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

211–220 of 637 posts

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

#211

Post by cnvlal »

geofft wrote: post #72
nemetroid wrote: post #13

What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…

I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll. Some of these…

Can't wait for the Rust changes to be merged into the Linux kernel, so we have behavioral expert opinions on LKML, too!

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

#213

Post by js8 »

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?

Honest question - are young or old also a protected class? I disagree that CoC clauses should be based on protected classes only, because I think there are possible types of discrimination that should be addressed in CoC.

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

#214

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

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'…

CoCs themselves, and the wider identity politics culture war, are also extremely Ameri-centric.

> the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class?

There is a subset (I like to think that they're the fringe, but have no numbers to back that up) of those who engage in identity politics who do believe that bigotry does not apply when the target is the dominant demographic.

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

#215

Post by conradfr »

sarlalian wrote: post #17
calvinmorrison wrote: post #12

.

How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?

Oh how far we have strayed from the early Internet.

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

#216

Post by saba2008 »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #126
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.

I still can't get over this. The word master has like 10 definitions and because one of them is part of a distasteful part of history that has nothing to do with the way it was used in this context, they inconvenience everyone.

>is part of a distasteful part of history

...of one of the english speaking countries

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

#217

Post by rich_sasha »

koonsolo wrote: post #185

I think this is a big difference between US and EU. In EU we like to joke around, tease each other, and not get fired over that. When we tell a sexist joke with a woman present, you will get a witty reply from them, not a call to HR. I hope this US bullshit stays in US. Seems that EU women are not victims but can stand their own ground.

I think I'm realising this might be a bit of a male point of view (European here). Sometimes women put up because they feel they have to. But I agree with the general point. Banter is banter, jokes are jokes. Boundaries are boundaries.

Jokes around "haha women are less smart and do the dishes" are not OK. A joke about moving your birthday because you're a woman, not so funny but wow so not sexist.

"Be nice" is the long forgotten good rule of Internet behaviour, and "if you meant to be nice but weren't, apologise" a close second.

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

#219

Post by saba2008 »

umvi wrote: post #141

Why does forcibly making communities more equitable, tolerant, inclusive, etc. feel like the community is moving more towards dystopia than utopia?

Because it's good-old trick of making vague and overreaching rules, so anybody could be declared guilty and thus maximizing power of people who apply these rules.

But history repeats as comedy, so thankfully no firing squads and killing fields this time.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] »

not2b wrote: post #94
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit buried in the GH discussion, but someone else posted it here: "Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)" If I were in charge of a community or mailing list, I would kick the person who wrote that off. But I simply don't see how (a) the existing rules didn't do enough to cover this, or (b) the changes will resolve those issues without causing other problems.

As I understand it, some people who want to make sexist jokes on the mailing list with impunity pointed to the language about tolerating opposing views to claim that their desire to belittle women on the mailing list must be tolerated. Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance edit: evidently someone thinks this comment is worthy of a downvote. I…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN