9 ms·

This, from the Ruby CoC, is key: > Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views. If you can't tolerate that others will have different perspecti

by astanm 1y ago

This, from the Ruby CoC, is key: > Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views. If you can't tolerate that others will have different perspectives to you then it means you're likely to be a very difficult and inflexible person to work with.

pjc50 1y ago
This is one of those things that falls apart on the actual content. If you have a trans contributor and someone who comes in with trans-eliminationist rhetoric, you can't then turn round and say the trans person is being "inflexible" for refusing to work with them.
- ishouldbework 1y ago
  [dead]
- HelloNurse 1y ago
  The correct answer is reacting harshly to "trans-eliminationist rhetoric" from a weird extremist, with an ultimatum or immediate expulsion, before the trans contributor complains.
  - astanm 1y ago
    If someone is posting along the lines of "send them all to the death camps" etc. on the mailing lists or discussion boards, for any group, that would be covered under the other items in the Ruby CoC, where participants are expected not to harass or disparage. Also it would be very off-topic for a programming language forum.
- astanm 1y ago
  That would be covered under the next part of the Ruby CoC: > Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free from personal attacks and disparaging remarks. And anyway, rhetoric which advocates for killing groups of people would be very off-topic for a programming language discussion forum. Unlikely it would come up in conversation except for deliberate trolling.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Holy moly, what kind of open source projects are y'all working on? I don't even understand how these topics could come up in a Pull Request. Are people writing and reviewing code in these projects?
    - aidenn0 1y ago
      Two ways I've seen it come up: 1. Someone posts something on twitter that someone else finds offensive 2. Someone proposes a CoC rule banning bigots from the community, which raises the question of "who defines who is a bigot" TFA mentions a third way; a remark at a conference is overheard.
- squigz 1y ago
  Someone will say that that person shouldn't be bringing any sort of politics into it, so they should be removed, no CoCs needed for that. Then someone will point out that they might have this stuff on their Github profile, or website. They're free to do so, of course. But it would be wrong to remove them for that, right? But then any trans contributor that sees this crap is what, forced to work with them anyway?
  - account42 1y ago
    Too bad. People you interact with every day have views that are abhorrent to you. Suck it up. The community is not your internet police.
- skissane 1y ago
  Likely more than 50% of the world's population agrees with viewpoints that some would label "trans-eliminationist rhetoric". So if you are saying anyone who ever expresses such viewpoints–even in forums completely unrelated to the project–is barred from contributing to it, you are potentially excluding more than half of contemporary humanity.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
  - OkayPhysicist 1y ago
    A community doesn't exist for "the majority of the world". It exists for its community. If a community doesn't want bigots (as they shouldn't), they absolutely should exclude them.
    - aidenn0 1y ago
      I just haven't seen CoCs effectively reduce the bigots in a community; they either are toothless, or have teeth and lead to a j'accuse breakdown. It is a tiny fraction of the people I know and have interacted with over an extended period of time who has not made a remark that could be construed as bigoted. I have seen moderators called bigots for suspending (instead of banning) someone who made an inappropriate remark. My wife and I have been accused (behind our back) of misgendering someone when we were using the pronouns that we had privately confirmed she preferred. If you create a CoC with real teeth, then instead of the BDFL or core team or whatever controlling who is in the community, it's the people in the community who are most interested in accusing people of violating the CoC that have control over who is in the community.
    - skissane 1y ago
      If a community wants to exclude many millions-even billions-of people around the world, including the population supermajority of dozens of countries, and all those who seriously believe in the traditional teachings of any one of several major religious traditions-and denigrate those people it excludes as “bigots”-well, maybe that in itself is a form of bigotry, and hence their labelling others “bigots” is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”
swiftcoder 1y ago
Something, something, paradox of tolerance. Diverse views on software development? Great. Diverse views on whether various groups deserve human rights? Not great.
- astanm 1y ago
  The latter would be off-topic for a programming language discussion forum, certainly. But working with others that happen to hold differing views on that topic? Not a problem. It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have the same perspective on political issues.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    I think we are likely to disagree on whether "group X is not entitled to human rights" is a legitimate political view
    - astanm 1y ago
      As long as these views aren't thrashed out in the collaborative spaces to which the CoC applies, it doesn't really matter. (As a personal preference, I'd rather not know the political views, legitimate or otherwise, of people I work with. It's not relevant.)
      - swiftcoder 1y ago
        If said people kept their opinions to themselves, the issue would never arise in the first place. Pretty much the whole problem in semi-public spaces like this is that folks with strong reactionary beliefs don’t tend to leave them at the door
        svieira 1y ago
        `s/reactionary//` and you'd be right in your second sentence. It doesn't matter if it's action or reaction, people with strong beliefs, strongly held tend to be holding them because of some core set of ethical or moral principles and those things eventually are revealed in the day-to-day work. As to your first - if people with a strong set of ethical and moral principles "just shut up" about what they considered ethical and moral essentials ... then they wouldn't be who they are. The only people who don't show what they hold good are people who don't hold as good much of anything. Now if we're just talking "opinions" here (about things that are not ethical and moral, merely matters of taste), then yes, a person with "strong beliefs strongly held as a universal principle" is someone who is just an ass. But if I know someone is a raving Detroit Lions fan "on the internet", what kind of a person am I if I can't work with them?

by astanm 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

This is one of those things that falls apart on the actual content. If you have a trans contributor and someone who comes in with trans-eliminationist rhetoric, you can't then turn round and say the trans person is being "inflexible" for refusing to work with them.

ishouldbework 1y ago
[dead]
HelloNurse 1y ago
The correct answer is reacting harshly to "trans-eliminationist rhetoric" from a weird extremist, with an ultimatum or immediate expulsion, before the trans contributor complains.
- astanm 1y ago
  If someone is posting along the lines of "send them all to the death camps" etc. on the mailing lists or discussion boards, for any group, that would be covered under the other items in the Ruby CoC, where participants are expected not to harass or disparage. Also it would be very off-topic for a programming language forum.
astanm 1y ago
That would be covered under the next part of the Ruby CoC: > Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free from personal attacks and disparaging remarks. And anyway, rhetoric which advocates for killing groups of people would be very off-topic for a programming language discussion forum. Unlikely it would come up in conversation except for deliberate trolling.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Holy moly, what kind of open source projects are y'all working on? I don't even understand how these topics could come up in a Pull Request. Are people writing and reviewing code in these projects?
  - aidenn0 1y ago
    Two ways I've seen it come up: 1. Someone posts something on twitter that someone else finds offensive 2. Someone proposes a CoC rule banning bigots from the community, which raises the question of "who defines who is a bigot" TFA mentions a third way; a remark at a conference is overheard.
squigz 1y ago
Someone will say that that person shouldn't be bringing any sort of politics into it, so they should be removed, no CoCs needed for that. Then someone will point out that they might have this stuff on their Github profile, or website. They're free to do so, of course. But it would be wrong to remove them for that, right? But then any trans contributor that sees this crap is what, forced to work with them anyway?
- account42 1y ago
  Too bad. People you interact with every day have views that are abhorrent to you. Suck it up. The community is not your internet police.
skissane 1y ago
Likely more than 50% of the world's population agrees with viewpoints that some would label "trans-eliminationist rhetoric". So if you are saying anyone who ever expresses such viewpoints–even in forums completely unrelated to the project–is barred from contributing to it, you are potentially excluding more than half of contemporary humanity.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  [dead]
- OkayPhysicist 1y ago
  A community doesn't exist for "the majority of the world". It exists for its community. If a community doesn't want bigots (as they shouldn't), they absolutely should exclude them.
  - aidenn0 1y ago
    I just haven't seen CoCs effectively reduce the bigots in a community; they either are toothless, or have teeth and lead to a j'accuse breakdown. It is a tiny fraction of the people I know and have interacted with over an extended period of time who has not made a remark that could be construed as bigoted. I have seen moderators called bigots for suspending (instead of banning) someone who made an inappropriate remark. My wife and I have been accused (behind our back) of misgendering someone when we were using the pronouns that we had privately confirmed she preferred. If you create a CoC with real teeth, then instead of the BDFL or core team or whatever controlling who is in the community, it's the people in the community who are most interested in accusing people of violating the CoC that have control over who is in the community.
  - skissane 1y ago
    If a community wants to exclude many millions-even billions-of people around the world, including the population supermajority of dozens of countries, and all those who seriously believe in the traditional teachings of any one of several major religious traditions-and denigrate those people it excludes as “bigots”-well, maybe that in itself is a form of bigotry, and hence their labelling others “bigots” is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”

swiftcoder 1y ago

Something, something, paradox of tolerance. Diverse views on software development? Great. Diverse views on whether various groups deserve human rights? Not great.

astanm 1y ago
The latter would be off-topic for a programming language discussion forum, certainly. But working with others that happen to hold differing views on that topic? Not a problem. It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have the same perspective on political issues.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  I think we are likely to disagree on whether "group X is not entitled to human rights" is a legitimate political view
  - astanm 1y ago
    As long as these views aren't thrashed out in the collaborative spaces to which the CoC applies, it doesn't really matter. (As a personal preference, I'd rather not know the political views, legitimate or otherwise, of people I work with. It's not relevant.)
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      If said people kept their opinions to themselves, the issue would never arise in the first place. Pretty much the whole problem in semi-public spaces like this is that folks with strong reactionary beliefs don’t tend to leave them at the door
      - svieira 1y ago
        `s/reactionary//` and you'd be right in your second sentence. It doesn't matter if it's action or reaction, people with strong beliefs, strongly held tend to be holding them because of some core set of ethical or moral principles and those things eventually are revealed in the day-to-day work. As to your first - if people with a strong set of ethical and moral principles "just shut up" about what they considered ethical and moral essentials ... then they wouldn't be who they are. The only people who don't show what they hold good are people who don't hold as good much of anything. Now if we're just talking "opinions" here (about things that are not ethical and moral, merely matters of taste), then yes, a person with "strong beliefs strongly held as a universal principle" is someone who is just an ass. But if I know someone is a raving Detroit Lions fan "on the internet", what kind of a person am I if I can't work with them?