Equality once meant tolerance and acceptance of differences. Now it means if you disagree with me, you're a leftist or a trumper or a thisthatortheotherphobe.
Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
51–60 of 637 posts
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#52Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#53And another project skews into the digital manifestation of an HOA [1]. May the next generation put an end to this madness. [1] Home Owners Association, for those outside the U.S. and unfamiliar with the term.
I feel like your comparison is unfair to HOAs.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#54This github links to a twitter thread about rationale for the change which mentions a sexist joke that was in the ruby mailing lists but doesn't link to it. I feel like I've read entire news articles about kinds of events like these where no one will actually show what was said. We're just supposed to agree it was really bad sight unseen. Here's my guess at the joke at the core of this for anyone wondering: http://bl…
I was trying to actually look for the sexist joke, couldn't find it anywhere.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#55This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?
Things that seem like they ought to be common sense sometimes need to be said explicitly, especially in large organizations that communicate mainly over the internet. I know at least one person who feared for her personal safety for awhile because she became a focal point of a large internet argument about how members of large open-source project ought to treat each other. I think most high-visibility projects have people with similar stories.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#56This github links to a twitter thread about rationale for the change which mentions a sexist joke that was in the ruby mailing lists but doesn't link to it. I feel like I've read entire news articles about kinds of events like these where no one will actually show what was said. We're just supposed to agree it was really bad sight unseen. Here's my guess at the joke at the core of this for anyone wondering: http://bl…
It's mentioned (quoted) in the github thread. It was a "joke" about women and age. Date.today Date.today +1 # no error, but wrong result! # Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)
I’m literally shaking.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#57.
Last time I participated in a discussion about adding a CoC to a project it boiled down to people just not liking that it's called a Code of Conduct. They agreed that we needed a basic set of rules etc for moderation purposes but opposed having a CoC, but they were fine as long long as it wasn't called a CoC. I neglected to point that out to them.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#58I 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.
> There seems to be a common strategy by right wing accelerationists that involve masquerading as left wing and pushing things into absurdity.
Or does there? The truly disturbing aspect of so many things like this is that (as per Poe's Law) it's impossible to distinguish cynical mockery from earnestly-held extremism.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#59Not a fan of the "you should educate yourself" retort whenever people ask for definitions. It happens in that Github thread over what a "protected class" entails.
Can't educate myself if you don't give me a pointer.
That said, "please help me understand" is sometimes a bad faith tactic to claim ignorance of basic empathy.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#60Almost 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…
Yeah - no longer assuming good intentions is a weird thing to change. I guess it makes it easier to claim bad intentions?
Having a position of always assuming good intentions can be gamed by people with bad intentions.