311–320 of 637 posts
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"?
The change was pushed without asking Matz. I wonder if the strategy is the same as here: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/github-gendered-pronoun-deb... Push a change without asking a non-native English speaker, make that person upset and provoke a counter reaction, then start a major Twitter storm to discredit and possibly expel the non-U.S. peasant. Some of the names in that article appear on LKML in connection wit…
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/github-gendered-pronoun-deb...
> When another user, Isaac Schlueter, committed the change anyway,
Isaac "white men need no apply" Schlueter. This guy never resigned of any group he was part of, or NPM leadership when he said some objectively racist comments... rules don't apply to them...
The people who push these "codes of conducts" are the one harassing others and codes of conducts give them a way to harass other developers into ideological submission without being punished for their harassment tactics, because CoC are written in such away that if you're not following the intersectional ideology then you are fair game.
All that had never had anything to do with programming, it's purely partisanship. And if you don't cave, harassers are relentless because they have their own massive internet mobs on social media, a well oiled ideological war machine.
> That's common sense. We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class. Uh… is this a troll? Like other commented said, this feels like a anti-CoC thing or an extreme case of Poe's law, at least.
> A protected class is a group of people that has been historically discriminated or a group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination - but that's not all. For example the People of Color are a protected class, because of slavery. Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause. The non-heterosexuals are a protected class, because of discrimination. Women are a protected class obviously. I don't know how to better define it. The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition.
> Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause.
I don't want to debate the race/gender stuff as it's pointless, but "member of board of director of big corporations" is a protected class? Has this always been a thing that I wasn't aware of? This doesn't seem to be a joke, although it sounds like one.
By the same person:
> if they are not a protected class, they will lose that right, yes. That's California Core Corporate Policies in work. And we enacted them.
What's going on here? Why is Ruby adopting the "California Core Corporate Policies"? Again by the same person:
> That's common sense. We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class.
That might be just me but I feel like something sinister is happening. Open source, adopting guidelines to protect "members of board of directors of the big corporations"? I'm not trying to say that these people are bad, but do they really need protection on the same level as gender/race minorities? Why is the discourse centered around one specific Californian policy? What incidents are they preventing by adopting these rules? Stuff like the recent criticism of Amazon for trying to "take over" Rust? Again, that might be paranoia on my part, but this sounds fishy.
Edit: okay, it seem that this guy was trolling. Funny that he's trolling in the discussion but still got changes in because they were considered good. That's a beautiful way to demonstrate what actually matters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 w…
I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important.
I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided.
Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings).
The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?
Earlier 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.
Have you watched any television?
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.
It relies on the reader to have already known that "intent doesn't matter, only impact" and anyone could actually interpret it as the opposite, especially if their culture already thinks that intent is the more important thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4chan /pol/ does this stuff all the time. The OK as white power sign, the Free Bleeding movement as just a few off the top of my head. But then there are antifastonetoss which I'm pretty sure are actually fans of stonetoss using a loophole to avoid getting banned. These people cannot operate in the open and have found other ways to operate. I can't tell if it fits the Ruby CoC case. I'm just keeping an open mind to t…
but white supremacists including those on 4chan /pol/ have used OK as an actual racist sign. That may not be the dominant meaning of the symbol but it is one that exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like it or not, the ameri-centric views spill around the world causing tensions and misunderstandings. In countries with practically no colored people and no history of slavery certain things seem a bit ridiculous if imposed on the whole community.
Which countries do you think have no slavery in their history?
(and those who actively deny its existence /s)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.