Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC • Hacker News Board

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

#531

Post by vlunkr » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #527

vlunkr wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think about this blog post from the creator of redis whenever some thing like this comes up: http://antirez.com/news/122.

> I believe that political correctness has a puritan root. As such it focuses on formalities, but actually it has a real root of prejudice against others.

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

#532

Post by arp242 » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

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.

I wouldn't call it "bullying" myself, but it does seem a bit like making a mountain out of a molehill.

A big problem with these kind of discussions is that they tend to escalate quite fast. The battle lines are pre-drawn and anything that looks vaguely "sexist" or vaguely "cancel culture-y" will be shot at, no matter what the actual topic is. So this this (minor) incident becomes yet another front on the Great Culture Wars.

It's unfortunate because it's very hard to have good-faith conversations like this.

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

#533

Post by placer » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #493

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…

> No links to the joke. It's quoted in the GitHub link, and presumably it'd be trivial to find in the list archives. This isn't as benign as you characterize it, since it's basically "this date handling bug must have been created by a woman since women lie about their age". Lazy misogyny is still misogyny. > Is it professional to make such a joke on a ruby mailing list? I understand what you're doing here ( https://r…

As an aside, I do not trust Rational Wiki to be a reliable source of information.

Just one example: Their information about Alcoholics Anonymous’s effectiveness can charitably be described as a dumpster fire: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous (For example, they cite Brandsma 1980, which is a very outdated chestnut anti-AA polemics always bring out; the study is really old and its methodology was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandsma_1980 )

In particular, Rational Wiki’s article on AA completely ignores Cochrane 2020, which shows that Alcoholics Anonymous has a 42% success rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_An...

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

#534

Post by Fellshard » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #337

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CoCs themselves, and the wider identity politics culture war, are also extremely Ameri-centric. > the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? There is a subset (I like to think that they're the fringe, but have no numbers to back that up) of those who engage in identity politics who do believe that bigotry does not apply when the target is the dominant demo…

I've never seen anybody suggest that you can't be bigoted against a dominant group. I have seen it suggested that specific terms like racism and sexism are not generic terms that apply to any sort of discrimination along racial, ethnic or in the case of sexism along gender lines, but apply specifically to actions that maintain or reinforce the power of dominant groups and existing privileges and positions that advant…

It is part of the basic definitions of the Critical Theory worldview, and the underlying Marxist ideas behind it. (Yes, I know invoking those will cause people to presume I'm just parroting talking points, but I am being very precise.)

The gist of the idea is that the oppressed ('minority group') do not need to be bound by the laws that shackle them, created by the oppressors ('dominant group') solely to preserve their own power. Defying the oppressors and violating existing institutions and laws is a baseline understanding of those who fully adopt this worldview. It may be largely a fringe for now, but in America, it's being pushed steadily along the axes of both race and gender first, and other secondary traits following behind.

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

#535

Post by Fellshard » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #361

bitwize wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

That is a complete misreading of the clear statement that text is making!

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

#536

Post by Fellshard » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

prancer_or_vix wrote: post #511

gentleman11 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You act like fucking up is the end of the world. People stopped forgiving and forgetting years ago. Every mistake people make follows them forever now. “Fucking up” is the end of the world for their careers since nobody wants to hire somebody who was publicly outed on Twitter for whatever they allegedly did Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?

I think you're overlooking the role that rapport plays in this. If you don't have a rapport (it's a new relationship, for example), one doesn't have that to rely on (this describes a significant portion of online interactions, like this one!). If one has a solid rapport with someone, and that person says something that one find upsetting, one's much less likely to attribute that behavior to malice, because rapport is…

You can't have rapport with a Twitter mob. Individuals, yes, but I've seen time and again when individuals are pressured by the mob until they finally turn on the friend who 'made a mistake' and excoriate them even more fiercely than the mob itself has.

Keep in mind how this CoC change started: it wasn't by a one-on-one rapport with an individual.

And also keep in mind the freezing effect you're having on people new to the industry who need mentorship to help them mature. Sometimes you're screwing up because you're young and need to temper your own tongue.

And sometimes the screw-up isn't actually a screw-up, and a mountain gets made out of a molehill. This is more often the case than anything else, as this entire post demonstrates, and it would be wrong to conclude the premise as part of the argument.

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

#537

Post by Zababa » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

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.

Yes. That's what happens when a group of hyper-politicized people that see/read about inclusiveness and things like that every day encounters people that aren't like them. It's nice that some Americans are currently noticing the issues happening in their country, I'm happy that people are committing time and energy to this. But many of these people have to grow up and realize that the whole world isn't the USA, that different countries have different problems and not everyone is aware of what's happening in the USA. Going around imposing your values is the exact opposite of what you should actually do.

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

#538

Post by awb » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

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…

> I don't follow this at all.

I didn't either.

This same user states multiple times that "Everyone knows what a protected class means" and to use "common sense". After being pressed to define it then suggests: "The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition." but then offers no link to "The dictionaries".

This user has 4 followers on GitHub, but is lecturing the Ruby community on "obvious" things that unfortunately aren't that obvious.

I'm all for a robust discussion to make the community a better place, but assuming everyone has your world-view and a common understanding of words that you yourself struggle to define is a quick way to alienate folks who are seriously trying to understand the arguments but need more information.

Other people chime in to recommend that people "educate themselves", and links to an article (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/beyond-best-intentions) which suggests protected classes are: "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, queer folks, and disabled people" because they "are disproportionately likely to experience bias and discrimination at work and in social circles."

Another user suggests the California definition which is much broader (https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes) and includes classes like "marital status" and "genetic characteristics".

It's just better to be clear about what exactly is meant by these terms if possible.

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

#539

Post by akomtu » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #527

vlunkr wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue this isn't exactly a Trojan horse, it's a group of poor looking pilgrims who tell sob stories to the guard and convince them to open the gates.

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

#540

Post by _-david-_ » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #361

bitwize wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

You are going to have to explain how using 'he' can harm the safety and well being of somebody else.