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

521–530 of 637 posts

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

#521

Post by naasking »

phone8675309 wrote: post #59
zkldi wrote: post #6

Not a fan of the "you should educate yourself" retort whenever people ask for definitions. It happens in that Github thread over what a "protected class" entails.

Can't educate myself if you don't give me a pointer. That said, "please help me understand" is sometimes a bad faith tactic to claim ignorance of basic empathy.

> That said, "please help me understand" is sometimes a bad faith tactic to claim ignorance of basic empathy.

Not all empathetic responses are justified, nor are they shared or universal even within the same culture. That's why humans have literally devoted millennia to the study of ethics.

I think any response to these scenarios that suggests we just need to apply empathy is deeply ignorant of basic facts of ethics and human psychology. I understand people try to game the system with these tactics, but that sort of response is not a solution.

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

#522

Post by oh_sigh »

bawolff wrote: post #138
oh_sigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just laying out exactly what you seem to agree with, and that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results. Someone might say "you look really sexy today" and intend it as a compliment, but even if it is a compliment it almost certainly isn't going to be received as one.

Is it laying that out? I think you have to significantly read between the lines to get there. > what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer. If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all. "you look really sexy today" isn't wron…

> It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context.

And what if you're not a "reasonably acculturized" person?

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

#523

Post by chobytes »

Locke wrote: post #406

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…

Even if its uncool, I agree that that response is uncalled for. I feel like the "dunking" style of social media activism has really become mainstream in wildly inappropriate situations.

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

#524

Post by koonsolo »

dnh44 wrote: post #402
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.

Is that why they always sit at the "funny guys" table during lunch?

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

#525

Post by angelzen »

p2t2p wrote: post #298
jrootabega wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't have made the joke, myself, but it's also not really insulting to anyone. It's not saying that women are bad at math, or that women broke date arithmetic to seem younger, it's just referencing that phenomenon. What about a joke where adding weights resulted in quantities too large, and it's suggested that it was written for dudes who want to say they can bench press more than they really can?

Same, I find this joke to be inappropriate in professional settings. May be it doesn’t offend anyone or may be it does, you never know.

I'd rather that joke were not made. There is a difference though between a discreet 'not a great moment' and public 'absolutely inacceptable [and we should hound the poor sap out of all gainful employment opportunities for life]'. A classic management principle is 'praise in public, criticize in private'. While the joke was was indeed inappropriate, the public reaction was 10x worse.

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

#526

Post by mLuby »

taeric wrote: post #400
3pt14159 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is your "once in a blue moon." This can easily read as, "arbitrary time where we don't have any other justification for kicking out someone we dislike." For the truly terrible people, you really shouldn't need a code of conduct to kick them out. An assumption of good behavior is a decent assumption. For abrasive people that you don't want to deal with, things get harder if they are just difficult in good…

> For the truly terrible people, you really shouldn't need a code of conduct to kick them out.

Good point, often overlooked. Though I hear the creak of an opening door to "we just don't like you" culture-fitting exclusion.

Written policies separate, by both time and person, rule creation from rule enforcement. That disconnect gives both the policymakers and enforcers CYA protection:

  The rule I wrote wasn't intended to be used this way.
  If it were up to me… but it's not, I just follow the rules.

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

#527

Post by throwaway894345 »

vlunkr wrote: post #519
arp242 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In my experience this kind of stuff is extremely counter-productive. It puts people in the defensive, and remember, you haven't actually said anything: you only gave them a (somewhat ru…

So in the name of being inclusive they're bullying someone who is not a native English speaker for not knowing the nuances of political correctness in a foreign culture? Cool cool.

This happens so often one wonders if "inclusivity" is an actual goal of some of these people, or if it's a sort of an ideological trojan horse.

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

#528

Post by chobytes »

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…

Agreed. Im a member of certain popular to discuss categories, and Ive never really felt like this stuff was actually for people like me.

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

#529

Post by _-david-_ »

aphistic wrote: post #515
speeder wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you wrote made me go check the joke... and found out actually I disagree with you. The joke was that the bug could be caused because it was written FOR a woman, not BY a woman.

So still misogyny.

Do you believe any joke about women is misogyny? What about a joke about a male?

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

#530

Post by awb »

pelasaco wrote: post #444
zozbot234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Interesting, that "Age (over 40)" are cited as "Protected class". So people over 40, which feel harassed by many of these "new rules" can actually do something about it?

I think anyone can report anything they don't like.

It's more that insults against people over 40 (or that reference people over 40) will be taken seriously, where as insults against/referencing 20 year olds apparently won't be.

So, I'm assuming "ok boomer" would not be OK, but "ok junior" would be.

From reading the comments, it sounds like it's actually self-described "non-protected" folks that are proposing these rules. And the incident started with some male developers getting upset about a joke/insult about females.

Post reply on HN