Does it apply to Crystal too?
Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
251–260 of 637 posts
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#252I 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 thi…
s/sux/sucks
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#253What'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 don't think it's a sockpuppet - I read it as a criticism via satire.
The idea is that any rule you apply should be done fairly and, where that isn't clear, equally.
So as an example. If I say "Pepsi tastes like cow urine", and a corporate shill from Pepsi who has built their self-worth around the company and spent most of their life defending themselves from the usual Pepsi-bashing jokes by bullies telling them that Coke is better, and maybe they fall into some protected class and maybe they don't.
Now, their complaint is valid and their hurt is real. But the intent of the original comment was not to bash this person (or corporation) - it was the spirit of valid criticism.
If the intent is removed from the evaluation of the rules, nobody is safe from those who would manipulate the rules and pretend to be the hurt party to the benefit of a corporation.
[Note: I've re-read everything that person said, and now even I'm not sure. It feels to me like highly honed satire, and if it is, hats off to them, though they've maybe forgotten that a large portion of the Ruby team is not natively English speaking - hence their PR got accepted. If it isn't satire... well, they're not gonna read this, so it would be a wasted education]
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#254Almost 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'…
> Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class?
The GNOME CoC gleefully states they will ignore complaints of racism against whites and sexism against cis men because "we prioritize the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups".
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#255Earlier 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.
[deleted]
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#256Almost 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…
Yeah - no longer assuming good intentions is a weird thing to change. I guess it makes it easier to claim bad intentions?
It makes sense to be objective rather than assuming good intentions.
Assuming good intentions enable troll to engage in endless sealioning.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 demo…
> CoCs themselves, and the wider identity politics culture war, are also extremely Ameri-centric.
An idea can be both a good one and political. And indeed a good idea while Ameri-centric.
The risk is that this might be a status play by authoritarians, who very rarely have good ideas and typically do a lot of damage once they get in to power. I suspect actual minorities & protected classes are more worried about authoritarians than racist jokes. If they aren't they should be.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
White men, identified by race and sex, are legally a protected class. People with small hands are not, unless the smallness of their hands is considered a disability.
We've got a lot of lawsuits on our hands then.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's really hard to generalize a group on that level unless you're on the outside looking in.
There's plenty of jokes about man-bun and skinny jean wearing hipsters floating around. There's plenty of jokes about white trash floating around. I'm not sure what a joke about white dudes in general is going to look like barring the obvious case where you generalize a joke about white trash or hipsters to all of them. It's going to be very hard for a group of mostly white dudes to joke effectivly about white dudes because as members of that group they all see that group in higher resolution than that.
Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC
#260I 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 that EU women are not victims but can stand their own ground.
So you're saying that US woman are victims and can't stand their ground, and if any of them are present it's their responsibility to make witty replies, instead of the men present calling out the person who made the sexist remark regardless of whether or not there are any women present.
The great thing about these discussions is that the sexist pigs come out of the shadows and chose this hill to die on, so now we all know who they are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=calvinmorrison
>i write for shock value, if you are shocked, thank you!