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

361–370 of 637 posts

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

#361

Post by simiones »

bitwize wrote: post #254
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'…

> Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? The GNOME CoC gleefully states they will ignore complaints of racism against whites and sexism against cis men because "we prioritize the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups".

That's not what that line means at all. That line means that an argument like `let's stop using gender-neutral language in our documentation, it's easier to just say "he" instead of "the user"` won't fly: this type of argument prioritizes the comfort of a privileged group (males) over the safety/well-being of a marginalized group (women and non-binary people).

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

#362

Post by Jensson »

goodpoint wrote: post #262
josephcsible wrote: post #173

- Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. + Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated. That change sure seems a lot like it's saying "we're now okay with harassment as long as the person you're harassing isn't a member of a protected class". Isn't that then adding abuse-enabling language, not removing it?

A lot of trolls use the strategy of painting themselves as victims for being unable to harass minorities.

The old rules didn't allow harassing minorities.

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

#363

Post by raxxorrax »

brabel wrote: post #297
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #199

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?

How many people in the OOS community or elsewhere did you meet that were in favor of enslaving people. Sometimes it is necessary to ask naive questions to determine if you dig yourself into something.

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

#364

Post by ezconnect »

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…

Why is there a protected party? Why can't everyone be protected only a few?

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

#365

Post by zivkovicp »

mlang23 wrote: post #357

I realize CoCs were introduced to make certain supposedly marginalized groups more at home at conferences. But my personal experience/feeling is the complete reverse. I am a member of a minority as a person with a disability. In all the years I was interacting with the community, I haven't had a single issue with someone I couldn't handle myself. I never felt uneasy interacting with others. But the day I saw the firs…

Yep, it's like participation trophies; in the end everyone's a loser.

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

#366

Post by sdfkljs »

mlang23 wrote: post #357

I realize CoCs were introduced to make certain supposedly marginalized groups more at home at conferences. But my personal experience/feeling is the complete reverse. I am a member of a minority as a person with a disability. In all the years I was interacting with the community, I haven't had a single issue with someone I couldn't handle myself. I never felt uneasy interacting with others. But the day I saw the firs…

I had similar experience. Went to an art installation run by group of young lefties, and upon entering they say: “if you see any racism or sexism, you should come to us and report it”.

I was taken aback and immediately felt uncomfortable. Why did they need to say this? Do they have a problem with racism and sexism? Which would have been unusual because it was a lefty place.

The real question is does any of this stuff need to actually be said?

My view is it just provides cover for powerful people to take out their enemies based on rule interpretations and technicalities.

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

#367

Post by raxxorrax »

Zababa wrote: 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…

> Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause.

If you still buy into this hogwash at this point, I don't know what to tell you...

There must sell some real strange dope in California. Honestly, with all this strive to professionalism, this is on the whole extremely childish behavior.

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

#369

Post by simiones »

ungamed wrote: post #355
gbanfalvi wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" It's quite common to have someone express a personal opinion that they themselves don't interpret as harassment (e.g. because they don't belong to the group they're talking about, they see no issue with the way they talk or maybe they might be upset) only to be incredibly surprised and defensive w…

> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" How can you possibly read any possible minds. Even if you can predict the 'reasonable' person, outliers can take offence and you don't know what can offend them. People can and do take offence at anything. This leaves two possible solutions. 1) Eventually fuck up. 2) Immediately leave the commun…

The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake.

For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA who knows the history of this phrase may take offense. If the person from the USA feels that this may have been an attack, they should be free to raise this issue, and the person from Eastern Europe should apologize for making them uncomfortable, even if it was unintentional. As long as they do this, no further harm should happen to either person.

However, if the person who made the comment refuses to apologize/explain, or keeps repeating this comment since "to me it's not offensive, it's just a joke/reference" etc, then this should be considered a problem and someone with authority should intervene.

Similarly, if the person who took offense refuses to accept the mistake after an apology or explanation was given, then once again someone with authority should intervene and correct this error on this other side, as it unnecessarily creates a hostile working environment.

This is the intended reading of that line. Of course, that line can also be mis-applied by immediately punishing the person from Eastern Europe in my initial example.

Note: I used "person from Eastern Europe" in my example because that is where I am from, and because I have personally seen others around me using references to US culture without knowing the full context in just this way, without ill intent but in ways which would probably shock someone who assumes that the context is well known (for example, casually addressing peers using rap lyrics containing the infamous N-word).

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

#370

Post by gbanfalvi »

jwond wrote: post #299
gbanfalvi wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" It's quite common to have someone express a personal opinion that they themselves don't interpret as harassment (e.g. because they don't belong to the group they're talking about, they see no issue with the way they talk or maybe they might be upset) only to be incredibly surprised and defensive w…

With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all. There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense wher…

Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups.

There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.

> The only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all

It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.

> There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense where none could reasonably be presumed to have been given, and to blow minor transgressions out of proportion.

People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent. Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?

Post reply on HN