3 ms·
It's really odd to make fundamental rule changes to respond to things like that rather than carving out exceptions for sexist remarks specifically if those are
by ameister14 5y ago
It's really odd to make fundamental rule changes to respond to things like that rather than carving out exceptions for sexist remarks specifically if those are the problem.
'This section shall not be interpreted to defend any communication reasonably seen as sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory' is much clearer than changing from 'assume good faith' to 'assume nothing, intent doesn't matter as much as impact. '
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoThe PR author elaborated further in the linked Twitter thread: he believes that a policy of assuming good faith is bad on its own merits because it tends to benefit white men. (https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/1443286853210230797 https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/144328685321023079...)
- ameister14 5y agoI don't think it's a good idea to respond to this in depth, so I'll just say that I disagree with his assessment.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThey quoted the start of a thread the author summarized saying it's bad because it gives cover to bad behavior. And can require people who recognize a pattern of bad behavior to persuade themselves they're paranoid. You might disagree. But those points have nothing to do with race or sex. And pointing out it's easier for people who face less bad behavior is about white men only incidentally.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 5y agoThe objection is literally that the proposition benefits "mostly-white, mostly-male" people, so don't stand there and say it has "nothing to do with race or sex." For shame.