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

411–420 of 637 posts

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

#411

Post by sprash »

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…

No jokes allowed. Those CoCs are installed by paid assets in order to stifle and reduce the participation rate in FOSS projects. They poison the mood and create division so that voluntary participants leave and those holes then can be filled with corporate agents.

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

#412

Post by banannaise »

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.

That's a highly disingenuous framing. A better framing would be "intent is not a sufficient excuse for impact".

Intent is not meaningless, but unintentional harms need to be remedied by understanding the harm and working to change the behavior. If someone commits an unintentional harm repeatedly, it ceases to become unintentional, because the refusal to learn is deliberate.

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

#413

Post by vultour »

d3d1rty wrote: post #410

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 tha…

There is a second PR that was merged: https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2691

This has to be a joke right? We're now at a point where the rules clearly say you can be harassed if you're not a protected class?

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

#414

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

One of the issues with how these things are handled:

* good faith is assumed of the CoC writers

* bad faith is assumed for people who oppose/criticise the CoC

such that:

* any opposition (or criticism) to the CoC is itself an offense

a pretty chilling and despotic approach, worsened still by the fact that the individuals behaving in this way mightn't even have any real authority or approval in the first place, and very little in the way of response to feedback outside some small ideological group (very much talking about the covenant here).

these actions are usually justified with the kind of arguments that fallaciously treat groups of people as homogeneous "identities", in effect a multi-generational rob[bing] Peter to pay Paul.

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

#415

Post by vlunkr »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #360
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…

The code of conduct is like HR. It’s there to protect the powerful, not to protect you.

How does it protect them? as far as I can tell they do absolutely nothing. If someone is misbehaving at a conference or online, you're already free to kick them out without a clause like this in your code of conduct.

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

#416

Post by mlang23 »

3pt14159 wrote: post #390
fennecfoxen wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code of conduct is like HR. It’s there to protect the powerful, not to protect you.

I was the original author of the Pycon Canada Articles of Association back when we were starting it, which included a section on conduct and inclusivity. A code of conduct is not there to protect powerful people. It's not there to browbeat people into being absolutely politically correct 100% of the time either. A code of conduct is something you put together so that everyone involved in the initial organization look…

It looks like you cant execute one of the common CoC rules. Assume good intentions. I dont need to look at a CoC of a conference, because, you know, I am living these ideas: I actually assume good intentions, so I dont need a CoC to assure myself.

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

#417

Post by kragen »

krageon wrote: post #236
andrew_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "bad faith actor/tactic" argument is a dismissive mechanism to justify overreaction.

> dismissive mechanism Yes, it is. It is meant to dismiss trolls. > to justify overreaction Trolls should be banned, because they are poison to a community. As such, it is not an overreaction to use a mechanism like this.

I would really appreciate if you didn't post things like this under a name that looks like mine.

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

#418

Post by skinkestek »

kkoncevicius wrote: post #379
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…

That person is likely just making a fun of it. "California Core Corporate Policies" - take every first letter - CCCP, which is a Russian abbreviation for the Soviet Union.

I assumed sarcasm/trolling because board members were singled out as a protected group, but with Californians (hi there friends, I'm obviously not talking about anyone of you reasonable ones who suffer under it) being Californians and not having seen CCCP referenced in a long time I overlooked that.

That was one of the more brilliant ones :-D

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

#419

Post by angelzen »

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #284
hiisukun wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australian law, and I'd imagine generally in many other countries, intent is a big part of judging a wrong. But of course, it's possible to cause harm without intending to, so there are other things to consider. Common phrases are 'reckless disregard', 'willfully ignorant', 'negligent' or sometimes 'lack of consideration' (which is different to intent). Obviously it isn't a binary situation with either intent or i…

> intent is a big part of judging a wrong As well as being a bedrock principle of the law, it's also basic common sense. If I accidentally step on your toe, that's obviously different to me deliberately stamping on your toe in an intentional attempt to injure you. If you set out to deliberately injure your colleagues then this is OBVIOUSLY different from doing the same thing accidentally and should be treated differe…

Speaking of 'you stepped on my toe', that is a classic schoolyard bully line.

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

#420

Post by sprash »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #231
ergl wrote: post #101

> 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.

It's probably a troll. Man, the passionated bikeshedding over CoCs in some communities and even in here, with many extremist viewpoints from both sides, makes me glad I'm not really attached to any community. If they're stupid, why should I spend the emotional energy? Just walk away.

That's the whole point of CoCs: divide and conquer. As a result people "Just walk away". Assets paid by Microsoft, IBM, Salesforce and Google are pushing this.
Post reply on HN