Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#151

Post by klodolph »

Clewza313 wrote: post #121
klodolph wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? That's a loaded question... it looks like you're making some wild assumptions about whether I think Stallman is toxic, and the reasoning for that. > Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody. So,…

I'm asking you a genuine question. I note you didn't call RMS out by name, but you certainly seem to be imply it. Re: the article you shared, I didn't really see much evidence either way there? It's clear that RMS is, to put it mildly, "difficult to like", but there's a big difference between that and being straight up abusive, particularly given that it seems quite obvious that the mens rea is missing: as far as I c…

> I'm asking you a genuine question. I note you didn't call RMS out by name, but you certainly seem to be imply it.

I don't think the question is interesting or relevant, so I'm not answering it. I explained that I considered the question to be a loaded question. If you want me to answer a question, you will have to ask a different one.

> ...as far as I can tell, most of the time RMS genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive.

Someone who genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive should not be at the head of an organization like the FSF. "Mens rea" is a term from criminal law. It's used for figuring out the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example. It's not relevant to figuring out whether you are good or bad at your job.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#152

Post by dudeinjapan »

prvc wrote: post #46
seebs wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fascinating take, but I don't think it's particularly related to what actually happened. I wasn't toxic because of some Microsoft FUD, I was toxic because I was a teenager with low empathy who hadn't learned things yet. I grew out of it. Lots of people in open source were never particularly toxic, and there's no reason they should have been. Even granting the existence of the external stress (and it really w…

>I was toxic because I was a teenager with low empathy who hadn't learned things yet. I grew out of it. Participation in political mobs can serve as a surrogate replacement for empathy. A change in political allegiance is far easier to enact in an individual than a change in personality.

Deep insight. Seriously. Happening across society.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#153

Post by klodolph »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #132
klodolph wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree. While people do misuse the word, it has meaning and can be figured out from context.

The problem is that the meaning blends together subjective offense and a desire for professional sanction in a way which makes the term very hard to actually engage with. Challenging whether some particular behavior is toxic comes across as nitpicking, while challenging whether people should get in trouble for toxicity comes across as minimizing legitimately bad behaviors.

> Challenging whether some particular behavior is toxic comes across as nitpicking, while challenging whether people should get in trouble for toxicity comes across as minimizing legitimately bad behaviors.

There are strategies to challenge accusations of "toxic behavior" without coming across as nitpicking. These strategies can be learned, and if you are worried about this scenario, I suggest you learn them. It is a great tragedy that dispute resolution and effective communication are poorly taught in school. These strategies are not difficult to learn, but it is much more effective to learn them in person. If you know someone who is effective at mediation and dispute resolution, see if you can ask them to demonstrate techniques and strategies for you.

There are also books. I personally recommend Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg and Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, et al. Nonviolent Communication may seem a bit hokey and the book is a bit padded out but I vouch for its effectiveness.

In the context of organizations like the GNU project, one of the ways to keep discussions about behavior sane is to have some kind of formal dispute resolution process. This can be done with a code of conduct. Here is the Python project's code of conduct as an example: https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/

Asking whether people should get in trouble for "toxicity" is kind of vague, because the term "toxic" is vague and mired in opinion. That is okay. We need vague words because we need the ability to communicate vaguely. "Vague" is not the same thing as "meaningless".

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#154

Post by oaiey »

mjg59 wrote: post #84

Any writeup of this that concentrates on external responses and ignores the strong response from many within the communities that RMS led is failing to tell the complete story. There's no shortage of people extremely familiar with his work and behaviour who felt his continued involvement was inappropriate, but instead we're exposed to story after story about how a group of people pushing a one sided narrative unjustl…

In 2019 I read a statement that within the MIT media labs every women actively avoided him. That is maybe not enough to "cancel" him but speaks a clear message also.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#155

Post by etchalon »

The article goes out its way to ignore the allegations of Stalman's behavior, choosing the easier to defend ground of ambiguous, or easily misunderstood, posts, so that it can mount its premise on the "wrong-think!" criticism of cancel culture.

I suspect it's less meant to be "persuasive" than it is meant to be defensive.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#156

Post by danielheath »

bill_mon wrote: post #135
klodolph wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is just an attempt at explaining away toxic behavior without taking responsibility for it. People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I know people who take it as a badge of honor to "speak the truth", "speak directly", or "have no filter". Speaking directly and speaking the truth are good ideals to have, but if you really want to PROVE that you speak the truth and don't fear…

> Take Mr. X, who is outraged by Microsoft's behavior and refuses to buy Microsoft's products, tells other people about his problems with Microsoft, and tells everyone to use FOSS alternatives? Now, Mr. X also thinks that it's stupid to believe in god, and is not afraid to say it to everyone he meets. He's suddenly changed from "FOSS advocate" to "toxic workplace on legs". What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensi…

This hypothetical Mr X is going to take all of a week to get the entire helpdesk & IT procurement team (and every religious coworker) to avoid him and his need to criticize some aspect of their lives.

That's "toxic" because now you have a staff member who people won't communicate effectively with.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#157

Post by google234123 »

_euac wrote: post #101
google234123 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Dave Chappell's (or any other comedian's) jokes led to other people being harassed and led them to question their safety? Should they be "cancelled" and erased from society?

There's a whole gaping chasm between Dave Chappelle - a world-famous comedian - making what is clearly a joke on a stage and some anonymous person posting edgy white supremacist shit 'for the lulz'. In case you haven't been following the news, that's the kind of radicalization tool that resulted in a not insignificant amount of the population believing that QAnon was real and that storming the capitol and killing a p…

Alright, so only world-famous comedians can make jokes about race. How about religion? Are "normal" people allow to mock/joke about that topic without being cancelled?

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#158

Post by oaiey »

wyldfire wrote: post #9

> Activists quickly found his reputation for asking women out and making jokes about “EMACS virgins." I'm all in favor of believing victims of sexual harassment and assault. Those claims are so very rarely made falsely that they should be taken very seriously. But what about claims that a man/woman made sexual jokes or "inappropriate" innuendo? Certainly they can be cause for concern if the accused is someone who has…

He was actively avoided by the women of the MIT media Lab. That speaks a lot just by itself.

Flirtation is game around boundaries. When you overstep once, society/the woman will look over it. If you do all the time you will be labeled and avoided. Maybe he applies his stubbornness to everything in life. Which can have outcomes from the awesomeness of a FSF, to isolation or to a lifelong sentence in a prison. Depends a lot on what you are stubborn on.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#159

Post by klodolph »

bill_mon wrote: post #135
klodolph wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is just an attempt at explaining away toxic behavior without taking responsibility for it. People in the OSS community can, at times, glorify toxic behavior. I know people who take it as a badge of honor to "speak the truth", "speak directly", or "have no filter". Speaking directly and speaking the truth are good ideals to have, but if you really want to PROVE that you speak the truth and don't fear…

> Take Mr. X, who is outraged by Microsoft's behavior and refuses to buy Microsoft's products, tells other people about his problems with Microsoft, and tells everyone to use FOSS alternatives? Now, Mr. X also thinks that it's stupid to believe in god, and is not afraid to say it to everyone he meets. He's suddenly changed from "FOSS advocate" to "toxic workplace on legs". What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensi…

> What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensible points of view and you think Mr. X is dangerous to be around?

Not sure where the word "dangerous" comes from.

Just to explain things. If you tell people at work that it's stupid to believe in god, you are probably going to get fired, and rightly so. It's not dangerous, but it is toxic (belittling people for their religious beliefs).

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#160

Post by oaiey »

spurgu wrote: post #21
wyldfire wrote: post #9

> Activists quickly found his reputation for asking women out and making jokes about “EMACS virgins." I'm all in favor of believing victims of sexual harassment and assault. Those claims are so very rarely made falsely that they should be taken very seriously. But what about claims that a man/woman made sexual jokes or "inappropriate" innuendo? Certainly they can be cause for concern if the accused is someone who has…

Yup, it's called flirting only if you're attractive.

That is so wrong on multiple levels.
Post reply on HN