I Violated a Code of Conduct • Hacker News Board

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#681

Post by raxxorrax » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

spacekitcat wrote: post #658

raxxorrax wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it is popularly opposed and used it is equivalent to "Newspeak". For example we had the definition of racism changed. Racism wasn't attributing negative properties to skin color, it has extended to unfalsifiable bias. Also some skin colors are never racist while other always are. Disagreeing means you are racist. You have a rule against racism in your COC and pretend someone is biased and you conjured an excuse to…

Do you think there are negative sub conscious biases around race? Do you think racism has the same consequences for all races, for example, someone who is a member of a minority group vs someone who is not for a particular region?

Second question:

No. I think I know where the original idea came from. Racism against the majority group is relatively benign compared to that against a minority. It is unlikely that racism can phase them to a relevant degree. But that stops to be the case when you have companies and media personalities starting to discriminate on the basis of skin color. Furthermore I think the most racist people are those that have no problem with being racist at all and those that believe there needs to be some compensatory justice. And this is far more pronounced racism than bias in any form.

first question:

Yes/No. I think there is an initial bias that is quickly overcome on contact because the other one is not you. Same prejudices can exist against unknown people in general. I doubt it is too relevant in exchanges. It can however be the reason for prejudices against people against other that they not ever been in contact with.

I also believe that you need different types of people in a functioning society. For disabled people it might be advantageous to have people ignoring their condition and just pretending that they belong just as everybody else. But you need also people that know that isn't always the case. Everyone wants to make things accessible but if you ask yourself if you always keep that promise the answer is probably 'no'. That is why the latter group is also needed, but there can be conflicts if a differing context isn't cleared up. The first group might have a problem with 'political correctness' in this context.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#682

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #674

pseudalopex wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't speak for the Black Lives Matter movement.

You must admit this is very confusing. Which of those two groups are the good guys? Who does speak for them?

Back in the days when Occupy movement was starting, and 4chan people were trolling Scientologists, this was lauded as a new era of social movements - decentralized. No central organization to squash, anyone can pick up the label and carry the fight.

What we got was also predictable, though. If anyone can fight under any banner, if nobody owns the banner, there is no possibility to come to a compromise, to settle the differences. The proponents of a movement will pick the most benign shard as an example to defend and popularize their cause; the opponents of the movement will pick the most extremist shard as a justification to fight back. Everyone feels their survival is at stake.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#683

Post by Traubenfuchs » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #95

It was clearly a mistake for him to even play along, especially if he was emotionally exhausted already. The best you can do when people are being stupid like this is ignore them. They hold no power over you unless you let them. This whole CoC thing is sadly fraught with virtue signaling psycho-sadists who enjoy playing tribunal. The people who actually cared about fostering inclusive human communities got bullied ou…

> psycho-sadists

That's what it actually seems to be: People that want to be sadistic aggressors can be sadistic aggressors in the name of "the law". I believe that's also part of why the USA has such a big problem with out of control power tripping cops. Who exactly is attracted by the possibility to legally put people in their place with guns and tasers?

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#684

Post by YorickPeterse » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

What I never understand with discussions about COCs is that a lot of people seem to act as if COCs are to blame for how they are enforced, and that this is somehow a new thing. Before COCs were a thing, projects would still arbitrarily enforce rules, and not always the right way. This is nothing new.

I personally applaud the idea of a COC, much like software licenses. It's just a bummer that a lot of people out there in a leadership position don't know how to fairly enforce them. It also doesn't help that many COCs are poorly written, much like when an engineer without legal experience tries to write a license. Hopefully this will get better with time.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#685

Post by pseudalopex » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #674

pseudalopex wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't speak for the Black Lives Matter movement.

You must admit this is very confusing. Which of those two groups are the good guys? Who does speak for them?

That's like asking who speaks for feminism, Occupy, or the gilets jaunes. They're decentralized.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#686

Post by Udik » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

What really annoys me of the post is that it resorts to exact the same emotional arguments that generated follies like CoC in the first place. "My emotional resilience was low"... "I tried to hold back tears"... Come on. You're an adult, someone disagrees with you for reasons that are entirely, perniciously wrong.

No need to dwell on your emotional state, just say that they are being idiots and tell them to fuck off- publicly. Enough with this crap.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#687

Post by scatters » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #382

moron4hire wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either that's already implied, A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe. It's continued assertions that bludgeoning people is the sole reason CoCs exist that make those people feel like they are being completely ignored. > or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it That is literally what I said. "And they are meaningless if the leadership is not train…

A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe But what does that even mean in the context of an open source project? How is anyone actually “unsafe” from someone who may be on another continent and have no idea where they live? The word “unsafe” doesn’t mean anything any more, it’s just used to silence debate. “I feel unsafe so you should merge my PR without doin…

Really, finding out where someone lives is not that hard, especially if they have a professional or social life. And you can do significant damage to someone's career without knowing where they live.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#688

Post by xibalba » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #95

It was clearly a mistake for him to even play along, especially if he was emotionally exhausted already. The best you can do when people are being stupid like this is ignore them. They hold no power over you unless you let them. This whole CoC thing is sadly fraught with virtue signaling psycho-sadists who enjoy playing tribunal. The people who actually cared about fostering inclusive human communities got bullied ou…

> The people who actually cared about fostering inclusive human communities got bullied out of positions of power long ago

This claim is made elsewhere in these comments. What is the actual story here? Who bullied who? When?

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#689

Post by pron » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #556

pron wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realise conference organisers can do the very same thing without a code of conduct, right? That a code of conduct can be used as an "oppression tool" doesn't mean that its absence doesn't lead to even more "oppression". If you want to compare the relative merit of two things, like having a code or not, you need to consider both sides rather than just point out the perceived downsides of one.

I'm curious how you think they would achieve the same without a Code of Conduct, the acquired public support and the pseudo-court-system that comes with it. Would you accept (or would one even send) an ad-hoc post-conference invite to 'talk about something you did wrong and how you should be punished' from a committee member?

Exertion of power does not require a pseudo-court-system and it can be exerted in the furtherance of fairness just as much as in its hindrance (people are also punished because there's no enforcement of some behaviour). Again, to discuss whether something is worth doing or not, you have to consider all the upsides and all the downsides of doing it as well as those of not doing it.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#690

Post by wgerard » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

chopin wrote: post #661

wgerard wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should CoCs even try to transcend the law Yes? Companies do this all the time with codes of conduct and nobody really thinks twice about it. Nobody would think it's bizarre that (hypothetically, I don't know what their actual rules are) Coca-Cola has a rule barring employees from wearing a "Pepsi > Coke" shirt to client meetings. > where we try to legislate for things that are in many cases subjective? We do this a…

>"Disturbing the Peace" is one example off the top of my head of something that's incredibly subjective that we consider the purview of the legal system. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. Good laws (especially criminal laws) should be normative, i.e. it should be deducible for anyone which behavior is punishable. Laws not adhering to this principle are ripe for selective enforcement and have no place in a rule-of-…

This is going off on a tangent obviously compared to the OP's point (that the legal system doesn't try to control for subjective behavior, which is incorrect), but sure, I'll indulge.

> That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I don't think this is a popular position, or even a necessarily logical one. There are a great deal of "I'm not touching you" type behaviors that society collectively despises and often falls under these catch-all categories.

Legal doctrine is rife with "reasonable person" standards as a result that would be impossible to codify thoroughly and properly. Obviously, the mythical "reasonable person" doesn't exist and is often a judge or jury left to subjectively decide.

For example, harassment laws sometimes rely on a "credible threat of violence" based on something that would "make a reasonable person afraid for their safety". Good luck enumerating all the possible definitions of that.