3 ms·

I raised my eyebrow at a statement in one of the comments in the PR. "This is so that a harasser won't be able to use a meritocracy argument, which as we all k

I raised my eyebrow at a statement in one of the comments in the PR. "This is so that a harasser won't be able to use a meritocracy argument, which as we all know, is dehumanizing..." I don't follow this at all. A meritocracy is what we want to achieve: it doesn't matter about the colour of your skin, sex, or orientation, if you can generate code of merit, then if there is a meritocracy, you should earn the respect of the community. This doesn't mean that everyone doesn't deserve a basic level of respect. But there are people who are better than me at what I do; I am better than other people. That's a fact of life. I think what other people achieve that I couldn't, is amazing, and I help others achieve what I am better at.

banannaise 5y ago
The problem is high performers using their performance to justify abusive behavior, either implicitly or explicitly. A 10x engineer who is also an asshole (or a predator) can easily do enough damage to counteract all of his productivity.
- heurisko 5y ago
  If an abuser is using their performance as an excuse to target others, then they aren't enabling a meritocracy, they're acting as a detriment to it. The idea of a meritocracy itself, is not inherently dehumanising, which was the point that the comment made.
- sprash 5y ago
  Some high performers deliberately behave like assholes just to make a point that they are so skilled that people respect them despite their behaviors. It's a psychological thing. But I disagree that is does any damage. Everybody with minor social skills will figure out pretty quickly what kind of game is being played.
teddyh 5y ago
Increasingly, the word and concept of “meritocracy” is seen as racist, since it denies due compensation for past and present institutional racism. Meritocracy is also seen as misogynist, following the same reasoning.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
awb 5y ago
> I don't follow this at all. I didn't either. This same user states multiple times that "Everyone knows what a protected class means" and to use "common sense". After being pressed to define it then suggests: "The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition." but then offers no link to "The dictionaries". This user has 4 followers on GitHub, but is lecturing the Ruby community on "obvious" things that unfortunately aren't that obvious. I'm all for a robust discussion to make the community a better place, but assuming everyone has your world-view and a common understanding of words that you yourself struggle to define is a quick way to alienate folks who are seriously trying to understand the arguments but need more information. Other people chime in to recommend that people "educate themselves", and links to an article (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/beyond-best-intentions https://thoughtbot.com/blog/beyond-best-intentions) which suggests protected classes are: "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, queer folks, and disabled people" because they "are disproportionately likely to experience bias and discrimination at work and in social circles." Another user suggests the California definition which is much broader (https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes) and includes classes like "marital status" and "genetic characteristics". It's just better to be clear about what exactly is meant by these terms if possible.
harpersealtako 5y ago
read the rest of that user's (@hmdne)'s comments. https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690 https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690 >We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class. I think we all got played.

banannaise 5y ago

The problem is high performers using their performance to justify abusive behavior, either implicitly or explicitly. A 10x engineer who is also an asshole (or a predator) can easily do enough damage to counteract all of his productivity.

heurisko 5y ago
If an abuser is using their performance as an excuse to target others, then they aren't enabling a meritocracy, they're acting as a detriment to it. The idea of a meritocracy itself, is not inherently dehumanising, which was the point that the comment made.
sprash 5y ago
Some high performers deliberately behave like assholes just to make a point that they are so skilled that people respect them despite their behaviors. It's a psychological thing. But I disagree that is does any damage. Everybody with minor social skills will figure out pretty quickly what kind of game is being played.

teddyh 5y ago

Increasingly, the word and concept of “meritocracy” is seen as racist, since it denies due compensation for past and present institutional racism. Meritocracy is also seen as misogynist, following the same reasoning.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

awb 5y ago

> I don't follow this at all. I didn't either. This same user states multiple times that "Everyone knows what a protected class means" and to use "common sense". After being pressed to define it then suggests: "The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition." but then offers no link to "The dictionaries". This user has 4 followers on GitHub, but is lecturing the Ruby community on "obvious" things that unfortunately aren't that obvious. I'm all for a robust discussion to make the community a better place, but assuming everyone has your world-view and a common understanding of words that you yourself struggle to define is a quick way to alienate folks who are seriously trying to understand the arguments but need more information. Other people chime in to recommend that people "educate themselves", and links to an article (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/beyond-best-intentions https://thoughtbot.com/blog/beyond-best-intentions) which suggests protected classes are: "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, queer folks, and disabled people" because they "are disproportionately likely to experience bias and discrimination at work and in social circles." Another user suggests the California definition which is much broader (https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes) and includes classes like "marital status" and "genetic characteristics". It's just better to be clear about what exactly is meant by these terms if possible.

harpersealtako 5y ago

read the rest of that user's (@hmdne)'s comments. https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690 https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690 >We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class. I think we all got played.