7 ms·
Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers). Rust however wanted something different and attracted a
by nopcode 5y ago
Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers).
Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.
- ben-schaaf 5y agoThe Kernel also has a code of conduct: https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html.
- wyager 5y agoThis was added within the last 3 or so years as the result of an intentional social struggle to put a CoC on the kernel. It remains to be seen what the net effect of this on kernel development will be.
- ziddoap 5y agoCan you explain to me what your definition of snowflake is? Is it anyone who doesn't agree with the ethos "In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code."? Genuinely asking, as it seems to appear several times throughout this topic and the only thing I can settle on is that it's used as a derogatory term for anyone who cares more about X or Y than the person calling them a snowflake. (Does asking make me a snowflake?)
- thegrimmest 5y ago"Someone who chooses to get offended about what others write or say" would be my working definition. I don't think being offended is a reasonable thing to be, generally.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoIs getting offended about someone insulting you or who starts discussions which make people angry unreasonable? I'm genuinely curious, maybe I misunderstand what it means to be offended.
- thegrimmest 5y agoYes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.
- eropple 5y ago"Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice. And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?
- thegrimmest 5y agoWe have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want. The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.
- johnisgood 5y agoI cannot remember the last time I got offended by an insult. A little bit of stoicism goes a long way. It is up to you whether or not you get offended by an insult. I typically choose self-deprecating humor as a response to insults instead of wasting my energy getting angry.
- systemvoltage 5y agoQuite the opposite. Offense is taken usually by people that want power. As someone said, reasonably, that we have a system of law and order. If someone threatens you with violence, call the police.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoI can understand this reasoning when it comes to personal insults. I understand it less when it comes to tolerating baiting, which takes time and attention from the original reason (work, fun, etc.) of the social space. Why is being offended by not being able to communicate unreasonable? I'm also interested in your take in the kind of communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation. I guess it's similar to the above example, but it's more personal and threatens group coherence. What's your take on being offended by that?
- bcrosby95 5y agoIn general, people don't want to work with assholes. Doubly so if they aren't getting paid for it.
- zzzbra 5y agoseems like a bad take