as CoC lawyers. Thus the "I'm allowed make sexist jokes with impunity because Ruby's constitution says that opposing views must be tolerated" take. Obviously, CoCs generally aren't written as foolproof legal documents, and there's no caselaw or court system, so this is kind of absurd. But one approach to rules-lawyering is always to tighten the rules to remove the loopholes that are being exploited, so... Personally I think it'd be better to add language emphasising that the CoC is merely a _guideline_, and that the moderators are judge, jury and executioner.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 5y ago

I did not downvote you, but unfortunately you trivialize Popper by invoking his paradox of intolerance in such context. Popper lived in a world where democracy was threatened by very powerful totalitarian movements and its demise in Europe at least was a very credible scenario. His paradox of tolerance addresses those violent, brutal movements that left a trail of blood and destruction on the continent. There is zero evidence that Popper intended to micropolice or censor uncouth / rude verbal or written interactions among people. He was mostly concerned about outright tyranny and genocide. And there is a long way from bad jokes to tyranny and genocide, even though the Anglo-Saxon world has evolved a rather thin skin in the last decades and seems to think otherwise. Making sexist jokes on a mailing list should probably be rebuked or punished by moderators for being in bad taste, but not because of Popper's ideas. A person joking about some girls age almost certainly does not want to enslave/kill women and does not have to be forcibly prevented from doing so.

jeltz 5y ago

I down voted you because I felt your comment was off topic to the comment you replied to. I do not see any reason the old CoC or no CoC at all would have preventing banning that user. Just because you should assume good intent does not mean you cannot ban or give a talking to user who make sexist jokes. I see no paradox of tolerance here.

rajin444 5y ago

This is not a good use of the paradox of tolerance. There was no threat of the ruby mailing lists being taken over by sexists using violence. Popper was talking about groups like the Nazis coming to power. When overwhelming violence is near, you have to make a choice or else you’ll lose the capacity to make that choice. And even then, determining when overwhelming violence is near is extremely difficult and should be the absolute last resort. It’s astounding how often this is linked with respect to online discussion.

naasking 5y ago

> Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance From Popper's own words at the link: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. Can sexist humour be kept in check with rational argument and public opinion?