Why does forcibly making communities more equitable, tolerant, inclusive, etc. feel like the community is moving more towards dystopia than utopia?
Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
141–150 of 637 posts
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#142Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#143Twitter has made everyone neurotic and negative... e.g. very sensitive to perceived insults. Anyway, the same people that push these changes are some of the most hateful people on twitter towards people on the right of the political spectrum.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#144This 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?
Because some marginalized people perceive an implicit bias and veiled offensiveness in all manner of communication within those they regard as part of some sort of hegemony. If there’s a vehicle for applying restraint or discipline or humiliation, it will be exploited for reasons often vindictive or speculative.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a very "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Snark is not an inappropriate response.
It is inappropriate if you want to convince people of your viewpoint, which is what I stated. The aptness with respect to other goals could vary of course.
This is a casual conversation, not a trial. Refusing to treat inappropriate questions seriously discourages more questions like that in the future, which is also a solid goal.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#146Almost 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…
Regarding the "good intentions" change, the explanation in the linked twitter thread makes sense to me: in some contexts, assuming good intentions is a way of excusing bad behavior. It's hard to agree on the exact boundary between enabling a jerk and making an issue out of nothing. But the old "assume good intentions" policy does sound to me uncomfortably similar to "if you're offended it's your own fault". Which is…
I don't know. Assuming good intentions is an advice for you, so you don't get offended. And assuming good intentions doesn't justify the impact. Even if you assume good intentions of a driver, if he drove badly and did some damage he is still responsible for the damage. Assuming hus good intentions doesn't change anything. Skill, following the rules and effect are what matters when it comes to judging.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#147Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
thinking the same thing. this infantilization by these grown adults are pretty weird. why is virtue signaling spreading everywhere?
Because some marginalized people perceive an implicit bias and veiled offensiveness in all manner of communication within those they regard as part of some sort of hegemony. If there’s a vehicle for applying restraint or discipline or humiliation, it will be exploited for reasons often vindictive or speculative.
See this guy gets it when others don't. The Radical Left has a victim mentality, always whining about systemic injustice to get what they want. When will conservatives wake up and realize that every aspect of this code of conduct is designed specifically to oppress them?
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
.
I have no clue what you talk about TBH.
Not laughing about something that one does not find funny but at the same time also dont cry or have a mental breakdown isnt really a political concept. Its what just about everyone does and we should not pay attention to thous few who dont.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#150A lot of the Codes of Conduct (especially the Ruby one) stem from activism by Coraline Ada Ehmke[0] For those who don't know her, quite an interesting person. She was notoriously fired from GitHub after a year after being hired to work on their anti-harassment platform. [0] https://where.coraline.codes/
Oh yeah, wasn't she the instigator of "Opalgate"? Seems like she has a chip on her shoulder and this is her life's work (to go around bullying projects that don't have stringent enough CoCs into submission)