Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

541–550 of 637 posts

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

#541

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.

"Misogyny" means "hatred or mistrust of women". I don't see how this expressed either a hatred or mistrust for women. You are calling this person a horrible thing over a very small issue. I do not find this especially empathic.

I wish people were a bit more careful before slinging these words around, not just because it's overly harsh but also because I consider these to be serious issues, but when used as a cudgel carelessly thrown around it devalues the term, and thus devalues the actual real problems it describes (or rather, once described, as this ship, unfortunately, seems to have already sailed).

There really is some nuance to be had in these things.

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

#542
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're meant to further empower accusers and reduce burden of proof and remove the need for critical thinking, empathy, and nuance. Accusations equal guilt.

Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" It's quite common to have someone express a personal opinion that they themselves don't interpret as harassment (e.g. because they don't belong to the group they're talking about, they see no issue with the way they talk or maybe they might be upset) only to be incredibly surprised and defensive w…

It is impossible to evaluate what could be interpreted as harassment. Maybe 10 years ago you could have, but today everything is harassment. Words are changing meaning and becoming offensive so fast people cannot even keep up.

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

#543
post #537
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.

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…

> That's what happens when a group of hyper-politicized people

Well, maybe you work on undisciplined repositories or technical mailing lists, but most of us do not want to read people's jokes, funny, offensive, or not, when we are on a technical forum.

It's really patronizing to say, "Oh, those primitive foreigners, we have to excuse them for posting offensive jokes on a technical forum."

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

#544
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pret…

Rational Wiki is one of the most unintentionally funny and ridiculous sites, given the name. It's probably one of the least reliable and credible sources of information on the internet due to the juxtaposition, a la DPRK's name. It's Pathos Wiki. [Something something Conservapedia, stare into abyss, etc.]

For some reason, it seems there are basically no nominally-neutral websites, forums, or news outlets that exist. (That I'm aware of.) I don't mean neutral; of course nothing is or can be perfectly neutral. I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda.

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

#545
post #302

It's time for people to start badging projects with a new style of CoC, one line: "No woke ideology allowed." That's it. No explanation needed. Those who pretend they don't know what the rule means, or protest, are in violation. The radical left has been co-opting every organization they can get their hands on and kicking out the "non-believers" for years. It's time the handful of sane people that are left band toget…

I like this idea when distilled a bit: "No ideology allowed." I'm just going to dismiss the second paragraph about angrily finger-pointing at an ambiguous political alignment, "them". You could replace "left" with "right|antifa|fascists|deep state|elite", or "toxic" with "unconstitutional|dangerous|radical", and that text wouldn't make any more sense. We need less polarization, thank you.

> "No ideology allowed."

Is an ideology itself, it's contradictory.

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

#546
post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe the other option is the "creepy guys" table?

All joking aside I can only comment very generally obviously, but just because people will tolerate a particular aspect of someones personality doesn't mean they actually enjoy it.

Remember that 30 years ago in the Western world lots of women got patted on the ass at work and the normal response was to nod and smile because that's just how the world was.

I once met someone in Australia whose best friends all called him some racial slur as a nickname (I forget which one now). In a short moment alone I asked him if that was actually okay for him and he answered "No, but that's just the way people are around here."

I obviously have no way of knowing how close you are to these women but you should probably at least be open to the possibility that there is a similar dynamic at play here.

Personally, I have a unique physical characteristic that causes even strangers to approach to comment or joke about. I've got a pretty good catalogue of witty retorts by now and one of them in particular is so spectacular that I quite enjoy the opportunity to use it. I still think the people who make the jokes are boring idiots though.

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

#547
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all. There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense wher…

Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups. There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not. > The only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader,…

>Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups

It is not a natural change. It is being forced on people. Words and understandings of concepts change of course, but in the past society would slowly start accepting the change. Now a days when a word changes if you don't start using the new definition that day you are a bigot. People don't do well with sudden change.

> There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.

Jokes are jokes. If it is wrong to make a joke about women then it is wrong to make a joke about men. Anything else is sexist discriminatory double standards. Either you can joke about anything or nothing.

>It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.

Society is losing empathy. We used to understand people could make mistakes and improve themselves. Now the first time you make an innocent mistake you are canceled. You are thrown out of polite society and defamed on social media. That is the opposite of empathy.

>People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent.

The person you were responding to was not saying that a person being canceled is a victim (though they possibly believe that). They were saying that people cancel other people so the person doing the canceling can play the victim regardless if they actually took offense.

>Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?

I don't think anybody would deny some people are offended about things. I just don't think that matters. If I say hello to somebody and they are offended by that should I be canceled for it?

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

#548
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.

>Not a fan of the "you should educate yourself" retort

Also not a fan of this. My response would be something along the lines of:

"I'm not going to 'educate' myself on your delusional beliefs for the same reason I'm not going to 'educate' myself when my schizophrenic uncle tells me to learn more about the 5G towers tracking people's vaccine chips and giving everyone cancer."

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

#549
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…

rationalwiki? FYI, citing rationalwiki in a debate is a big red flag in terms of taking the argument seriously.

And in this instance, it's also completely unnecessary to your point. So please don't cite these types of radical sources when making innocuous points. It would be like if I was having a debate about average rainfall, and said something like, "Well, according to the UnabomberFanSite, the average rainfall is 3 inches". It's just so needlessly inflammatory and provocative that your best bet is to cut that out and replace it with a more mainstream source.

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

#550
post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe the other option is the "creepy guys" table? All joking aside I can only comment very generally obviously, but just because people will tolerate a particular aspect of someones personality doesn't mean they actually enjoy it. Remember that 30 years ago in the Western world lots of women got patted on the ass at work and the normal response was to nod and smile because that's just how the world was. I once met s…

The jokes need to be funny of course, not just sexist remarks.

You also have to know to whom you can say what. My close friends at work can be very brutal, and I return the favor ;). But you cannot do that to casual colleagues, or people you know that don't like such things.

My best friend is 2m tall, so I also know all those jokes. But that doesn't stop us from annoying him now and then :D.

Post reply on HN