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

241–250 of 637 posts

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

#241

Post by gwagon »

interactivecode wrote: post #230
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.

Seems more like you knowing it's a sexist joke should be enough reasons not to make it. I sincerely hope you agree that intentional bigotry has no place anywhere. It's sexist regardless if woman are present. People are victims even if they stand their ground.

Oh no. Someone might be offended. Call the stasi!

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

#242

Post by krageon »

temp8964 wrote: post #2

This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?

I find a community having a CoC is generally a good indicator of it not being a good idea to participate in it. Which is a little tragic, given that the underpinnings (naive and toxic as they are) do not come from a bad place.

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

#243

Post by gwagon »

josephcsible wrote: post #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?

As long as it's only towards white men, you're good.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

sigzero wrote: post #39
jhhh wrote: post #8

This github links to a twitter thread about rationale for the change which mentions a sexist joke that was in the ruby mailing lists but doesn't link to it. I feel like I've read entire news articles about kinds of events like these where no one will actually show what was said. We're just supposed to agree it was really bad sight unseen. Here's my guess at the joke at the core of this for anyone wondering: http://bl…

It's mentioned (quoted) in the github thread. It was a "joke" about women and age. Date.today Date.today +1 # no error, but wrong result! # Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by krageon »

parroty wrote: post #148
itisit wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some marginalized people perceive an implicit bias and veiled offensiveness in all manner of communication within those they regard as part of some sort of hegemony. If there’s a vehicle for applying restraint or discipline or humiliation, it will be exploited for reasons often vindictive or speculative.

See this guy gets it when others don't. The Radical Left has a victim mentality, always whining about systemic injustice to get what they want. When will conservatives wake up and realize that every aspect of this code of conduct is designed specifically to oppress them?

> The radical left has [...]

Please don't spread us-vs-them politics. It's bad enough to know you have it, it will not become more healthy if you infect other people with it too.

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

#246

Post by mpfundstein »

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…

i am so done with OSS communities.

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

#247

Post by watwut »

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.

> When we tell a sexist joke with a woman present, you will get a witty reply from them, not a call to HR.

As a woman working in Europe, those sexist jokes sux. It sux to be in a team where you have to listen to it in the regular. It is tiring to have to be constantly prepared with "witty replies", just because collogues are dicks and need to pick on my gender.

Yes, I tell them off or am witty depending on what I think harms me the least of the two. But the situation itself sux. Working in teams where I dont have to be on guard and dont have to waste time strategizing this is so much better.

It also sux that quite a few people really do want the message behind the joke to be true. Whether they fully believe or sorta kinda believe.

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

#248

Post by jrootabega »

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"?

Guy reports a behavior where date math doesn't return the result he expected and jokes that it might have to do with how women don't like to admit when they're aging.

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

#249

Post by watwut »

cybrox wrote: post #233
interactivecode wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems more like you knowing it's a sexist joke should be enough reasons not to make it. I sincerely hope you agree that intentional bigotry has no place anywhere. It's sexist regardless if woman are present. People are victims even if they stand their ground.

Every joke relates to something or someone who is potentially offended by it. By this logic, you have to ban humor.

So lets start making white men jokes in those teams on the regular. And no, in real life, I did not seen all that many of those.

There is situation in which everyone mocks everyone. But the situation described here is that some people are valid target of jokes and others simply dont.

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

#250

Post by bsagdiyev »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #234
eljimmy wrote: post #128

Seems like a poorly misinterpreted joke about how people will often mention a younger age for their birthday when they’re getting into their older ages? Is that the joke? If this joke is told by women more often than men (in my experience it is), is it sexist to point that out? Would this have received the same reaction if the joke was made by a woman? Some things to ponder, no doubt. However, in this day and age I p…

How about a joke in the context of saving money that said "Must've been done by a Jew" (my supremely limited interaction - with one person from Israel - was about him trying to get more money from the organization I was representing), would it be bigoted to point that out? For my taste that "must've been a woman" line was cringeworthy. He could've said "Well I guess someone doesn't want to grow old".

I say that all the time and I’m Jewish, so I think it’s more about whether the intention was offensive or genuinely meant as a joke.
Post reply on HN