161–170 of 637 posts
Why does forcibly making communities more equitable, tolerant, inclusive, etc. feel like the community is moving more towards dystopia than utopia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Either way I think the question was warranted. Especially since the long passage from the Unabomber's manifesto they chose to quote when pressed for a response was rather illuminating regarding their beliefs.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-s…
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…
Obviously it isn't a binary situation with either intent or impact being the sole arbiter - so the baseline used in almost all situations is the 'ordinary' or 'objective' standards. These can vary depending on the environment and context, and are simply defined because they are hard to define across all scenarios.
I guess I find it surprising that a code of conduct like this should sway between intent and impact in quite so binary a fashion -- human behaviour isn't software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
The PR author elaborated further in the linked Twitter thread: he believes that a policy of assuming good faith is bad on its own merits because it tends to benefit white men. ( https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/144328685321023079... )
Furthermore they don't even have a solid definition of terms. Unsurprising.
Furthermore their arguments are based on their interpretations of law in California. Unsurprising.