3 ms·
I know little about these matters but they do say later Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irresp
by g-b-r 3y ago
I know little about these matters but they do say later
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.
Nor would unwanted sexual attention be tolerated, whatever someone's gender or sexual orientation.
Members of our community have the right to expect that participants in the project will uphold these standards
- FireBeyond 3y agoRight. I discussed this in another thread. Acknowledged that they do not tolerate discriminatory actions. But if you "need" to be cisphobic in your words to "feel safe" in a community, that impugns on others, and when such behavior is endorsed as acceptable...
- g-b-r 3y agoNo idea what they specifically mean, but it's probably in the context of replying to someone being "transphobic", racist or sexist
- type0 3y ago> discriminatory actions As I understand CoC, calling someone derogatory terms and making them feel uncomfortable is okay in GNOME community if this person is in privileged category (white cis male etc), but it is not okay to discriminate them. "The GNOME community prioritizes marginalized people's safety over privileged people's comfort"
- FireBeyond 3y agoI mean, in itself, that's just "wow" for a code of conduct... "You can be derogatory and attack people about their sexuality or race, as long as you're being derogatory to the right people..."
- zlg_codes 3y agoWhat's staggering to me is who exactly is unsafe in the FOSS community? Are minorities being attacked at conferences or something? I'm not rich enough to attend them.
- type0 3y agoBullies are usually in minority numbers, you can't eliminate bullying, then the fallacy becomes that only literally minorities should be allowed to bully.
- zlg_codes 3y agoWell put, that's essentially what it ends up being: one group has permission to act poorer than another, due to perceived injustices outside that immediate context. And the defense being 'we're punching up, because...' is childish at best imo. And if we say "hey maybe not have double standards?" We're bigots. Wat.