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

431–440 of 637 posts

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

#431

Post by geofft »

cnvlal wrote: post #211
geofft wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll. Some of these…

Can't wait for the Rust changes to be merged into the Linux kernel, so we have behavioral expert opinions on LKML, too!

Wow, I'm honored! I haven't been actively involved with that project for a long while but if it's making people mad enough to create throwaways, it means my work has real impact. Thank you <3

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

#432

Post by teddyh »

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…

Increasingly, the word and concept of “meritocracy” is seen as racist, since it denies due compensation for past and present institutional racism. Meritocracy is also seen as misogynist, following the same reasoning.

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

#433

Post by fallingknife »

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…

Number 2 is the absolute opposite of "woke"

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

#434

Post by jmd42 »

vultour wrote: post #413
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?

Yes, it's a joke. Or at least the person who submitted that (hmdne) is clearly trolling (you can tell from their comments in the original thread).

But the PR was still accepted in any case, so it looks like it went over the heads of the trollees.

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

#435

Post by sprash »

banannaise wrote: post #403
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.

Some high performers deliberately behave like assholes just to make a point that they are so skilled that people respect them despite their behaviors. It's a psychological thing. But I disagree that is does any damage. Everybody with minor social skills will figure out pretty quickly what kind of game is being played.

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

#436

Post by [deleted] »

skinkestek wrote: post #409
api wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..?

[deleted]

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

#437

Post by terracatta »

mlang23 wrote: post #401
fritzx6 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like you attended a poorly run conference that was not able to accommodate your disability and still refused to accommodate you after you were forced to self-advocate

All conferences I've been to are good about offering suggestions for near-by childcare or even on-site child care for all parents. If that wasn't offered, that's more evidence the conference wasn't run well. It's not appropriate to have a 1 year old babbling over a speaker giving a presentation and the organizers should have quietly spoke to the person caring for the child and removed them from the situation.

I don't think that has anything to do with CoCs.

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

#438

Post by jmd42 »

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?

The person who submitted that particular PR is trolling (clear from their comments in the original #2690 thread) - this was satire.

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

#439

Post by pc86 »

awb wrote: post #388
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…

> I fail sometimes following that rule and I don't deny it. We all have different definitions of being a jerk. So, do you take responsibility when you’ve crossed your own line, or when you’ve crossed someone else’s line?

Depending on the context you should take responsibility in both circumstances.

Crossing your own line is obvious. But you should still take responsibility when crossing someone else's if you feel they're acting in good faith / being reasonable about the offense, even if you disagree with them. And probably another caveat or two I can't think of off the top of my head.

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

#440

Post by eljimmy »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #234
eljimmy wrote: post #128

Seems like a poorly misinterpreted joke about how people will often mention a younger age for their birthday when they’re getting into their older ages? Is that the joke? If this joke is told by women more often than men (in my experience it is), is it sexist to point that out? Would this have received the same reaction if the joke was made by a woman? Some things to ponder, no doubt. However, in this day and age I p…

How about a joke in the context of saving money that said "Must've been done by a Jew" (my supremely limited interaction - with one person from Israel - was about him trying to get more money from the organization I was representing), would it be bigoted to point that out? For my taste that "must've been a woman" line was cringeworthy. He could've said "Well I guess someone doesn't want to grow old".

> How about a joke in the context of saving money that said "Must've been done by a Jew"

That's not really the same at all. The difference being one is a self-deprecating joke while the other is not.

To your second point, that's why I think it was a poor translation but I'm just guessing at this point. I agree on the cringe.

Post reply on HN