Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#291

Post by KyleJ61782 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:49 PM UTC

defgeneric wrote: post #142

civodul wrote: post #28

As co-maintainer of GNU Guix, I want to point out that the views expressed in Richard Stallman's message are his and not those of the Guix maintainers. In particular, by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence. More importantly, by writing that he disagrees with "making diversity a goal", RMS seems to deny the role we free software peopl…

> correcting the biases, conscious or not This insipid attitude was destructive when it first appeared during the academic "culture wars" of the 1980s. It's also extremely authoritarian--everyone is already guilty, not merely of incorrect conscious thoughts, but also unconscious thoughts!

I think it's important to understand that while everyone has conscious and unconscious biases, it's not true that recognizing that fact is the same as assigning blame. The idea is to better know one's self, to try and understand one's own bias (to the best of one's ability, that is) in order to try and apply correctives when making decisions involving people who are different than we are.

It's when we actively press into these biases that we hold and steadfastly cling to them in the face of contrary evidence that we become guilty.

Now I'm not claiming that having bias is a good thing, it's quite the opposite. I am saying, however, that having bias does not imply culpability.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#292

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #195

mcguire wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person. Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group. They can offend people in that group, and they are always off-topic in GNU Project discussions.

No personal attacks were made; the posting individual was not even mentioned. Arguing against an opposing idea is permitted. No demographic groups were mentioned. Academics are not a demographic group, save possibly in the most academic possible interpretation of the word, and are certainly not a protected demographic group.

Absolutely! The "insipid attitude" was never attributed to any person at all and no one supports "authoritarian" behavior.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#293

Post by erik_seaberg » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #237

waterhouse wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. >Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demogra…

I wonder if the skew towards men in software starting in the 80’s corresponded with the rise of the “meritocratic” software community because that movement made people on the autism spectrum (including aspies) more comfortable in software development (judged based on their contributions alone) —- which may have helped to create the impression/generalization that people in software are “geeks” and socially challenged—…

Even in the 70s when computer time was hard to come by, there was a weirdness about the enthusiasts I find very familiar: http://www.wheels.org/spacewar/stone/rolling_stone.html

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#294

Post by guy98238710 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #271

guy98238710 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit OT, but perception of discrimination is itself subject to bias, for example discrimination of women and minorities is taken seriously while discrimination of whites and men is laughed off. Bias in perception of discrimination would prevent you from even recognizing existing biases, not to mention weighting them correctly, and possibly lead you to aggravate existing discrimination.

Usually that's because when claims about discrimination against whites and men are made, there's no evidence that they are actively being discriminated against. Rather, the case is usually that they're not being favored as they were. Which, if you are in the previously favored class, may feel like discrimination, but in reality it's simply giving everyone else a chance as well.

This is an example of a bias in perception of discrimination. You dismiss the idea of discrimination of whites and men upfront. You probably believe whites and men are not discriminated against in any substantial way. You are even willing to paint discrimination of whites and men as a "loss of previous favors".

Consider this example: Difference in pay between men and women is a small discomfort (single women can afford 5% smaller homes) while divorce and child custody courts ruin lives (of men in 90% of cases) and cause unbearable pain (due to loss of contact with children). Yet pay equality is talked about and politically pushed through much more than joint child custody. This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination.

This is all a bit OT, but I think it is understood that misjudging discrimination and taking disproportionate action can damage opensource projects.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#295

Post by tomatocracy » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #53

funkythings wrote: post #11

> In August, a discussion started among GNU package maintainers about the problem that GNU development often pushes women away I'm not trying to offend people or anything, but where is the evidence for this in GNU specifically?

I was there to witness the private mailing list that culminated in this, and there was a very clear example of that happening there. A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal." A sub-discussion then erupted about…

In some cultures, it is impolite to refer to someone by their given name. "Mr X" or equivalent is the polite way to address them, especially in (for example) a business context.

And yet, I almost never see this happening in online communities and have never seen anyone take offence at being referred to by their first name instead, despite the fact that in an in-person context they might do.

I'd love to understand why the two scenarios are different.

It sounds like the issue in the example you state was perhaps the "talking down", not the name.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#296

Post by will4274 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #178

will4274 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]? Am I missing the back story here? The poster explicitly says he is not trying to diminish the awfulness of rape, just concerned that some cited statistics are inaccurate about its frequency. I'm not sure how this topic comes up in a software project, but, is this really…

" This appears to be the source of the 1 in 6 figure (17.6%). But it's worth going deeper. If you look at percentage of women reporting rape since age 18 (taking out the child abuse and statutory rape cases, which they also treat in detail), it becomes 1 in 10 (9.6%), and of those over 61.9% were at the hands of their intimate partner, as opposed to an acquaintance or stranger. Also in the survey, in the rapes that w…

> This seems to be implying that [...] rape [...] where "the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim" are not "real" rape.

This feels like a misreading, considering this section (which you quoted):

>> Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place.

It's conversations like this that lead many people to be dubious of CoC. I'm not convinced that rape apology was happening here. "Kind Communications Guidelines" ask that you be charitable interpreting his mail and asks that he listen to your feedback. CoC leads to you trying to have him removed from the project, for an email that you may not have even understood correctly.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#297

Post by samirm » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

> You get more bees with honey than vinegar

What does this mean? Don't bees make honey? Why would you try attracting bees with honey or vinegar in the first place?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#298

Post by camdenlock » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #241

camdenlock wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've written here sounds like the preaching of a religious person. We must correct our "biases, conscious or not"? What evidence do you have that all of us are laboring under the weight of some kind of original sin of "bias"? Can any one of us investigate these claims scientifically, or must we appeal to an authority in your belief system to get answers? Your virtue signaling is unimpressive. Please take it el…

This comment breaks several of HN's guidelines, including the one against calling names in arguments, as well as this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them when posting here.

I disagree strongly with your interpretation of my comment, which I made in good faith. I apologize for sounding rude or aggressive, but I'm confident that I haven't broken any guidelines.

I've asserted that the OP is preaching what is essentially religious ideology, and that he or she is engaging in virtue signaling. I think it's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I've written to label it as "name calling".

I have responded to the strongest possible interpretation of OP's comment, a reasonable summary of which is: "We are all laboring under biases, conscious or unconscious, which have directly caused a certain demographic constitution in our community". Again it's very uncharitable to suggest that this is a straw man.

In my view, OP is advertising very bad ideas that deserve to be challenged passionately. Am I not allowed to do so here on HN?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#299

Post by camdenlock » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

favorited wrote: post #242

camdenlock wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've written here sounds like the preaching of a religious person. We must correct our "biases, conscious or not"? What evidence do you have that all of us are laboring under the weight of some kind of original sin of "bias"? Can any one of us investigate these claims scientifically, or must we appeal to an authority in your belief system to get answers? Your virtue signaling is unimpressive. Please take it el…

Wait, do you not think you have any biases?

No, but I am challenging the rather spectacular claim that we're all suffering from a kind of bias which has directly caused the demographic makeup of our (very large) community.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#300

Post by trhway » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 8:02 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #290

trhway wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. I think it gets the point - irreconcilable differences in the foundations and applications of intelligence - more efficiently across than the alternative of an attempt at long winded logical based explanation of that irreconcilable difference to somebody who just doesn't understand/share your logical apparatus because of that difference.

Wow, I didn't think anyone would try to defend that and double down on the dehumanisation.

recognizing and accepting the difference between people isn't dehumanization. Not recognizing and denying people the option to be different is dehumanization.