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

281–290 of 637 posts

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

#281

Post by praash »

phone8675309 wrote: post #59
zkldi wrote: post #6

Not a fan of the "you should educate yourself" retort whenever people ask for definitions. It happens in that Github thread over what a "protected class" entails.

Can't educate myself if you don't give me a pointer. That said, "please help me understand" is sometimes a bad faith tactic to claim ignorance of basic empathy.

The community CoC is about to change and the person sincerely wishes to understand what is going to change and why. I myself try my very best to keep my words respectful and productive. I could see myself asking the same question when faced with such a confusing situation, because I'd sincerely try to respect the new guidelines.

Harassment is never okay and I find it problematic that the entire GitHub thread seemed hostile with a toxic mindset where if you don't fully agree on the actions being taken, you're assumed to not understand the intentions behind them. You're treated like an ignorant fool, who needs to "go educate themselves" and get "woke". Productive discussion seems forbidden. You can become a troll by claiming anyone else to be a troll whenever they disagree.

You had no bad intentions yourself and I agree that way too many people do lack a basic sense of respect, but please avoid making such condescending statements if someone could be sincerely asking others to clarify their thoughts.

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

#282

Post by grumple »

> And while we are at it, maybe also we should correct this rule:

> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. To become something like (what do other posters think? Can we make it even stricter?):

> * Behaviour which can be considered harassment will not be tolerated.

> The law should always protect the victim, not the perpetrator.

Yikes. So I'm a victim if I say I am, even if that's unreasonable given the circumstances?

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

#283

Post by projektfu »

occamrazor wrote: post #209
david38 wrote: post #180

Earlier 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.

It's true. Protected classes are people of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. For example, an airline in the US that wanted to hire only female flight attendants would likely face a lawsuit from male candidates.

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

#284

Post by MadeThisToReply »

hiisukun wrote: post #168
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…

In Australian law, and I'd imagine generally in many other countries, intent is a big part of judging a wrong. But of course, it's possible to cause harm without intending to, so there are other things to consider. Common phrases are 'reckless disregard', 'willfully ignorant', 'negligent' or sometimes 'lack of consideration' (which is different to intent). Obviously it isn't a binary situation with either intent or i…

> intent is a big part of judging a wrong

As well as being a bedrock principle of the law, it's also basic common sense. If I accidentally step on your toe, that's obviously different to me deliberately stamping on your toe in an intentional attempt to injure you. If you set out to deliberately injure your colleagues then this is OBVIOUSLY different from doing the same thing accidentally and should be treated differently - and anyone with a working brain can see this.

The idea that "intent doesn't matter" is preposterous. Accepting it as a premise leads to insane and preposterous conclusions that no-one believes. People who say that "intent doesn't matter" don't actually believe it.

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

#285

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

oh_sigh wrote: post #100
bawolff wrote: post #41

The new version > "Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent." Huh. That's interesting phrasing. I don't think i like it. Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent, the sticky point in human interaction and morality is to what extent do we take results instead of intentions into account when evaluating the morality of an action. The s…

It's just laying out exactly what you seem to agree with, and that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results. Someone might say "you look really sexy today" and intend it as a compliment, but even if it is a compliment it almost certainly isn't going to be received as one.

What about "That shirt looks really good on you"? Is it a compliment or the receiver may think you just want to rip it off them and have sex on the desk right there and then??

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

#286

Post by Ekaros »

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?

Going to details it look like they aren't making changes that are more equitable, tolerant or inclusive. Or that really those words don't mean anything what they meant anymore.

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

#287

Post by MadeThisToReply »

bawolff wrote: post #41

The new version > "Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent." Huh. That's interesting phrasing. I don't think i like it. Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent, the sticky point in human interaction and morality is to what extent do we take results instead of intentions into account when evaluating the morality of an action. The s…

> Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent

You haven't been paying attention - the (preposterous) idea that "intent doesn't matter, only impact" is a key premise of modern social justice activism and is taught to undergraduates as unquestionable fact.

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

#288

Post by torstenvl »

harlekein wrote: post #225
jonas21 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was removed in a follow-up PR, "Remove abuse enabling language pt. 2", which is linked to from the first: > Encouraged by the quick success of this PR, I made #2691 with another small change. One step at a time at fixing the world :) https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2691

These insufferable people think they're actually fixing things with this bull shit.

Ah, well, but remember... intent doesn't matter...

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

#289

Post by bsagdiyev »

krageon wrote: post #236
andrew_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "bad faith actor/tactic" argument is a dismissive mechanism to justify overreaction.

> dismissive mechanism Yes, it is. It is meant to dismiss trolls. > to justify overreaction Trolls should be banned, because they are poison to a community. As such, it is not an overreaction to use a mechanism like this.

I don’t have hours every day to research every little thing. You want to be an ambassador for your views? Provide context and references.

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

#290

Post by MadeThisToReply »

saba2008 wrote: post #216
hallway_monitor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you mean "of literally every country in the entire world".
Post reply on HN