Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by basilgohar » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:32 AM UTC

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #277

undecisive wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my many misgivings about CoCs is their over-reliance on the unenforcable. This is an excellent example - because the original said exactly what needed to be said, but it wasn't being interpreted correctly. Instead of improving the wording, and saying something like "participants should always assume good intentions. However, intention does not make a person's actions immune from criticism, and while assuming g…

> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC. This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they're vague and unclear, then the only consistent principle is that the people who "enforce" the "rules" can do whatever they want and you have no recourse or due process.

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities.

But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.

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

#302

Post by praash » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:32 AM UTC

ergot_vacation wrote: post #197

It's time for people to start badging projects with a new style of CoC, one line: "No woke ideology allowed." That's it. No explanation needed. Those who pretend they don't know what the rule means, or protest, are in violation. The radical left has been co-opting every organization they can get their hands on and kicking out the "non-believers" for years. It's time the handful of sane people that are left band toget…

I like this idea when distilled a bit:

"No ideology allowed."

I'm just going to dismiss the second paragraph about angrily finger-pointing at an ambiguous political alignment, "them".

We need less polarization, thank you.

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

#303

Post by Jonnax » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:33 AM UTC

ergot_vacation wrote: post #197

It's time for people to start badging projects with a new style of CoC, one line: "No woke ideology allowed." That's it. No explanation needed. Those who pretend they don't know what the rule means, or protest, are in violation. The radical left has been co-opting every organization they can get their hands on and kicking out the "non-believers" for years. It's time the handful of sane people that are left band toget…

woke

adjective, Slang.(often used in the phrase stay woke) having or marked by an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil and human rights.

You seem nice.

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

#304

Post by Zababa » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:33 AM UTC

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #186

tomjen3 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also is an issue for all others. FX I don’t know if it is appropriate to say “you guys” to a mixed crowd anymore, but if I hadn’t seen that some people get upset about that I wouldn’t think twice about it and just emulated American movies. Buffy isn’t exactly sexist and she says it often and to a mixed crowd.

At least in English you have the neutral word "they". In french you only have the plural of "he" or "she". This means that when you point to a mixed crowd, you must choose which of the plurals you use. The grammatical rule is that one male flips the plural gender to male. If you do not know the sexes, the plural is male. As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kind…

The thing is, since we don't have a separate neutral in French, masculine is also used for neutral. Which means it isn't that weird when we use masculine for groups with women, as we also use genders for everyday objects. A desk is masculine for some reason, and a table feminine.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:34 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #169

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PR author elaborated further in the linked Twitter thread: he believes that a policy of assuming good faith is bad on its own merits because it tends to benefit white men. ( https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/144328685321023079... )

They quoted the start of a thread the author summarized saying it's bad because it gives cover to bad behavior. And can require people who recognize a pattern of bad behavior to persuade themselves they're paranoid. You might disagree. But those points have nothing to do with race or sex. And pointing out it's easier for people who face less bad behavior is about white men only incidentally.

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by BrandoElFollito » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:34 AM UTC

Bayart wrote: post #223

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in English you have the neutral word "they". In french you only have the plural of "he" or "she". This means that when you point to a mixed crowd, you must choose which of the plurals you use. The grammatical rule is that one male flips the plural gender to male. If you do not know the sexes, the plural is male. As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kind…

>As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kindergarten. This always sounded a bit weird, though. If you follow the grammatical history of French, the neutral gender just got folded into masculine. >but some innovative-but-not-distruptive changes would be welcome You can't really produce grammar by decree, at best you can systematize what already exists. The only "sa…

Like I said, I do not approve of the horrible ideas we have, with dots everywhere - this transforms words that are fine as they are. I am for simplification, though (nothing to do with the current topic, just a thought).

What I am missing are the concepts young people are bringing in more and more, where they have words that become unisex (potes for instance). I listen to my children and (without any scientific analysis), it sounds to me that there is less of a boy/girl cut that there was in my times (this may be regional - this is for west of Paris).

And I agree with you that only naturally appearing changes will stay, not the ones forced on us. A typical example are the surrealist ideas of the 90's to have French equivalents for everything computer. Some stayed, the majority is now part of comedies.

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

#307

Post by Zababa » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:35 AM UTC

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?

Protected class is used for the person on the receiving end of harassment, not for the nature of the harassment.

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

#308

Post by brabel » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:35 AM UTC

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #284

hiisukun wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differe…

People do believe it, because thinking that intent matters makes it impossible to defend their other position: that the most important thing is how the "offense" is received.

If intent matters (as you say, anyone with half a brain knows it does), then if you receive my comment as being offensive, I am still right because I didn't mean to offend you. What they want is to make sure they can tell me I'm wrong anyway because the person was offended... hence, my intention didn't matter.

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

#309

Post by undecisive » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:36 AM UTC

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #277

undecisive wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my many misgivings about CoCs is their over-reliance on the unenforcable. This is an excellent example - because the original said exactly what needed to be said, but it wasn't being interpreted correctly. Instead of improving the wording, and saying something like "participants should always assume good intentions. However, intention does not make a person's actions immune from criticism, and while assuming g…

> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC. This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they're vague and unclear, then the only consistent principle is that the people who "enforce" the "rules" can do whatever they want and you have no recourse or due process.

Sadly true. But I reluctantly stop short of attributing that nasty side-effect as a defining goal of the CoC movement, because - you know - I always try to assume good intentions :)

(Though, if you feel Hanlon's razor is a better motivator for you, I won't judge)

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

#310

Post by BrandoElFollito » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:37 AM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #304

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in English you have the neutral word "they". In french you only have the plural of "he" or "she". This means that when you point to a mixed crowd, you must choose which of the plurals you use. The grammatical rule is that one male flips the plural gender to male. If you do not know the sexes, the plural is male. As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kind…

The thing is, since we don't have a separate neutral in French, masculine is also used for neutral. Which means it isn't that weird when we use masculine for groups with women, as we also use genders for everyday objects. A desk is masculine for some reason, and a table feminine.

Well, to me saying "ils sont là!" when there is a crowd of 200 girls and one boy is still weird :) I would probably say "elles sont là!" despite it not being grammatical.

As for the genders of nouns, my native English French speaking friends are usually in pain.