This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?
thinking the same thing. this infantilization by these grown adults are pretty weird. why is virtue signaling spreading everywhere?
Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
81–90 of 637 posts
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#82Almost 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…
"My views on verbal abuse are summarized on [verbal abuse platform]."
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#83This 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 ;)
That’s a mild “ha ha” kind of joke I’d expect to see on a joke-a-day cartoon calendar.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#84[deleted]
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#85Almost 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…
This just seems to be establishing proper boundaries? I don't know what specifically motivated this PR, but I assume something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning .
> I don't know what specifically motivated this PR
It's mentioned in passing a couple of comments in. To highlight it (because it's easy to miss):
"I watched a group of people use these specific phrases to justify making sexist remarks over a communication channel that falls under these guidelines."
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#86Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one of the rules they removed.
No it isn't? It's unchanged in the linked PR.
It was changed later.[1]
[1] https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/commit/7e96640e1ca...
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one of the rules they removed.
No it isn't? It's unchanged in the linked PR.
"Also changed yesterday"
The line about protected classes is not in addition to a general rule against harassment, or emphasizing that kind of harassment in particular, it replaced that rule.
There is a separate rule against personal attacks, but is that rule supposed to take over harassment in general? That sort of makes sense in a vacuum, but then it leaves the exact meaning of the 'harassment against protected classes' rule kind of confusing. What does harassing a class mean exactly, and can you harass a non-protected class?
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#89Almost 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…
[flagged]