Earlier quoted context omitted.
.
You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.
It was a very "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Snark is not an inappropriate response.
Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
111–120 of 637 posts
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
It's really odd to make fundamental rule changes to respond to things like that rather than carving out exceptions for sexist remarks specifically if those are the problem.
'This section shall not be interpreted to defend any communication reasonably seen as sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory' is much clearer than changing from 'assume good faith' to 'assume nothing, intent doesn't matter as much as impact. '
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I think is odd is that "protected classes" language is a highly us-legal-system-centric concept.
Even more than US-centric, the commenters in the GH discussion explicitly refer to California laws. The internet is not California, regardless of what the technologists who live there would like to believe. (to be clear, I'm completely in favor of protecting people from harassment and abuse, though I strongly disagree with reserving that only to legally protected classes).
Everyone is part of a legally protected class. For example, you oughtn't discriminate on the basis of marital status. Regardless of who you are you have a marital status, either single, married, divorced, widowed, etc. Or you ought not discriminate on the basis of race. Whether it be white, mixed race, ginger, etc. So while it might be the case that being a member of a minority is a particular instance of a protected class, we all fit into various classes, and the idea is that none of us should face harassment or discrimination based upon our membership therein, regardless of what it may be.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You should put on a jacket
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#115Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#116.
How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?
Let me explain.
See, first people were irate that the code of conduct existed at all, they felt that having a definition of harassment was bad because "some people get offended at everything". Then they were angry when that definition was narrowed, because they felt that it didn't protect them enough.
Obviously, the code of conduct is the only thing in common here, so that must be the problem.
Remember, the code of conduct is bad because "some people" make it their business to get offended all the time - that could have a chilling effect on discussions! That's why we need freedom warriors to protect us with over-the-top vitriol and hyperbole every time a code of conduct is brought up.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think that's a reasonable perspective. As demonstrated by the incident here, the specific term "Code of Conduct" tends to attract people who don't like to be tolerant of opposing views and don't think it's appropriate to assume good faith. If you want to maintain those standards, which have traditionally been seen as necessary in online communities, it's probably best to use alternative terms which don't have that…
[deleted]
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit buried in the GH discussion, but someone else posted it here: "Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)" If I were in charge of a community or mailing list, I would kick the person who wrote that off. But I simply don't see how (a) the existing rules didn't do enough to cover this, or (b) the changes will resolve those issues without causing other problems.
As I understand it, some people who want to make sexist jokes on the mailing list with impunity pointed to the language about tolerating opposing views to claim that their desire to belittle women on the mailing list must be tolerated. Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance edit: evidently someone thinks this comment is worthy of a downvote. I…
But...like...just say no? Am I missing something? If the current CoC covers offensive jokes like the one in question, then simply assert that the CoC covers it and be done with it.
If someone is willing to go through the CoC with a fine tooth comb, they're likely going to find something they could potentially use to defend themselves. Just say no!
The changes open up so much interpretation that anyone could use it to kick out people for all sorts of silly reasons.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right. Definitely stupid and probably a stretch to call it sexist. Would something like this really get you banned from a mailing list?
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#120.
How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?
How about not laughing about an "offensive joke" them? If you dont find it funny it wasn't for you. The jokes where not made to make you cry they where made to make people laugh it just doesn't fit your humor.