3 ms·

> For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant I wish this were true, but it

> For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant I wish this were true, but it simply isn't. If a group is full of white cis heterosexual guys and someone turns up with a random screen name and says nothing about themselves, everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not. The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". The reality is that for many people, their mere public existence is seen as a political statement. Often times asking for the most simple of accommodations or changes is seen as "being vocal" or starting an argument. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say a group of developers is all-male, and a leader starts off every meeting with "hey guys". Then, a developer who is a woman joins the project. They ask that leader "When you say it like that it implicitly excludes me, It would mean a lot to me if you said 'everyone' instead." I think that's a pretty reasonable request, it asks very little of the leader (to change one word), has no impact for everyone else, and means a lot to some. But to many, many people that would be viewed as "suppressing speech" or "weaponizing oppression".

majorchord 1y ago
> everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant? > The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things. For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all. The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult. Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to. I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.
- lowsong 1y ago
  I think that you've made my point really quite well. I gave perhaps the most basic possible example of accommodation, adjusting a single word with no impact on other project members and you were still able to argue about it. > Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. People just want to be themselves. If the very act of appearing to be from a different group is "playing politics" then what you actually mean is "you cannot be different". This behavior is exactly why a CoC is needed.
  - majorchord 1y ago
    I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. Not all projects want other people telling them what to do or what they should or shouldn't do, and I think that's perfectly ok. If "people being themselves" means making SJW politics their entire identity and spraying it across the internet, then I'd say it's likely they're not going to be welcome in many places, CoC or not. I think you could argue having any rule that someone happens to disagree with is telling them "you cannot be different"... people have to draw the line somewhere, or there wouldn't be rules. Who are we to say what's right or wrong in someone else's project? And I think your argument still dismisses the weaponization that many people are seeing... maybe you call it their identity being someone who wants to change things... but that doesn't mean they should always get what they want.
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
    - kelnos 1y ago
      > I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. That's probably where the disagreement/misunderstanding is. I don't think that's a definition of "playing politics" that most people would agree with.
EnergyAmy 1y ago
Trying to fight "hey guys" is stupid and tilting at windmills. It's a great example of performative wokeness that achieves nothing but making some people feel good about themselves.

majorchord 1y ago

> everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant? > The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things. For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all. The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult. Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to. I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.

lowsong 1y ago
I think that you've made my point really quite well. I gave perhaps the most basic possible example of accommodation, adjusting a single word with no impact on other project members and you were still able to argue about it. > Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. People just want to be themselves. If the very act of appearing to be from a different group is "playing politics" then what you actually mean is "you cannot be different". This behavior is exactly why a CoC is needed.
- majorchord 1y ago
  I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. Not all projects want other people telling them what to do or what they should or shouldn't do, and I think that's perfectly ok. If "people being themselves" means making SJW politics their entire identity and spraying it across the internet, then I'd say it's likely they're not going to be welcome in many places, CoC or not. I think you could argue having any rule that someone happens to disagree with is telling them "you cannot be different"... people have to draw the line somewhere, or there wouldn't be rules. Who are we to say what's right or wrong in someone else's project? And I think your argument still dismisses the weaponization that many people are seeing... maybe you call it their identity being someone who wants to change things... but that doesn't mean they should always get what they want.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
  - kelnos 1y ago
    > I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. That's probably where the disagreement/misunderstanding is. I don't think that's a definition of "playing politics" that most people would agree with.

EnergyAmy 1y ago

Trying to fight "hey guys" is stupid and tilting at windmills. It's a great example of performative wokeness that achieves nothing but making some people feel good about themselves.