4 ms·

> non-political community "Non-political community" is an oxymoron, like "non-aquatic lake". Politics is the verb that communities do.

oguz-ismail 1y ago
[dead]
Certhas 1y ago
Non-political almost always means "accept the social status quo I am used to". I think there is a reasonable argument that the default for a community with technical goals should be to accept social status quo conventions unless they conflict with the communities technical goals. But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide" there is a reasonable counterargument that these conflict with the goal of making the technology (and community) available to everyone.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide" Queers should hide definitely isn't any social default unless the code is exclusively developed in Gaza. "Do what you like but please stick to technical considerations" isn't "you need to hide".
  - roommin 1y ago
    "Societal default" here doesn't explicitly mean laws.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      I didn't mention laws. What do you mean?
      - roommin 1y ago
        I assumed you were talking about laws because the social default in places like the south of the US is definitely that visibly queer people should hide.
  - Certhas 1y ago
    You seem to have read that as literally "hide if you are queer". What I meant to encompass was also "hide that you're queer". And that's absolutely a norm that exists, and that can perfectly well hide behind "stick to technical considerations". If you say "I prefer to be referred to by these pronouns" then the reply "please stick to technical considerations" is not neutral. If someone would point out @acronym_XYZ is actually a woman when someone referred to her as he, nobody would reply with "please stick to technical considerations". "Please stick to technical considerations" as a response to any behavior that is outside some societal default is not enforcing a technical concern, it's enforcing the societal default, including when there are no technical reasons to do so. That doesn't mean that "Please stick to technical considerations" or quite simply "that's off-topic" are never valid. They very much are. It simply means that they don't provide some clean clear demarcation line around which to organize a technical community.
    - philipallstar 11mo ago
      > If you say "I prefer to be referred to by these pronouns" then the reply "please stick to technical considerations" is not neutral. There's no single societal norm in worldwide source projects; that's just you monolithing a diverse set of groups. In this particular instance if you're just a GitHub handle then whether you're female or you wish to be called "her" then that doesn't require hiding that you're "queer", but it also doesn't require mentioning it. Just say, "actually it's 'she'" and you're done.
      - Certhas 11mo ago
        I thought you merely misread my comment. But it really seems you are very determined to pretend that there are no reasons for people to hide that they are queer, which, given the current political climate, is just bizarre to me.
echelon 1y ago
> "Non-political community" is an oxymoron No it's not. I'm an LGBT person with a trans partner and I find many codes of conduct to be chastising and purposefully finger pointing to conservative people. A lot of them are basically, "your religious teachings or cultural upbringing aren't welcome here" I don't agree with religious texts, but that's what you're wagging in their face with some of the CoCs. Leave it at "don't be an asshole". It's that simple. The current political climate, I feel, is a direct reaction to this. A politically neutral space wouldn't permit religious people to harass trans or LGBT people, but it also wouldn't give anyone latitude to throw stones the other way either. CoCs are "you're not welcome here at all". Another thing: you always see language and project logos modified to bear the rainbow, trans, and BLM colors. You never see anything supporting Asians, white people, men, or Christians. If you did this, you would be called out as a racist. Which is so ironic. Let's just get along and work together. Maybe we'll find more agreements amongst ourselves that way instead of trying to divide everyone into camps. Some progressives are going to get very pissed off at this comment, but I grew up and live in the South. You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. It's not impossible to be friends either. You might wind up changing their mind, and they might wind up making you more tolerant as well.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  > You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. Life's for too short to force people to do this, and ideally we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    This is a crazy notion. If I have to like everybody to work with them, we can't have a civilization because I don't like most people. I like some people. Everybody else I work with if they're willing to work with me. Saying that we all have to agree with each other is basically giving up on the political project entirely, and going back to strongman rulers who organize by demanding conformity. Very relevant in these times. > we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this. No, we should make it impossible to avoid so people can't sneak into adulthood without being properly socialized.

oguz-ismail 1y ago

[dead]

Certhas 1y ago

Non-political almost always means "accept the social status quo I am used to". I think there is a reasonable argument that the default for a community with technical goals should be to accept social status quo conventions unless they conflict with the communities technical goals. But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide" there is a reasonable counterargument that these conflict with the goal of making the technology (and community) available to everyone.

philipallstar 1y ago
> But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide" Queers should hide definitely isn't any social default unless the code is exclusively developed in Gaza. "Do what you like but please stick to technical considerations" isn't "you need to hide".
- roommin 1y ago
  "Societal default" here doesn't explicitly mean laws.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    I didn't mention laws. What do you mean?
    - roommin 1y ago
      I assumed you were talking about laws because the social default in places like the south of the US is definitely that visibly queer people should hide.
- Certhas 1y ago
  You seem to have read that as literally "hide if you are queer". What I meant to encompass was also "hide that you're queer". And that's absolutely a norm that exists, and that can perfectly well hide behind "stick to technical considerations". If you say "I prefer to be referred to by these pronouns" then the reply "please stick to technical considerations" is not neutral. If someone would point out @acronym_XYZ is actually a woman when someone referred to her as he, nobody would reply with "please stick to technical considerations". "Please stick to technical considerations" as a response to any behavior that is outside some societal default is not enforcing a technical concern, it's enforcing the societal default, including when there are no technical reasons to do so. That doesn't mean that "Please stick to technical considerations" or quite simply "that's off-topic" are never valid. They very much are. It simply means that they don't provide some clean clear demarcation line around which to organize a technical community.
  - philipallstar 11mo ago
    > If you say "I prefer to be referred to by these pronouns" then the reply "please stick to technical considerations" is not neutral. There's no single societal norm in worldwide source projects; that's just you monolithing a diverse set of groups. In this particular instance if you're just a GitHub handle then whether you're female or you wish to be called "her" then that doesn't require hiding that you're "queer", but it also doesn't require mentioning it. Just say, "actually it's 'she'" and you're done.
    - Certhas 11mo ago
      I thought you merely misread my comment. But it really seems you are very determined to pretend that there are no reasons for people to hide that they are queer, which, given the current political climate, is just bizarre to me.

echelon 1y ago

> "Non-political community" is an oxymoron No it's not. I'm an LGBT person with a trans partner and I find many codes of conduct to be chastising and purposefully finger pointing to conservative people. A lot of them are basically, "your religious teachings or cultural upbringing aren't welcome here" I don't agree with religious texts, but that's what you're wagging in their face with some of the CoCs. Leave it at "don't be an asshole". It's that simple. The current political climate, I feel, is a direct reaction to this. A politically neutral space wouldn't permit religious people to harass trans or LGBT people, but it also wouldn't give anyone latitude to throw stones the other way either. CoCs are "you're not welcome here at all". Another thing: you always see language and project logos modified to bear the rainbow, trans, and BLM colors. You never see anything supporting Asians, white people, men, or Christians. If you did this, you would be called out as a racist. Which is so ironic. Let's just get along and work together. Maybe we'll find more agreements amongst ourselves that way instead of trying to divide everyone into camps. Some progressives are going to get very pissed off at this comment, but I grew up and live in the South. You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. It's not impossible to be friends either. You might wind up changing their mind, and they might wind up making you more tolerant as well.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
> You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. Life's for too short to force people to do this, and ideally we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  This is a crazy notion. If I have to like everybody to work with them, we can't have a civilization because I don't like most people. I like some people. Everybody else I work with if they're willing to work with me. Saying that we all have to agree with each other is basically giving up on the political project entirely, and going back to strongman rulers who organize by demanding conformity. Very relevant in these times. > we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this. No, we should make it impossible to avoid so people can't sneak into adulthood without being properly socialized.