7 ms·

The problem here is that hacking, gardening or whatever else people do is not "owned" by those who practice it currently or did before others and neither should

The problem here is that hacking, gardening or whatever else people do is not "owned" by those who practice it currently or did before others and neither should it be. If they wanted to start their own Abrasive gardening club, where they would be abrasive to each other, then not many people would complain. I don't think it would be healthy, but they are free to do so. What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable.

sgift 12y ago
> What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable. The real problem is that there is no coherent definition of abuse and people who are better at playing the social game use that skill to define everything as abuse which they do not like / undermines their status. And that is what the article calls out in the context of 'nerds', 'nerd culture' and 'newcomers' (or at least that is my interpretation of it)
- Argorak 12y ago
  That's exactly the reason why I put up CoCs for example - we define what is inacceptable in a certain space and put it in clear writing to avoid gaming. It binds the organizers as much as the attendees. It cuts out the play. For example, CoCs for dating environments look very differently then those for confs. (did you know there are cuddling meetups and they have very strict rules to ensure people feel comfortable?) There are many abusers that are quite good at the "social game" you describe, by exploiting insecurities about rules, especially in their absence. Saying they are "bad at the game" is actually one of the standard plays (and terribly harmful to those that are _actually_ "bad at the game"). The solution is not "there are no rules", but "we have rules here and others here". We need more spaces with with different sets of rules, where everyone can nerd out in their fashion, not chaos. The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - malandrew 12y ago
    The way I see it, any space with written rules (e.g. CoCs) are essentially spaces with restrictions that dilute cultures so that several cultures with a narrow shared interest can mingle productively. Codes of Conduct are essentially anti-cultural for the sake of achieving collaboration between cultures that share a common interest. This isn't a bad thing. It's certainly productive in ways and produces something of value, but it is necessarily limiting of cultures (and sub-cultures). The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees", you're not talking about culture. The moment you cut out the play, you're not talking about culture. Every culture has varying degrees of play (that go well beyond the amount of play allowed by any CoC I've seen), and that play is acceptable but only known to members of whatever in-group is in question. Introducing rules that eliminate the play inherent in cultures is okay when you do so for the purpose of letting members of disparate cultures to interact safely with each other. The big concern hackers have and that the author of the article we're discussing is getting at, is that the values from which CoCs are fashioned are fine within the confines of the events where they are enforced, but when those values are foisted upon every hacker and nerd sub-culture (including the abrasive ones) and attempts to squelch the diversity of cultures, then it no longer represents intersectionality inclusive of weirdos. The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion. Exactly. CoCs cut out many types of interaction by humans. That's okay and that's good. The problem is when the values that led to those CoCs are indiscriminately applied to everyone that participated in an event even when they no longer are participating in an event. One sub-culture might be abrasive. It's good that that abrasiveness is not allowed in shared spaces like meetups and conferences, since it allows those without the capacity to handle abrasiveness to participate. It ceases to be good when people try to enforce those values against people even outside venues that proscribe CoCs. What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that. It's fine to oppose when such opposition is limited to venues like meetups and conferences, but universal opposition applied at all times and all places, is inherently not inclusive of abrasive people. highly relevant: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2
karmacondon 12y ago
This is flat out wrong. If a group of people start a hacking or gardening social subculture, then it is "owned" by them. If people start a goth subculture, others who join subsequently don't have a right to say "I don't like all the make up and candles and satantic stuff. If you want to start another club and call yourselves by a different name, that's fine. But you don't 'own' being goth." If someone doesn't like the mood and tone of a given culture, they can start their own club or practice the activity without taking part in the social culture. They don't have to right to demand that everyone else change because their sensibilities are offended. If the members of a culture want to change to be more inclusive, then that's their decision. It has to be internal, not forced on them by pushy new members.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  I think the difference there that goth is a subculture, while tech and software development is a job. Sure, there's also various subcultures in the software development industry, but there isn't one big subculture there. There's the abrasive brogrammers, there's the sensitive political correctness advocates, there's the quiet nerd that just wants to be left alone, there's the hiring manager looking for new employees, etcetera. All of those people are different, unlike goths which is a more clearly defined subculture. Maybe the analogy would be a goth at an alternative conference, where you have emos, punk, neon-hair cyberpunk people, SM enthousiasts, etcetera. What's acceptable for one subculture (say, smoking in public, to use the South Park stereotype) may not be appropriate for the other.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    Software development is a job, but the original post wasn't talking software development. It's talking about being a nerd. Sure, I have nerd "creds" and could easily fit in with any stereotypical group, but I don't claim any nerd status nor appear like it to the outside observer. I not gonna tell my group of friends to stop playing DnD or making shitty jokes no matter how embarrassing it is in public, and I expect the same courtesy. The problem I see is that folks seem to have this idea that they have a right to never feel offended. Well tough shit, you don't. You shouldn't be harassed, but if you don't find a group of folks ideals to your liking, well that's just life. Again, we're not talking professional lives here, but that of a subculture. Unfortunately, the problem is an overlap of folks who can't maintain a professional demeanor.
leereeves 12y ago
> If they wanted to start their own Abrasive gardening club, where they would be abrasive to each other If a few people founded a company like this and became successful, some people who joined later would complain about the abrasiveness. And if the complainants happened to be from certain "protected classes", abrasiveness would be legally prohibited.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Replace "company" with "tech industry" and it's exactly what happened.

sgift 12y ago

> What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable. The real problem is that there is no coherent definition of abuse and people who are better at playing the social game use that skill to define everything as abuse which they do not like / undermines their status. And that is what the article calls out in the context of 'nerds', 'nerd culture' and 'newcomers' (or at least that is my interpretation of it)

Argorak 12y ago
That's exactly the reason why I put up CoCs for example - we define what is inacceptable in a certain space and put it in clear writing to avoid gaming. It binds the organizers as much as the attendees. It cuts out the play. For example, CoCs for dating environments look very differently then those for confs. (did you know there are cuddling meetups and they have very strict rules to ensure people feel comfortable?) There are many abusers that are quite good at the "social game" you describe, by exploiting insecurities about rules, especially in their absence. Saying they are "bad at the game" is actually one of the standard plays (and terribly harmful to those that are _actually_ "bad at the game"). The solution is not "there are no rules", but "we have rules here and others here". We need more spaces with with different sets of rules, where everyone can nerd out in their fashion, not chaos. The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- malandrew 12y ago
  The way I see it, any space with written rules (e.g. CoCs) are essentially spaces with restrictions that dilute cultures so that several cultures with a narrow shared interest can mingle productively. Codes of Conduct are essentially anti-cultural for the sake of achieving collaboration between cultures that share a common interest. This isn't a bad thing. It's certainly productive in ways and produces something of value, but it is necessarily limiting of cultures (and sub-cultures). The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees", you're not talking about culture. The moment you cut out the play, you're not talking about culture. Every culture has varying degrees of play (that go well beyond the amount of play allowed by any CoC I've seen), and that play is acceptable but only known to members of whatever in-group is in question. Introducing rules that eliminate the play inherent in cultures is okay when you do so for the purpose of letting members of disparate cultures to interact safely with each other. The big concern hackers have and that the author of the article we're discussing is getting at, is that the values from which CoCs are fashioned are fine within the confines of the events where they are enforced, but when those values are foisted upon every hacker and nerd sub-culture (including the abrasive ones) and attempts to squelch the diversity of cultures, then it no longer represents intersectionality inclusive of weirdos. The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion. Exactly. CoCs cut out many types of interaction by humans. That's okay and that's good. The problem is when the values that led to those CoCs are indiscriminately applied to everyone that participated in an event even when they no longer are participating in an event. One sub-culture might be abrasive. It's good that that abrasiveness is not allowed in shared spaces like meetups and conferences, since it allows those without the capacity to handle abrasiveness to participate. It ceases to be good when people try to enforce those values against people even outside venues that proscribe CoCs. What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that. It's fine to oppose when such opposition is limited to venues like meetups and conferences, but universal opposition applied at all times and all places, is inherently not inclusive of abrasive people. highly relevant: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2

karmacondon 12y ago

This is flat out wrong. If a group of people start a hacking or gardening social subculture, then it is "owned" by them. If people start a goth subculture, others who join subsequently don't have a right to say "I don't like all the make up and candles and satantic stuff. If you want to start another club and call yourselves by a different name, that's fine. But you don't 'own' being goth." If someone doesn't like the mood and tone of a given culture, they can start their own club or practice the activity without taking part in the social culture. They don't have to right to demand that everyone else change because their sensibilities are offended. If the members of a culture want to change to be more inclusive, then that's their decision. It has to be internal, not forced on them by pushy new members.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I think the difference there that goth is a subculture, while tech and software development is a job. Sure, there's also various subcultures in the software development industry, but there isn't one big subculture there. There's the abrasive brogrammers, there's the sensitive political correctness advocates, there's the quiet nerd that just wants to be left alone, there's the hiring manager looking for new employees, etcetera. All of those people are different, unlike goths which is a more clearly defined subculture. Maybe the analogy would be a goth at an alternative conference, where you have emos, punk, neon-hair cyberpunk people, SM enthousiasts, etcetera. What's acceptable for one subculture (say, smoking in public, to use the South Park stereotype) may not be appropriate for the other.
- 67726e 12y ago
  Software development is a job, but the original post wasn't talking software development. It's talking about being a nerd. Sure, I have nerd "creds" and could easily fit in with any stereotypical group, but I don't claim any nerd status nor appear like it to the outside observer. I not gonna tell my group of friends to stop playing DnD or making shitty jokes no matter how embarrassing it is in public, and I expect the same courtesy. The problem I see is that folks seem to have this idea that they have a right to never feel offended. Well tough shit, you don't. You shouldn't be harassed, but if you don't find a group of folks ideals to your liking, well that's just life. Again, we're not talking professional lives here, but that of a subculture. Unfortunately, the problem is an overlap of folks who can't maintain a professional demeanor.

leereeves 12y ago

> If they wanted to start their own Abrasive gardening club, where they would be abrasive to each other If a few people founded a company like this and became successful, some people who joined later would complain about the abrasiveness. And if the complainants happened to be from certain "protected classes", abrasiveness would be legally prohibited.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Replace "company" with "tech industry" and it's exactly what happened.