Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

171–180 of 637 posts

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

#171

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…

Also, now mods don't have to tolerate opposing views. :)

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

#172
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - no longer assuming good intentions is a weird thing to change. I guess it makes it easier to claim bad intentions?

Having a position of always assuming good intentions can be gamed by people with bad intentions.

It also is an issue for all others. FX I don’t know if it is appropriate to say “you guys” to a mixed crowd anymore, but if I hadn’t seen that some people get upset about that I wouldn’t think twice about it and just emulated American movies. Buffy isn’t exactly sexist and she says it often and to a mixed crowd.

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

#173
- Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

+ Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated.

That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class". Isn't that then adding abuse-enabling language, not removing it?

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

#174

- Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. + Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated. That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class". Isn't that then adding abuse-enabling language, not removing it?

> That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class".

With the exception of a couple special exceptions (for federal employment law, these exceptions include age over 40 and veteran status), “protected classes” in US antidiscrimination law (the source of the term) are actually axes of discrimination where everyone is a “member” of one defined by each axis (race, sex, religion—including none, etc.)

So while it is ambiguous exactly what classes are involved (because the set of protected classes varies depending on context and jurisdiction), its pretty clear that the change is not about the person not being member of a protected class, but the basis of the harassment not being an axis that defines such a class.

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

#175
Out of interest do any of the people in the Twitter threads or pulling these commits actually write code?

Not busy work like documents, updates, even testing.

Actual code?

Generally these are things are outside trouble makers. Not coders.

Not sure with Ruby, but it seems worse than others.

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

#176

- Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. + Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated. That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class". Isn't that then adding abuse-enabling language, not removing it?

> That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class". With the exception of a couple special exceptions (for federal employment law, these exceptions include age over 40 and veteran status), “protected classes” in US antidiscrimination law (the source of the term) are actually axes of discrimination where everyone i…

> its pretty clear that the change is not about the person not being member of a protected class, but the basis of the harassment not being an axis that defines such a class.

Sure, but isn't harassment something that should never be okay, not something that should be okay as long as the basis isn't an axis that defines a protected class?

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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

Troll or not, he was supported by those people.

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

#180

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…

So if a woman accused a while man of having “small hands” for having some opinion, that’s not sexual harassment because white men are not a protected class?
Post reply on HN