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

561–570 of 637 posts

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

#561

Post by bawolff »

oh_sigh wrote: post #522
bawolff wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's the rub, right.

If reasonable behaviour and common sense was obvious, there would be no need for CoC or even laws.

Ultimately it devolves into what a majority of the group understands the norms of the group to be. The implicit assumption is that all members of the group have an implicit duty to understand the shared norms of the group (sort of like in the legal sphere where ignorance of the law is not a defense, but unintentionally breaking the law is, provided that the lack of intentionality isn't soley based on ignorance of what the laws are).

E.g. in the case you mentioned earlier, sexualizing co-workers is the wrong thing. Not knowing that sexualizing coworkers is not a defense. If you say something with a double meaning, which you ernestly didn't realize had a double meaning, that might be a defense. You didn't intend to break a rule, and your unintentional rule breakage had nothing to do with not knowing what the rules are. It doesn't mean you don't have to apologize, but it should be enough [on this view] to prevent punitive action (generally, as always context matters).

You could say that feels unsatisfactory, and you're right it does - its squishy and subjective. I don't hold this view because i think its perfect, but just because i think its the least bad of the alternatives.

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

#562

Post by bawolff »

OJFord wrote: post #261
bawolff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't protected class an american legal term? Seems weirdly ameri-centric for a document of this nature. Not to mention that gay people weren't even a protected class in the usa until last year afaik. Not exactly a very inclusive definition. Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? I appreciate minorities get a lot of shit that others don'…

Protected characteristic in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights EU has the concept but doesn't name them in that way, countries implementing them may do in their respective language (someone else has already commented as such for German): https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundam...

Right, many countries have similar ideas. They all define them slightly differently.

The americentric part is using the american legal term of art in an international context and assuming everyone just understands it, and that its a reasonable definition in context.

The idea that minorities exist and should have some additional legal protection is not the aspect that is americentric.

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

#563

Post by [deleted] »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #421
gnull wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is the discourse centered around one specific Californian policy? The same person calls it “universally accepted corporate values” in one of the previous comments. I guess it's Americans again ignoring the existence of other places on Earth with their cultures and views on things?

It isn't even Americans. These "universally accepted corporate values" are only universally accepted in a very small sliver of the US. Most Americans' cultures and views are also ignored in these discussions.

[deleted]

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

#564

Post by swat535 »

interactivecode wrote: post #230
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.

Seems more like you knowing it's a sexist joke should be enough reasons not to make it. I sincerely hope you agree that intentional bigotry has no place anywhere. It's sexist regardless if woman are present. People are victims even if they stand their ground.

Jokes are meant to be offensive, at least on some level.

Go to a comedy show and listen to how many black guys make fun of white vs blacks. Go to another one and listen how there are lots of jokes about husband vs wife, men vs women etc.

The problem is that there is a time and a place for those and a professional environment is simply not it. This is why I always have a problem with American culture of after work meetups and socialization.

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

#565

Post by swat535 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #9
temp8964 wrote: post #2

This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?

As a mod, it is helpful to have rules to point to when disciplining someone to prevent it from seeming arbitrary.

I think as a mod you are in a tough spot regardless. If you have loose rules and use your discretion you will be hated on. If you have strict rules, you will be hated on for stifling speech.

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

#567

Post by qwertyboi »

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…

No, this is an enforcement of Californian social standards on global platforms, disregarding any law, cultural norm, or social standard that is NOT a Californian social standard (in fact, even pointing out that other social norms might exist is considered a violation of Californian CoC and considered hateful rhetoric).

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

#568

Post by qwertyboi »

sprash wrote: post #411
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…

No jokes allowed. Those CoCs are installed by paid assets in order to stifle and reduce the participation rate in FOSS projects. They poison the mood and create division so that voluntary participants leave and those holes then can be filled with corporate agents.

As pointed out in the Github issue comments, Californian corporate agents in particular. The new CoC represents "California Core Corporate Policies" after all.

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

#569

Post by Anthony-G »

api wrote: post #376
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…

If people see a lot of cops in a neighborhood, they start to suspect there is a lot of crime. Seems like a variation of this. "If this community really needs a CoC, maybe it's actually full of bigots and assholes."

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. When I was younger, seeing a bouncer guarding the entrance to a pub was a pretty decent proxy for that pub not being the kind of place I’d like to have a drink in.

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

#570

Post by unethical_ban »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #555
unethical_ban wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"No one in their right mind" - Again, maybe it's because I see a version of my younger self, but it seems oversensitive! Yes, I know we are now in a world where any joke in the workplace that bases itself on "protected class" is theoretically off-limits. But that switch has flipped rapidly, and on top of it, that joke was truly minor. If it was an aggression, it really puts the micro in microaggression. But to read the comments, you'd think he made a Holocaust joke on Passover.

It was foolish to make the joke, it was even more foolish to make it on a digital format that cannot be rescinded. It's also foolish for people to immediately call for this person's removal from the community in perpetuity, rather than have a chat and explain that those jokes aren't funny.

Post reply on HN