3 ms·
And not only that: when the committee for enforcing the CoC decided the CoC wasn't actually violated, the entire witch hunt continued with more and more made up
by unconed 3y ago
And not only that: when the committee for enforcing the CoC decided the CoC wasn't actually violated, the entire witch hunt continued with more and more made up reasons why this person was bad and deserved to be punished.
This included the project lead writing blog posts and then silently editing them afterwards. It was never about the rules, only about creating a body of people with the aurhority to act like total cunts in the name of civility. That's what they get off on.
If CoC sound like a nice idea to you... remember, we had waaaay less drama in open source before the people who want CoCs showed up.
Instead of just 1 angry mail on a mailing list you can ignore, now there is weeks of drama as reputations are destroyed, communities are split, and the press gets involved to feed off the carcass.
Once you understand this dynamic, you see it for what it is: the petty feuds of small minded people, who claim to love open source but cannot stand the fact that anyone really is welcome.
- bsimpson 3y ago"We welcome everyone, except the people we don't welcome."
- Verdex 3y ago“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis
- kalkin 3y ago"a body of people with the aurhority to act like total cunts in the name of civility" Didn't you say a couple sentences above that the committee who were actually given authority decided there was no CoC violation? It sounds like the people you think acted badly were not actually given any authority to do so. But maybe I'm missing something?
- johnklos 3y agoSo what you seem to be suggesting is that the people who don't like a thing (codes of conduct) and go out of their way to try to weaponize them should be allowed to get their way (CoC should go away because of people like these). There's plenty of precedent for people advocating for this: spousal abuse, animal abuse and sexual abuse are all areas where people said that laws about such things would result in widespread abuse of the laws and would do little to correct the problems the laws aimed to address. We have that now with gun laws in the United States. People rather speciously say that new laws and the enforcement of those laws will be too intrusive, so we just really shouldn't have them. (I don't want to have a discussion about gun laws specifically - an overwhelming majority of the United States want strong gun laws, and those who are OK with multiple mass shootings every week really have no compelling arguments beyond vaguely invoking "the Second Amendment", but I imagine there's plenty of overlap between people who think CoC are bad would and people who don't want new gun laws. I use gun laws in this example because of the weakness of the anti-gun law arguments.) But what's really telling here are statements like this: "who claim to love open source but cannot stand the fact that anyone really is welcome" So the people who are breaking CoC and making people feel unwelcome are somehow more important than the people who are enforcing CoC and making the CoC breakers feel unwelcome. Got it.