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

Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 637 posts

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#41

Post by bawolff »

The new version

> "Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent."

Huh. That's interesting phrasing. I don't think i like it. Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent, the sticky point in human interaction and morality is to what extent do we take results instead of intentions into account when evaluating the morality of an action. The statement as is isn't saying anything about how we should interpret intent vs result just that we should acknowledge that its different.

I personally believe that codes of conduct (both this current trend, but also in the traditional meaning of the word) should be specific about what behaviour is wanted, otherwise its a meaningless platitude. This says nothing about how we should interpret someone doing something hurtful while not intending to (or claiming not to). Is that ok? Is it only ok if a "reasonable" person would make the same mistake? Is it ok if they haven't made the same mistake before? Something else?

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#43

Post by [deleted] »

eli wrote: post #35
zozbot234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?

No, many other rules would still apply including “Behavior which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.”

[deleted]

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#45

Post by tailrecursion »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #16
JakeAl wrote: post #10

[flagged]

It seems the intention is more about setting a higher bar for harassment against protected classes, rather than setting a lower bar for harassment otherwise

You're assuming good intentions on the part of the authors, but the impact is people will take away that harassment of those outside a protected class is OK. The intentions don't really matter here :-)

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#46

Post by dfgjnirf »

I thought this was a troll. I feel that the identifying of CEOs of big companies as a protected class may have been a tipping of the hat. There seems to be a common strategy by right wing accelerationists that involve masquerading as left wing and pushing things into absurdity.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#47

Post by taneq »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #16
JakeAl wrote: post #10

[flagged]

It seems the intention is more about setting a higher bar for harassment against protected classes, rather than setting a lower bar for harassment otherwise

If it's setting the bars at different levels then this seems to be a distinction without a difference (other than I guess indicating which direction the average bar height is moving?)

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#48

Post by throwawaybchr »

Aside from obvious cases of intentional abuse:

The world is filled with people who have different ideas about what is funny, what is offensive, what is fun, what is boring, etc.

On the internet it is expected to have a clash of cultures since people from different backgrounds are collaborating. There will naturally be well intentioned misunderstandings. Rather than creating a system that allows for these to take place peacefully without incident, any example of a joke gone wrong or a word out of place will result in an inquisition.

Why do so many westerners want to live like this? Constantly thirsty for purifying others. It seems to come from some kind of emptiness that must exist in one's life to be so obsessed over minutiae.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#49

Post by andrew_ »

ronsor wrote: post #24
simonsarris wrote: post #4

Almost more surprising is that this was removed: > When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. In favor of this: > Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent. Also changed yesterday: > Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. became: > Behaviour which ca…

These updates have a very nebulous definition of harassment. According to the new CoC, almost anything can be considered harassment. As far as the "intent and impact" of the intentions, assuming that someone acts in bad faith is a good way to turn a misunderstanding into actual hatred. Such a result should be considered worse than having to deal with a few bad apples who try to take advantage.

They're meant to further empower accusers and reduce burden of proof and remove the need for critical thinking, empathy, and nuance. Accusations equal guilt.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#50

Post by jonas21 »

eli wrote: post #35
zozbot234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?

No, many other rules would still apply including “Behavior which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.”

That's one of the rules they removed.
Post reply on HN