3 ms·

Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are ho

Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are how one prepares for retirement? In such countries, same-sex marriage is not an issue and can't be raised until other things change. The relationship between sexuality, marriage, and reproduction is different, and I reject the "human rights" argument which says basically we must push everyone on the planet to accept modern American cultural structures regarding sexuality. So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it? Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally. And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?

nostromo 13y ago
This argument, "to be inclusive, you must be inclusive of those who are not inclusive" is tired. Rejecting bigotry does not make one a bigot. To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad). I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now. Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  BTW, this is exactly why the question of inclusiveness matters in global, large open source projects. The normal state of human relations is that most societies historically and today emphasize unchosen parent/child relationships more than chosen friend and spouse relationships. This is done for functional reasons -- it allows families instead of businesses and governments to take on the primary role of caring for the elderly, and it essentially forces marriage and having children to be the norm. It also makes dissolution of marriage much harder because intergenerational obligations get messy when children are expected to care for divorced retiree parents, particularly when they remarry. In other words, traditional marriage, as it existed a hundred years ago in the US, was a more or less permament union which assured that most folks would have children who would care for them in their old age, and both sexuality and reproduction were subservient to that goal. This is still the model in the rest of the world. Many countries have been moving away from that model to one where government and corporations bear the primary responsibility of providing for the elderly. In such a model, yes, same-sex marriage makes sense. But if you make same-sex marriage a human right, you essentially say that no society which treats children as the optimal source of support for retirees has a right to exist. That is orders of magnitudes more intolerant than contributing $1000 to Prop 8, because you are setting up large numbers of cultural and economic differences as human rights violations. Sure, neither same-sex marriage nor child protective services are possible in a society where children are expected to be the normal source of retirement support but that doesn't make the lack of either into human rights violations. You have to look at issues in context. So again, what does it mean to be inclusive in a global open source project? Does it mean excluding, as I think you want to, anyone who believes the optimal arrangement is for people to get married, have kids, have household businesses, and retire with their kids? Because if so, you have just alienated most cultures in the world, and that's "inclusive" only of wealthy, privileged white folks.

nostromo 13y ago

This argument, "to be inclusive, you must be inclusive of those who are not inclusive" is tired. Rejecting bigotry does not make one a bigot. To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.

einhverfr 13y ago
> That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad). I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now. Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.
einhverfr 13y ago
BTW, this is exactly why the question of inclusiveness matters in global, large open source projects. The normal state of human relations is that most societies historically and today emphasize unchosen parent/child relationships more than chosen friend and spouse relationships. This is done for functional reasons -- it allows families instead of businesses and governments to take on the primary role of caring for the elderly, and it essentially forces marriage and having children to be the norm. It also makes dissolution of marriage much harder because intergenerational obligations get messy when children are expected to care for divorced retiree parents, particularly when they remarry. In other words, traditional marriage, as it existed a hundred years ago in the US, was a more or less permament union which assured that most folks would have children who would care for them in their old age, and both sexuality and reproduction were subservient to that goal. This is still the model in the rest of the world. Many countries have been moving away from that model to one where government and corporations bear the primary responsibility of providing for the elderly. In such a model, yes, same-sex marriage makes sense. But if you make same-sex marriage a human right, you essentially say that no society which treats children as the optimal source of support for retirees has a right to exist. That is orders of magnitudes more intolerant than contributing $1000 to Prop 8, because you are setting up large numbers of cultural and economic differences as human rights violations. Sure, neither same-sex marriage nor child protective services are possible in a society where children are expected to be the normal source of retirement support but that doesn't make the lack of either into human rights violations. You have to look at issues in context. So again, what does it mean to be inclusive in a global open source project? Does it mean excluding, as I think you want to, anyone who believes the optimal arrangement is for people to get married, have kids, have household businesses, and retire with their kids? Because if so, you have just alienated most cultures in the world, and that's "inclusive" only of wealthy, privileged white folks.