Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

341–350 of 637 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But...like...just say no? Am I missing something? If the current CoC covers offensive jokes like the one in question, then simply assert that the CoC covers it and be done with it. If someone is willing to go through the CoC with a fine tooth comb, they're likely going to find something they could potentially use to defend themselves. Just say no! The changes open up so much interpretation that anyone could use it to…

> just say no It is somewhat of a modern cultural failing that we cannot moderate without having a CoC to point to and say "see? You're bad, it says so here". A good moderator can make the value judgements necessary to keep a community relatively healthy. For some reason a lot of folks have forgotten a CoC does not change that at all.

I think that the problem is that some people read CoCs as essentially _legal documents_; and thus attempt to act as CoC lawyers. Thus the "I'm allowed make sexist jokes with impunity because Ruby's constitution says that opposing views must be tolerated" take.

Obviously, CoCs generally aren't written as foolproof legal documents, and there's no caselaw or court system, so this is kind of absurd. But one approach to rules-lawyering is always to tighten the rules to remove the loopholes that are being exploited, so... Personally I think it'd be better to add language emphasising that the CoC is merely a _guideline_, and that the moderators are judge, jury and executioner.

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

#342

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.

The objection is literally that the proposition benefits "mostly-white, mostly-male" people, so don't stand there and say it has "nothing to do with race or sex." For shame.

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

#343
post #39
post #8

This github links to a twitter thread about rationale for the change which mentions a sexist joke that was in the ruby mailing lists but doesn't link to it. I feel like I've read entire news articles about kinds of events like these where no one will actually show what was said. We're just supposed to agree it was really bad sight unseen. Here's my guess at the joke at the core of this for anyone wondering: http://bl…

It's mentioned (quoted) in the github thread. It was a "joke" about women and age. Date.today Date.today +1 # no error, but wrong result! # Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)

Ok, so unfunny sexism. Why not just tell the user to stop it? I do not see why this required a rules change.

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

#344

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…

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…

The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Somehow these people also tend to be the ones who have their pronouns in their twitter bio. Am i the only one noticing that correlation?

it is the depiction of in-group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

Modern tribalism at it's finest

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

#346
post #314

From the discussion of the PR: > 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 t…

> Why is the discourse centered around one specific Californian policy?

The same person calls it “universally accepted corporate values” in one of the previous comments.

I guess it's Americans again ignoring the existence of other places on Earth with their cultures and views on things?

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

#347

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…

Yeah, I love how these people pushing CoCs love harassing and discriminating against non-Americans.

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

#348

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…

Exactly. The moderators need to be better.

A reasonable moderator should flag a joke as this as not appropriate in professional conversation without any CoC changes:

  # Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)
When they say “there will be no jokes”: a joke told by professionals in professional setting might have different meaning than originally intended.

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

#349

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…

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…

FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.

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

#350
post #33

And another project skews into the digital manifestation of an HOA [1]. May the next generation put an end to this madness. [1] Home Owners Association, for those outside the U.S. and unfamiliar with the term.

Are you saying that the Ruby community is trying to ban Black people? Where did you get that idea? What exactly is your point? https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/homeowners-... >When homeowners associations were first created, they helped keep Black people out of the neighborhood. They're still doing it today. >Homeowners associations exploded in popularity in the 1960s as suburb development was booming…

No, but it seems they want to ban non-Americans. These CoCs are very hard to understand for anyone not familiar with US politics.
Post reply on HN