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

151–160 of 637 posts

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

#151

Post by pseudalopex »

dragonwriter wrote: post #134
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?

> “Protected class” means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. “Protected class” is an (American) legal term, with situation-specific definitions. (It means different things in federal employment law, federal public accommodation law, federal fair housing law, and the various states employment, public accommodation, and fair housing laws of each of the States.) It is entirely unclear what it means in the Ruby CoC,…

Or a troll.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712977

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

#152

Post by arthurcolle »

JadeNB wrote: post #127
arthurcolle wrote: post #95

Opposing view: GitHub's changing of `master` to `main` as the name of the default remote branch was not necessary and a huge waste of time for all parties involved.

What does this have to do with the discussion, unless as an illustration of what an "opposing view" could be, which surely no-one had trouble imagining?

This has a lot to do with the discussion.

The consensus seems to have gelled (few years ago, give or take a few years?) around every single open source project needing to have a specific "community guidelines" document - it was the new vogue established over the past few years by the body politic, and this lead to various promoters of new social paradigms to rename things that were taken at face value, i.e. "master-slave" in the context of database client-server architectures, or "master" branch as primary branch, etc.

These changes are trivial in retrospect, but contextually, the reversion of "participants will be tolerant of opposing views" seems to validate the notion that maybe excessive discourse around social mores aren't appropriate within the substructure of "writing new code that works, backporting features that are useful for others, etc"

The conflating of social justice goal-setting and software development is a swing and a miss, and if that's not completely clear by the context then I just want to apologize for stating what seems obvious to an external observer.

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

#153

Post by bawolff »

zozbot234 wrote: post #22
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…

"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?

> "Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status

Only american vetrens. Screwing with canadian vetrens is still fair game according to this CoC i guess.

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

#154

Post by morpunkee »

User23 wrote: post #69
taneq wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was wondering if some of the weirdness is machine translation from Japanese. Anyone know?

We don't know the nationality of this hmdne guy, possibly Arabic.

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

#155

Post by seattle_spring »

morpunkee wrote: post #98
geofft wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Apparently this mailing list comment triggered this reaction: http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

I tried really hard to follow the threading in that but I came away being completely unable to parse it, at least on mobile. What was the attempted "joke"?

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

#156

Post by scotty79 »

google234123 wrote: post #143

Twitter 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.

Is it just Twitter? I think Facebook has its role too.

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

#157

Post by lazide »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #129
zuminator wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They're part of a class but no, not everyone is "legally" protected. Short people are not a legally protected class, hence why it's possible to have height restrictions in certain employment roles (in the US at least). But that kind of underscores why "legally protected class" really doesn't make sense for a CoC. Like yeah short people aren't legally protected...but any good CoC should prohibit harassment and abuse a…

As someone else mentioned in another thread - it depends. There are definitely legal protections for being a CERTAIN KIND of short, for instance (such as Achondroplasia).

The law focuses on reasonableness of accommodations and the actual job needs, so for instance you can't discriminate based on height if it is a legitimate medical condition and there is the option of reasonable accommodations - say it's a cashier job, and stool would be perfectly fine and adequately allow them to do the job.

If there is no reasonable accomodations, say because the job is not being a cashier, but being a basketball player, and stools or other devices don't help adequately enough to be competitive, then you could discriminate all you wanted on that condition.

The issue of course is a lot of people can't untangle their own prejudices and ideas of what it takes to do a job or who should be doing it enough to even legitimately articulate the ACTUAL requirements to do a job, and tend to spew a bunch of half though out stereotypes, so they run afoul of it pretty regularly. And the gov't (and labor market) MOSTLY lets them unless they're pretty big.

Putting 'legally protected classes' in the CoC is pretty ridiculous, since there are a ton of different definitions depending on context.

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

#158

Post by [deleted] »

morpunkee wrote: post #98
geofft wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Apparently this mailing list comment triggered this reaction: http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

[deleted]

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

#159

Post by morpunkee »

seattle_spring wrote: post #155
morpunkee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently this mailing list comment triggered this reaction: http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

I tried really hard to follow the threading in that but I came away being completely unable to parse it, at least on mobile. What was the attempted "joke"?

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

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

#160

Post by throw0101a »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #86
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.

.

For anyone wondering:

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto

Post reply on HN