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

Post by dnautics » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:29 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #157

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jo…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:35 AM UTC

zuminator wrote: post #113

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by thiht » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 7:15 AM UTC

zuminator wrote: post #97

dnautics wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I think is odd is that "protected classes" language is a highly us-legal-system-centric concept.

The exact phrase "protected class" is particular to the US but the concept isn't particularly so. The UK has "protected characteristics," Canada has "protected grounds," as does the European Union in Article 14 of the Convention on Human Rights. Australia has "protected attributes." Frankly it's pretty US-centric to imagine that a general human rights concept such as protected classes of people is US-centric.

Post by ergot_vacation » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 8:28 AM UTC

Post by hdjjhhvvhga » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 8:46 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #71

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…

Isn't protected class an american legal term? Seems weirdly ameri-centric for a document of this nature. Not to mention that gay people weren't even a protected class in the usa until last year afaik. Not exactly a very inclusive definition. Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? I appreciate minorities get a lot of shit that others don'…