4 ms·

This isn't what that says. This is saying that when a neurodiverse person breaks decorum (read: is a giant asshole), the correct behavior is to let that person

by hungie 2y ago

This isn't what that says. This is saying that when a neurodiverse person breaks decorum (read: is a giant asshole), the correct behavior is to let that person know they are having an impact and give them grace to grow their skills. Saying, "they are allowed to be assholes because they are neurodiverse" does nothing to help the neurodiverse person, and creates a stigma. I'm autistic. I constantly tell myself, "being autistic is not an excuse for being an asshhole. I have to work harder to not be an asshole, but I can learn it ".

red1reaper 2y ago
I mean, there are situations where there could be a bit wiggling room to allow a neurodiverse person to break decorum a bit. For example, if someone has tourette they could be excused a bit the same way an autistic person can be excused a bit for not noticing a subtle social cue. But there is a clear difference between allowing a bit of leeway to break decorum and allowing one to be a massive asshole. I think there is a balance, like everything in life.
- hungie 2y ago
  [dead]
zahlman 2y ago
The issue is that the people in charge in the Python community are not "letting [neurodivergent people] know they are having [a negative] impact". At best they are simply shutting down opinions they don't like, regardless of who expresses them. In many cases, though, complaints about those posts are presented more like open invitations to debate, natural responses to which are then treated as further evidence of malfeasance. (The entire situation reminds me very strongly of how James Damore was treated at Google.) Certainly there is no attempt to justify that talking about whatever issue is inappropriate, and certainly there is no attempt to connect such justification to the Code of Conduct. (Please ctrl-F that Code of Conduct - https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ - for any mention of "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism", for example. Or try to find the part that explains how typing "XXXX" and giving hints about what specific naughty word it stands for, in the context of relating a story about taking action to block a PyPI package given that name, is verboten.) With respect, I don't think you actually have to work harder. The onus should be on others to recognize that you genuinely aren't being an asshole just because you, e.g., said something that makes them uncomfortable or challenges their worldview. Certainly they should be expected to recognize that, if you appear to understand emoji differently from how they do, perhaps it would be kinder for them to try to figure out how you're understanding them, rather than objecting to how you use them based on that understanding. But that is not a courtesy that was extended to Mr. Peters (nor to myself), as far as I can see.

by hungie 2y ago

red1reaper 2y ago

I mean, there are situations where there could be a bit wiggling room to allow a neurodiverse person to break decorum a bit. For example, if someone has tourette they could be excused a bit the same way an autistic person can be excused a bit for not noticing a subtle social cue. But there is a clear difference between allowing a bit of leeway to break decorum and allowing one to be a massive asshole. I think there is a balance, like everything in life.

hungie 2y ago
[dead]

zahlman 2y ago

The issue is that the people in charge in the Python community are not "letting [neurodivergent people] know they are having [a negative] impact". At best they are simply shutting down opinions they don't like, regardless of who expresses them. In many cases, though, complaints about those posts are presented more like open invitations to debate, natural responses to which are then treated as further evidence of malfeasance. (The entire situation reminds me very strongly of how James Damore was treated at Google.) Certainly there is no attempt to justify that talking about whatever issue is inappropriate, and certainly there is no attempt to connect such justification to the Code of Conduct. (Please ctrl-F that Code of Conduct - https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ - for any mention of "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism", for example. Or try to find the part that explains how typing "XXXX" and giving hints about what specific naughty word it stands for, in the context of relating a story about taking action to block a PyPI package given that name, is verboten.) With respect, I don't think you actually have to work harder. The onus should be on others to recognize that you genuinely aren't being an asshole just because you, e.g., said something that makes them uncomfortable or challenges their worldview. Certainly they should be expected to recognize that, if you appear to understand emoji differently from how they do, perhaps it would be kinder for them to try to figure out how you're understanding them, rather than objecting to how you use them based on that understanding. But that is not a courtesy that was extended to Mr. Peters (nor to myself), as far as I can see.