2 ms·

The Gnome Foundation's Code of Conduct explicitly condones racism (against white people), sexism (against men) and cisphobia. Lest you think I'm exaggerating:

The Gnome Foundation's Code of Conduct explicitly condones racism (against white people), sexism (against men) and cisphobia. Lest you think I'm exaggerating: > "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct. To be clear, it does say that discriminatory actions are prohibited: > Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved. "You're allowed to be racist/sexist, towards white people/males/cisgendered, just don't actually discriminate against them". "Safety vs Comfort". Huh. "It's more important that people be/feel safe than you feel comfortable" - I agree. But ... if you need to be able to express "cisphobia" and "reverse racism" to feel safe, then this is hugely problematic, and perhaps a deeper issue that just perhaps, an OSS community should not need to navigate on your behalf ... Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this one isn't more controversial. Source: https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct

tonfreed 3y ago
I thought the timing of that one was interesting too. They ran out of money after wasting it all on outreach and then implemented this. It was probably always meant to be a distraction
rpnx 3y ago
Wow, that's pretty shocking. Perhaps nobody noticed. I am not sure GNOME has ever been sane though, so perhapss this is of no consequence?
dancemethis 3y ago
First of all, the odds of "white cis men" as you put it being put to shame for free is... quite, quite smaller than people who don't share the social structure privilege. It's... not that people have a _need_ to do that. And let's be honest, you know it. And second, there's a reason reverse racism and cisphobia aren't things, and that "they" (kinda we; I'm in the group too) are deemed privileged: by default they do happen to have it quite easier over the course of their lives. Both in opportunities and general quality of life. And things got so bad there was finally some critical mass to try and get people less scared of contributing to Free Software because they are in a group that is _quite_ disproportionally bashed by groups disproportionally more in power. One shouldn't compare the reaction of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor, after all. Bullies are trash, bullies in power doubly so. If you think there's a _need_ to be able to hurt others, be it the group you are somehow against or think about them hurting you, I don't think the issue is in the CoC. Maybe if a good number of people hadn't done bad things for decades, no one would need a CoC. But this is the world we are living, where people define themselves by their ability to mock and shame others. One group happened to do it a lot more. Do you think it weird that it doesn't seem an issue at all? I just never thought of shaming others. Or feeling like the right to "need" it matters. I don't think this is the right mountain of freedom to die defending at all. What matters is code, helping a community grow, helping people get a modicum of privacy and freedom at least on their software. Not being free to harass.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > It's... not that people have a _need_ to do that. And let's be honest, you know it. No? People don't have a need to do things like change their forum handle to "Kill All Men" (expressly allowed by this CoC)? Post profile pictures drinking from mugs labeled "Male Tears" (expressly allowed by this CoC?), or "This is dumb and you are dumb for suggesting it. You fucking suck." (expressly allowed by this CoC if aimed at a man or white person). These are all things that have happened in the last few years around various tech communities. > If you think there's a _need_ to be able to hurt others, be it the group you are somehow against or think about them hurting you, I don't think the issue is in the CoC. It is if the CoC doesn't just tolerate it, but expressly condones it as acceptable behavior. > Do you think it weird that it doesn't seem an issue at all? On the contrary, it has been an issue many times. Randi Harper and Linux Foundation, Adria Richards at Pycon, Sarah Mei, Coraline Emhke. (Note that I am not saying any of those people or positions they hold are right or wrong, but "it's not an issue at all" is quite demonstrably incorrect). > Maybe if a good number of people hadn't done bad things for decades, no one would need a CoC. But this is the world we are living, where people define themselves by their ability to mock and shame others. One group happened to do it a lot more. "I am marginalized, therefore my opinion trumps yours". Hm. When we start talking about the need of some people to feel safe and giving them very great latitude in how they accomplish this, you can easily end up with situations like one in Oregon, where a male student had a no contact order, and was banned from being on campus with a female student, or being in their classes (I say 'their' because they were both enrolled in said classes, not as a gender statement) and had to change dorms. Why? Not because of anything he did wrong. Because he resembled someone who had raped a female student. The rapist lived thousands of miles away, and was not a student, but because the "resemblance" was traumatizing, the administration at his university felt it was acceptable to impose restrictions on his behavior, location, employment. That, effectively, her safety (for whatever definitions of 'safety') trumped his comfort. Sound familiar? In fact, they didn't even tell him why he was subject to this no-contact situation, he found out completely by accident. (https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/trading-the-megap...) I think that there are very real consequences when such things are mis-applied, no matter who the source, and who the subject. And I think that handwaving it away as "If you have a problem with any of this, maybe you need to look at yourself" is puerile and overly simplistic, if not insulting.
zlg_codes 3y ago
> Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this one isn't more controversial. Similar to the Israel-Hamas conflict, in many LGBT[...] communities there is a culture of not opposing them in any material way, lest you're automatically assumed to be phobic or bigoted. The underlying message being "there is no reason to disagree with or oppose us", which is dangerous thinking in social spaces and is not healthy.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Very much so. I am very opening, welcoming, accepting. But when I've questioned some of the most egregious concerns, it's only a matter of time before you hear "perhaps you should look more closely at yourself".

tonfreed 3y ago

I thought the timing of that one was interesting too. They ran out of money after wasting it all on outreach and then implemented this. It was probably always meant to be a distraction

rpnx 3y ago

Wow, that's pretty shocking. Perhaps nobody noticed. I am not sure GNOME has ever been sane though, so perhapss this is of no consequence?

dancemethis 3y ago

First of all, the odds of "white cis men" as you put it being put to shame for free is... quite, quite smaller than people who don't share the social structure privilege. It's... not that people have a _need_ to do that. And let's be honest, you know it. And second, there's a reason reverse racism and cisphobia aren't things, and that "they" (kinda we; I'm in the group too) are deemed privileged: by default they do happen to have it quite easier over the course of their lives. Both in opportunities and general quality of life. And things got so bad there was finally some critical mass to try and get people less scared of contributing to Free Software because they are in a group that is _quite_ disproportionally bashed by groups disproportionally more in power. One shouldn't compare the reaction of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor, after all. Bullies are trash, bullies in power doubly so. If you think there's a _need_ to be able to hurt others, be it the group you are somehow against or think about them hurting you, I don't think the issue is in the CoC. Maybe if a good number of people hadn't done bad things for decades, no one would need a CoC. But this is the world we are living, where people define themselves by their ability to mock and shame others. One group happened to do it a lot more. Do you think it weird that it doesn't seem an issue at all? I just never thought of shaming others. Or feeling like the right to "need" it matters. I don't think this is the right mountain of freedom to die defending at all. What matters is code, helping a community grow, helping people get a modicum of privacy and freedom at least on their software. Not being free to harass.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> It's... not that people have a _need_ to do that. And let's be honest, you know it. No? People don't have a need to do things like change their forum handle to "Kill All Men" (expressly allowed by this CoC)? Post profile pictures drinking from mugs labeled "Male Tears" (expressly allowed by this CoC?), or "This is dumb and you are dumb for suggesting it. You fucking suck." (expressly allowed by this CoC if aimed at a man or white person). These are all things that have happened in the last few years around various tech communities. > If you think there's a _need_ to be able to hurt others, be it the group you are somehow against or think about them hurting you, I don't think the issue is in the CoC. It is if the CoC doesn't just tolerate it, but expressly condones it as acceptable behavior. > Do you think it weird that it doesn't seem an issue at all? On the contrary, it has been an issue many times. Randi Harper and Linux Foundation, Adria Richards at Pycon, Sarah Mei, Coraline Emhke. (Note that I am not saying any of those people or positions they hold are right or wrong, but "it's not an issue at all" is quite demonstrably incorrect). > Maybe if a good number of people hadn't done bad things for decades, no one would need a CoC. But this is the world we are living, where people define themselves by their ability to mock and shame others. One group happened to do it a lot more. "I am marginalized, therefore my opinion trumps yours". Hm. When we start talking about the need of some people to feel safe and giving them very great latitude in how they accomplish this, you can easily end up with situations like one in Oregon, where a male student had a no contact order, and was banned from being on campus with a female student, or being in their classes (I say 'their' because they were both enrolled in said classes, not as a gender statement) and had to change dorms. Why? Not because of anything he did wrong. Because he resembled someone who had raped a female student. The rapist lived thousands of miles away, and was not a student, but because the "resemblance" was traumatizing, the administration at his university felt it was acceptable to impose restrictions on his behavior, location, employment. That, effectively, her safety (for whatever definitions of 'safety') trumped his comfort. Sound familiar? In fact, they didn't even tell him why he was subject to this no-contact situation, he found out completely by accident. (https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/ https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/trading-the-megap...) I think that there are very real consequences when such things are mis-applied, no matter who the source, and who the subject. And I think that handwaving it away as "If you have a problem with any of this, maybe you need to look at yourself" is puerile and overly simplistic, if not insulting.

zlg_codes 3y ago

> Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this one isn't more controversial. Similar to the Israel-Hamas conflict, in many LGBT[...] communities there is a culture of not opposing them in any material way, lest you're automatically assumed to be phobic or bigoted. The underlying message being "there is no reason to disagree with or oppose us", which is dangerous thinking in social spaces and is not healthy.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Very much so. I am very opening, welcoming, accepting. But when I've questioned some of the most egregious concerns, it's only a matter of time before you hear "perhaps you should look more closely at yourself".