Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

551–560 of 637 posts

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

#551
post #108

Almost more surprising is that this was removed: > When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. In favor of this: > Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent. Also changed yesterday: > Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. became: > Behaviour which ca…

Regarding the "good intentions" change, the explanation in the linked twitter thread makes sense to me: in some contexts, assuming good intentions is a way of excusing bad behavior. It's hard to agree on the exact boundary between enabling a jerk and making an issue out of nothing. But the old "assume good intentions" policy does sound to me uncomfortably similar to "if you're offended it's your own fault". Which is…

Next time you get in a car accident maybe the police should throw you in jail for wilful destruction of property. It doesn't matter if you did not intend to damage the other car since intentions don't matter. You did the crime you should do the time.

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

#552
post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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

That's patronizing because you're thinking of them as "primitive foreigners that posts offensive jokes", while you could think of them as "different people in a different culture that may not share every values with you". I don't understand why Americans are so afraid of swear words and jokes, but I don't think they are primitive or stupid or too uptight for it, they are just different.

Just look at how judging you are: "undisciplind repositories or technical mailing lists". Repositories are undisciplined because there are offensive jokes? Aren't repositories about code? "most of us do not want to read people's jokes, funny, offensive, or not, when we are on a technical forum": who is "us" here? People from the USA? You and an imaginary group of people? The whole world? I certainly don't mind a good joke, and I like some humor that can be considered too much in US culture.

Don't just assume that you're in the right and in the position to judge people.

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

#553
post #480
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[This is not about Ruby.] In an open source project it works like this: Stage 1: Initial contributors and founders have a rough aggressive tone that is slowly adopted by new people (who are generally polite when they come). Stage 2: Old boy club realizes that their own impoliteness is being used back against them. They write a complex CoC with intersectionalism and all goodies that are hard to follow or understand fo…

Are you sure about that? I see it going a lot more like this:

Stage 1: Amazing new project lights the world on fire.

Stage 2: Woke-scolds achieve 10% of contribution.

Stage 3: Multiple woke-scold instigated controversies lead to the creators cowering in Twitter fear and implementing a CoC.

Stage 4: CoC is used against everyone, but twice as hard against the creators.

*(satire or future) Stage 5: CoC updated to require vaccine passport for contribution.

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

#554
In meanwhile they are trying to revert it:

https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2693

https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2695

I have the impression that Matz and co, without understanding the context, just approved the related PRs to avoid being canceled?

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

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit buried in the GH discussion, but someone else posted it here: "Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)" If I were in charge of a community or mailing list, I would kick the person who wrote that off. But I simply don't see how (a) the existing rules didn't do enough to cover this, or (b) the changes will resolve those issues without causing other problems.

Really? You would permanently remove someone from a community for one joke in bad taste? You wouldn't use any social skills of your own to, say, tell the person their joke isn't well received and they need to be more polite?

I could see it going either way, but come on, no one in their right mind would think that that's an appropriate joke to make in a public thread with members of a professional community.

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

#556
I wanna tell a story that happened a few years ago (edit: turned out to be loosely related stories as I remembered them)... Suddenly #ruby had a new rule: the word "guys" was banned to refer to people. Why? Because it's suddenly become the most exclusionist, sexist, oppressive, whatever-bad-you-want-it-to-be word.

Bots were automated to hand out imputations and strikes, followed by kicking people who continued to use the word "guys" (regardless of the context). This automation was later reluctantly refined to be less trigger happy.

Trying to prompt discussions "about the G word" was bannable (without a proper warning): New person joins, sends "thanks guys" after a question, gets slandered by the bot as the scum of humanity and then given a four-message long wall of text about why the word "guys" was intentionally given its modern-day meaning because of something-something subconscious and it's designed to manipulate you. Naturally, person complains about this cultist-looking spam. If a mod is online: fuck that new gu—person; BAN. Immediately. A ban. I think maybe the bot mentioned it it one of the messages that discussion is forbidden, but I don't think people read the whole message. It was worded in a very patronising "you're a worthless idiot without a single fucking shread of human decency, so let me lecture you on how to behave in my version of a beautiful society like you've just turned six" way that I don't think most people got defensive and didn't give a flying fuck about the consequences.

The next in line for the woke firing squad were pronouns. ALL pronouns. This luckily never happened; I don't know why not, but I remember it being called regressive instead of progressive behaviour[2].

The G word rule ended up causing a lot of drama in-channel; and I remember at least one GitHub issue that got heated over this (they wanted it removed from the rules IIRC). At one point #ruby became a fusion of linguistic nuances, colloquialisms, culture, and social issue topics (pretty much what's happening here) that conversation about Ruby looked like it was off topic. I'm talking about hours of discussions about these subjects[1], and people with Ruby related questions get outright ghosted by everyone. This was why the earlier mentioned banning rule was introduced; mods noticed a slow exodus and a small decrease in activity in the channel when people weren't engaging in flame wars.

I'm a white guy, but I'm queer (gay). I won't delve into my background too much, but short story short is that for most of my life I was living in confusion, fear, and alienation because of sexuality, so I know how it feels to be Queer, and that I always try to be compassionate and understanding in these issues, and I always try really hard to make everyone feel welcome and included[3] and look for compromises. A lot of active people in the Ruby community started feeling alienated and unwelcome because of this rule (no joke: they were called snowflakes by the woke folk in the ops channel).

But these "woke" people on #ruby? Let me tell you: they're not woke at all. They're just hungry for control. They have all the textbook behaviours of a toxic parent (I'd know I grew up with one)/person. They wrapped their motives in good intentions, and manipulated most of the ruby community. I don't know if the "results" of their actions will be good or bad, but I'm not talking about results: I'm talking about motives and morals (which is what the focus is).

Small digression: It was really disappointing to see some of the BLM things unfold where white-assed Americans (this is by no means exhaustive or exclusive to Americans or whites) tried to steal the spotlight with their "performative workeness" where they made being woke a pissing contest about how to outwoke the rest and be the most woke. It's the same thing as people who post those "fake" instagram pictures: the only difference is fake thoughts and woke tokens instead of "likes." It's absolutely disgusting that people abuse real social issues to "promote" themselves (companies who used this for PR are just as scummy). They're the fucking Cruella De'Vils[4] of this world and they don't even see it.

This same person ("evil") that led this anti-guys movement on #ruby tried to get someone ("misguided" due to religious indoctrination) fired from _their own_ project (open source project) over a retweet. That's right, it wasn't even an original thought. She almost got her way, because some people were really supporting the.

Like, people created accounts just to be able to harass the "misguided" person via github Issues. The evil person didn't get their way in ruining someone else's life. So What happened next? They made it all about them; they were the victim in this whole story. They resigned from the Ruby community with something like "not wanting to be in such a toxic community". They came back again, because they probably couldn't find a more effective way to assert their psychological dominance/control over another naive community.

I've never experienced ANY toxicity, exclusivity, animosity or anything even remotely resembling discriminatory behaviour in my five years in the channel (at the time) until one asshole decided to ban a well-established English colloquialism. I find it incredibly ironic that they created the very thing they wanted to avoid: a fucking toxic community.

The cherry on top of this was that in those five years of being part of the community, did I ever see anyone single member complain about the channel's community being not exclusive or not welcoming. Nobody raised this before or after. The only people raising this was a handful of who invented victims to protect so they could give themselves purpose and importance in the community, when they were a nobody before.

This person who started the movement, their GitHub is littered with them doing "God's Good Work™" by opening CoC pull requests to random projects that were trending on HN or Github that week. I've never seen them talk in the Ruby channel other than the ops channel; there they would occasionally bring up someone's way of communicating wasn't sterile enough (my interpretation). They'd _almost never_ help with any Ruby related issues; the only reason why I can't straight up say "never" is because I remember they'd give wrong advice sometimes/

Anyway. I've been typing this our for a while now trying to organise a bunch of jumbled events/thoughts/ideas that happened over a long period of time, and it's getting hard. I've written so much already that I'm sure most people will just think it's TLDR and skip it, and the worst part is I don't feel like I've said enough. Feels like I'm only 20% of the way there. Recalling these events stirred some old emotions (mix of anger, disappointment and sadness).

I want to finish by saying that even with all this said—and it did have big (IMO negative) impacts on parts of the Ruby community—the Ruby community as a whole is _so_ much more than this toxic squad of performative woke bullies. The Ruby community already _is_ accepting, inclusive and non-discriminatory. I love the Ruby community even if I'm not as active as I used to be. Stay beautiful, and don't let trolls guilt-fish you toxicity. ---

One last thing, I used "woke" with a bad undertone throughout the text. I want to make clear that being woke is great, but being woke for the sake of your twitter followers or so you can feel "less guilty," or as a power move, or—anything that's not pure, basically, is just performative wokeness. There's very few people who do it for "knightly" reasons (as in goodness-of-their-heart reasons, I don't mean to be sexist).

I already said this has grown way longer than I planned. I know I threw out a lot of things and they might seem a bit like a gishgallop, but that wasn't my intention. I love talking about social issues (as you can tell, I have strong opinions about this) and doing what little I can to make my circle of people feel good and inspired. Anyway I refuse to make this post longer, so if someone wishes to talk with me about any of these points further, feel free to reply or reach out.

---

[1]: Nobody wants to hear they're a villain or that their moral compass is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Also people always selectively quote parts of your message, then they construct fake a context/narrative that makes them feel morally superior in their screenshot. [2]: I tend to agree. [3]: One of the reason this situation/anegdote is really sensitive for me is because I was accused of being oppressive, anti-LGBTQ, etc etc etc. This brought up a lot of doubts, insecurities and other dark thoughts all back: Like, hello, I'm gay and I'm making other marginalised people feel even more marginalised?! What kind of trash human am I? [4]: From the originals, not the recent live-action film with Emma Stone; that Cruella is awesome

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

#557

In meanwhile they are trying to revert it: https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2693 https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2695 I have the impression that Matz and co, without understanding the context, just approved the related PRs to avoid being canceled?

> Unfortunately the author of #2690 was tragically born without a sense of humor. This disability makes them a protected class.

> I am actually a firebreather as a hobby, and a wizard by self identified religious affiliation. I am claiming protections under the existing text of the Code of Conduct in the master branch and demanding this pull request be accepted.

The trolling has come full circle

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

#558
post #526
post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Written policies are just another way to creak that door into a culture-fitting exclusion. Often done much more heavy handedly, as that second hypothetical line of yours is as often a lie.

I get the desire to make things more objective, but as long as people are involved, it is going to be near impossible to separate that aspect from things without trouncing on people that are otherwise invisible to the ones writing the rules.

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

#559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" How can you possibly read any possible minds. Even if you can predict the 'reasonable' person, outliers can take offence and you don't know what can offend them. People can and do take offence at anything. This leaves two possible solutions. 1) Eventually fuck up. 2) Immediately leave the commun…

The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake. For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA wh…

The changed rule explicitly removes good faith considerations.

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

#560
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else mentioned in another thread - it depends. There are definitely legal protections for being a CERTAIN KIND of short, for instance (such as Achondroplasia). The law focuses on reasonableness of accommodations and the actual job needs, so for instance you can't discriminate based on height if it is a legitimate medical condition and there is the option of reasonable accommodations - say it's a cashier jo…

> There are definitely legal protections for being a CERTAIN KIND of short, for instance (such as Achondroplasia). Completely besides the point and distracting.

Hardly - 26% [https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-d...] of Americans have a recognized medical disability. Nearly that many are women of child bearing age, and can be discriminated against due to pregnancy status. 34% of Americans are over 50 years old (and officially protected as such).

You would be surprised how few people do not have a clear type of legal protection as part of some class - pretty much just fit, healthy, 18-40 something males really.

Post reply on HN