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

401–410 of 637 posts

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

#401

Post by mlang23 »

fritzx6 wrote: post #382
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…

It's definitely a difficult balance to strike, to provide guardrails for diverse groups of individuals, that ensure everyone can behave and be treated civilly. I applaud you for your ability to stand up for yourself in moments of discomfort or where you feel others are being mistreated. Unfortunately, not everyone is as confident or as self-advocating as you, and a CoC can help protect those who are more likely to we…

And all the virtue signalling apparently leads to people like me, who are adults and can very well stand for themselves, not attending such conferences anymore. I truely think that people who are not willing or able to defend themselves in a social setting have bigger problems then FLOSS conferences. They have skipped a part of growing up. I feel sorry for them. But I dont agree that we should plaster everything with pseudo-laws to give them a false sense of security.

So it is apparently ok if the mentally weak feel welcome, and those which have learnt to defend themselves no longer showing up because they dont feel at home? Great, reminds me of one of the last interactions I had in a conference setting. Small children in the conference room. As a blind individual, I really rely on hearing what the speaker says. I cant just look at the slides. I already knew it wouldnt go well, but I tried to discuss the issue. At first, I heard some sympathy for my point of view. And 2 hours later, the same person didnt want to stand up for the issue anymore. So I guess womens right to bring their 1 year olds everywhere they want was trumping the needs of a disabled person attending the same conference. Thanks, I am done with this hypocrity.

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

#402

Post by dnh44 »

koonsolo wrote: post #185

I think this is a big difference between US and EU. In EU we like to joke around, tease each other, and not get fired over that. When we tell a sexist joke with a woman present, you will get a witty reply from them, not a call to HR. I hope this US bullshit stays in US. Seems that EU women are not victims but can stand their own ground.

Here is a little hint. These women don't think you're funny. They are humouring you. Most likely they've heard all the jokes before and they think you're boring at best or an asshole at worst.

Imagine for a moment that your name was Seymour Butts and then imagine how bored you'd feel by the people that continued to make the same lame jokes about your name, as adults in a professional environment.

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

#403

Post by banannaise »

okeuro49 wrote: post #386

I raised my eyebrow at a statement in one of the comments in the PR. "This is so that a harasser won't be able to use a meritocracy argument, which as we all know, is dehumanizing..." I don't follow this at all. A meritocracy is what we want to achieve: it doesn't matter about the colour of your skin, sex, or orientation, if you can generate code of merit, then if there is a meritocracy, you should earn the respect o…

The problem is high performers using their performance to justify abusive behavior, either implicitly or explicitly. A 10x engineer who is also an asshole (or a predator) can easily do enough damage to counteract all of his productivity.

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

#404

Post by awb »

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?

From the PR: https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690

> @hmdne commented yesterday

> @Try2Code 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.

Side note: anyone follow what this means? “Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause.”?

> @peterc commented yesterday

> Since California has been mentioned, I'm guessing these: https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes

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

#405

Post by pelasaco »

api wrote: post #376
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…

If people see a lot of cops in a neighborhood, they start to suspect there is a lot of crime. Seems like a variation of this. "If this community really needs a CoC, maybe it's actually full of bigots and assholes."

The variation of your example would be:

"If this community introduces a CoC, all participants start to suspect there were some incidents involving bigots and assholes in the community"

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

#406

Post by Locke »

I wish we responded to situations more proportionally.

In this case, someone made a joke about women not liking to reveal their true age as they get older. It's a boring cliched joke. Something I've heard too many times in my life (and, most often from women). Is it sexist? I can see the argument. Is it professional to make such a joke on a ruby mailing list? I don't know, perhaps not.

Does it warrant responses like "Knock that bullshit off." or "you made an ass of yourself"... I don't know. Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation. Maybe even worse than the joke itself? I don't know.

Then, folks take the discussion to github and twitter (and, eventually reddit and hn). Presenting only their verdict: "A newer member made a sexist joke, and was called out on it as being inappropriate." No links to the joke. No evidence that the joke is sexist. This makes it so much easier to imagine something really bad. No, we just get a verdict and we should all rise up against this sexism (which absolutely is bad, of course). Let's get our pitchforks. This amplifies one side of the argument and shuts down any useful conversation. Worse, it's used to rush through a CoC change without allowing any thoughtful discussion.

Is this reaction proportional to the original joke? Is the reaction itself exemplar of how we would like to conduct ourselves?

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

#407

Post by eitland »

api wrote: post #376
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…

If people see a lot of cops in a neighborhood, they start to suspect there is a lot of crime. Seems like a variation of this. "If this community really needs a CoC, maybe it's actually full of bigots and assholes."

Same with the sign on a certain airport I visited a number of times as a service engineer:

There was a hand full of cash with a stop sign over, obviously it meant "we do not accept bribes".

But for me it meant "this place have or have recently had a serious problems with bribery".

Same with: "We do not spit on the floor in this building".

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

#408

Post by banannaise »

josephcsible wrote: post #176
dragonwriter wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". With the exception of a couple special exceptions (for federal employment law, these exceptions include age over 40 and veteran status), “protected classes” in US antidiscrimination law (the source of the term) are actually axes of discrimination where everyone i…

> its pretty clear that the change is not about the person not being member of a protected class, but the basis of the harassment not being an axis that defines such a class. Sure, but isn't harassment something that should never be okay, not something that should be okay as long as the basis isn't an axis that defines a protected class?

This helps with the common abuser's refrain of "I'm being harassed by everyone piling on to call me out for my [repeated, abusive] behavior!"

That's not on an axis of protection, so that argument is easier to dismiss as not germane to the code of conduct.

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

#409

Post by skinkestek »

api wrote: post #377
ho_schi wrote: post #371

Please tell me that this Code of Conducts are all jokes? I've developed a fragile and basic rule which I try to follow: Don't be an asshole. I fail sometimes following that rule and I don't deny it. I struggle to become better but keep going. Of course you could extend this by "Help others, when appropriate", "Be nice to each other", "Use common sense", "Pardon others", "Don't be a d***", "Don't be a b*****" but that…

> Don't be an asshole. A whole lot of the reasonable parts of "woke" boil down to a few things: (1) Don't be an asshole. (2) Don't meddle in the affairs of others if those affairs do not concern you. (3) Evaluate other people from first principles and starting with a positive assumption, and check yourself for subconscious biases against groups of people that you might have picked up without really thinking about the…

Did you miss a word or something:

If this was part of being woke it wouldn't be considered a slur by anyone..?

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

#410

Post by d3d1rty »

There was no such change. Here is the diff: -keep this list hospitable to the growing ranks of newbies, very young people, and their teachers, as well as cater to fire breathing wizards. :-) +keep this list hospitable and safe for everyone.

- When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. +Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent.

The changes were made in response to sexist comments on the mailing list; they had nothing to do with "opposing views".

Post reply on HN