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

331–340 of 637 posts

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

#331

Post by hamilyon2 »

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #287
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.

Is naiive consequentialism to the spirit of "oucome justifies means" really that popular?

I ask because the law, legal system and even democratic values as we know them are built on very different principles.

We definitely punish theft, burglary and fraud even if outcome giving to poor is seen as preferrable.

We dont punish legal tax shenanigans and some shady philanthropy, even if outcome is poor.

And when democratic majority is in favor of some stupid and harmful policy, we campaign against it, but still obey democratic majority.

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

#332

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

Really developing backwards on all accounts. This is a purity spiral. If you allow it to infect your community, you can be sure it will at some point consist of toxic people that feel slighted on every opportunity they can get.

This is exactly why many people were not really open to COCs because this is an eternal battleground with creeping behavior expectations because of some unsolved personal problems.

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

#333

Post by jeltz »

wccrawford wrote: post #317
MadeThisToReply wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What amazes me is that the CoC doesn't actually say that. It just says they're different . 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.

Yeah, the legal tradition and mostly the morals of my country is based on intent is the only thing which matters. So a reasonable assumption for me would be that is a reminder that impact does not matter.

I doubt that is what they mean but it is very far from clear, especially in an international context. Many of these CoCs are virtually impossible to understand unless you have at least a cursory understanding with contemporary American politics. Very inclusive ...

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

#334

Post by nonameiguess »

basilgohar wrote: post #301
MadeThisToReply wrote: post #277

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…

This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.

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

#335

Post by raxxorrax »

undecisive wrote: post #267
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…

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…

What is a higher standard of behavior exactly? More formal? More informal? What goal does it have? Fundamental Christians have a pretty high standard for behavior, I doubt this is the goal.

This is an undefined spiral to infinity mainly relying on de jure expectations.

Sexism - the believe that on sex is supreme to the other is already redefined to mean anything suggestive.

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

#336

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#337

Post by lsiebert »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #214
bawolff wrote: post #71

Earlier 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…

I've never seen anybody suggest that you can't be bigoted against a dominant group.

I have seen it suggested that specific terms like racism and sexism are not generic terms that apply to any sort of discrimination along racial, ethnic or in the case of sexism along gender lines, but apply specifically to actions that maintain or reinforce the power of dominant groups and existing privileges and positions that advantage them, and that trying to expand those terms to describe all discrimination serves to obfuscate and minimize the existing structural and institutional power disparities.

Or to analogize, if my boss hates me, that's probably a big problem for me and my work. If alternatively hate my boss, that's not really a problem in the same way for my boss. I can't fire them, or decide what projects they can work on. They aren't the reverse of each other, because the power dynamic isn't the same.

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

#338

Post by raxxorrax »

undecisive wrote: post #315
basilgohar wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint. 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 adop…

> I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good

Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.

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

#339

Post by jeltz »

not2b wrote: post #94
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit buried in the GH discussion, but someone else posted it here: "Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)" If I were in charge of a community or mailing list, I would kick the person who wrote that off. But I simply don't see how (a) the existing rules didn't do enough to cover this, or (b) the changes will resolve those issues without causing other problems.

As I understand it, some people who want to make sexist jokes on the mailing list with impunity pointed to the language about tolerating opposing views to claim that their desire to belittle women on the mailing list must be tolerated. Maybe they should point to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance edit: evidently someone thinks this comment is worthy of a downvote. I…

I down voted you because I felt your comment was off topic to the comment you replied to. I do not see any reason the old CoC or no CoC at all would have preventing banning that user. Just because you should assume good intent does not mean you cannot ban or give a talking to user who make sexist jokes. I see no paradox of tolerance here.

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

#340

Post by sethammons »

js8 wrote: post #213
zozbot234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Honest question - are young or old also a protected class? I disagree that CoC clauses should be based on protected classes only, because I think there are possible types of discrimination that should be addressed in CoC.

Age over 40 is a protected class
Post reply on HN