3 ms·

One of the landmarks of civilization is that people who utterly hate each other can still work together for a common good. This, my dad taught me as a kid and

One of the landmarks of civilization is that people who utterly hate each other can still work together for a common good. This, my dad taught me as a kid and I cherish it as a core principle. I like civilization, after all. Being hateful, insulting, or otherwise offensive is not a big deal if we can still work along. These stupid "codes of conduct" make civilization impossible. Worse, they force the language to be boringly insipid.

dom96 3y ago
How can people work together when one person insults the other? It's not sustainable, especially in a volunteer-based project (which most open source projects are).
Timon3 3y ago
It seems to me there are two basic types of people - those that think: > Being hateful, insulting, or otherwise offensive is not a big deal if we can still work along. and those that think: > I can't work along somebody who is hateful, insulting, or otherwise offensive. I'm not sure either group is completely right, but it seems that being nicer would solve this whole problem...
- enriquto 3y ago
  > it seems that being nicer would solve this whole problem I agree 100%. Being nice is the best and solves nearly everything. Problem is, COCs give undue power to some non-nice people via "enforcement committees" and whatnot.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  It seems that mediation would be a good thing. Yet we never hear about that, even in "progressive" workplaces that are all about Diversity, Inclusion, Equity & all the other keywords. It's remarkable - your supervisor behaves in an increasingly unhinged manner towards you, and you go look for informal conflict resolution and none is to be had. Yes, there is a code of conduct, there is the diversitylady, but no way of putting a conflict to bed, just the CoC committee that we are asked to trust. Pfui!
  - Timon3 3y ago
    Aren't the "diversitylady" and the committees supposed to be the mediators during conflicts between 2 people? Can you guarantee that you'd be happy with those mediators, and won't just request another level of mediation?
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      No idea what the diversity lady's job description is, but she did not mediate the conflict nor was she of any assistance at all. That experience fixed my opinion of D&I and the CoC movement, all window-dressing, no further questions required. In a different workplace I have worked through mediation and the outcome could be accepted.
jonnat 3y ago
I was with you until your last sentence. Taking you point at face value, people who despise codes of conduct nonetheless working under a code of conduct would just be another example of people disagreeing with each other (in this case disagreeing with people who favor the implementation of codes of conduct) and yet still being able to work together. One could argue that the difference here is that codes of conduct are being enforced in a top-down fashion, that is, the people you disagree with are actually in the leadership of the project. But I can see how this argument could just as well be used to justify the value of codes of conduct. FWIW, I've tried but I simply cannot decide if I'm ultimately in favor or against codes of conduct.

dom96 3y ago

How can people work together when one person insults the other? It's not sustainable, especially in a volunteer-based project (which most open source projects are).

Timon3 3y ago

It seems to me there are two basic types of people - those that think: > Being hateful, insulting, or otherwise offensive is not a big deal if we can still work along. and those that think: > I can't work along somebody who is hateful, insulting, or otherwise offensive. I'm not sure either group is completely right, but it seems that being nicer would solve this whole problem...

enriquto 3y ago
> it seems that being nicer would solve this whole problem I agree 100%. Being nice is the best and solves nearly everything. Problem is, COCs give undue power to some non-nice people via "enforcement committees" and whatnot.
HarryHirsch 3y ago
It seems that mediation would be a good thing. Yet we never hear about that, even in "progressive" workplaces that are all about Diversity, Inclusion, Equity & all the other keywords. It's remarkable - your supervisor behaves in an increasingly unhinged manner towards you, and you go look for informal conflict resolution and none is to be had. Yes, there is a code of conduct, there is the diversitylady, but no way of putting a conflict to bed, just the CoC committee that we are asked to trust. Pfui!
- Timon3 3y ago
  Aren't the "diversitylady" and the committees supposed to be the mediators during conflicts between 2 people? Can you guarantee that you'd be happy with those mediators, and won't just request another level of mediation?
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    No idea what the diversity lady's job description is, but she did not mediate the conflict nor was she of any assistance at all. That experience fixed my opinion of D&I and the CoC movement, all window-dressing, no further questions required. In a different workplace I have worked through mediation and the outcome could be accepted.

jonnat 3y ago

I was with you until your last sentence. Taking you point at face value, people who despise codes of conduct nonetheless working under a code of conduct would just be another example of people disagreeing with each other (in this case disagreeing with people who favor the implementation of codes of conduct) and yet still being able to work together. One could argue that the difference here is that codes of conduct are being enforced in a top-down fashion, that is, the people you disagree with are actually in the leadership of the project. But I can see how this argument could just as well be used to justify the value of codes of conduct. FWIW, I've tried but I simply cannot decide if I'm ultimately in favor or against codes of conduct.