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

591–600 of 637 posts

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

#591

Post by [deleted] »

_-david-_ wrote: post #547
gbanfalvi wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sudde…

[deleted]

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

#592

Post by drak0n1c »

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.

A joke about performative third parties is not the same as joking about the class itself. That is why Tropic Thunder is still largely seen as acceptable blackface - because it was only used for the purpose of satirizing the act of blackface, not black people. Likewise, jokes about performative over-reactive wokeness by corporations are not insulting any tangentially mentioned race/sex/gender class.

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

#593

Post by ksec »

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…

You have no idea how glad I am this is the top upvoted post in this thread.

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

#594

Post by OJFord »

bawolff wrote: post #562
OJFord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is that I don't think it is using it as an American legal term, it's using it generically for the the broadly understood idea, a lot being common. At least that would be my assumption.

They could hardly go out of their way to find a synonym not in use by any country, and then keep checking in case some country started using it and people started interpreting the document as using it in the sense of that country's law specifically.

It's not an American legal document, so unless it explicitly defines the term as such, that's not what it means, it's just words. If it said 'murder' or 'jaywalking' we wouldn't pick a country that uses those terms to interpret them in its legal sense, we'd just understand the broad sense of what they are anywhere, even in countries where they are not used ('jaywalking' here in the UK).

> The idea that minorities exist and should have some additional legal protection

Again, that's not what it is. The legal protection is against discrimination based on your such as race or ethnicity. No matter whether the particular value in your case is held by the majority or a minority of people.

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

#595

Post by tinus_hn »

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…

> Does it warrant responses like "Knock that bullshit off."

How about ‘let’s keep the discussion about Ruby’? Instead of poisoning another venue with woke drama.

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

#596

Post by tekknik »

bawolff wrote: post #562
OJFord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What term should they use then?

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

#597

Post by rat87 »

mpweiher wrote: post #318
rat87 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but white supremacists including those on 4chan /pol/ have used OK as an actual racist sign. That may not be the dominant meaning of the symbol but it is one that exists.

And we let white supremacists hijack our language?

Nazis basically took over the Swastika, a symbol with thousands of years of use, in at least half of the world.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591

I'm not saying we should or that random neo-nazis have that same power to take over it but we should acknowledge that some uses of the symbol are racist

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

#598

Post by tekknik »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #424
dym_sh wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those re/formed within last 100 years. (and those who actively deny its existence /s)

You are right. It also depends if you include serfdom in slavery. In any case, just to generalize, the countries that practiced slavery were mostly those that colonized the world the most. Many of those who didn't colonize the world used serfs, like most of Eastern Europe. For these people there is no cultural association between slavery and the present. Also the proportions are different: in most countries the non-s…

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004381735/BP000002.xml?langu...

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

#599

Post by tekknik »

ezconnect wrote: post #364
undecisive wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my many misgivings about CoCs is their over-reliance on the unenforcable. This is an excellent example - because the original said exactly what needed to be said, but it wasn't being interpreted correctly. Instead of improving the wording, and saying something like "participants should always assume good intentions. However, intention does not make a person's actions immune from criticism, and while assuming g…

Why is there a protected party? Why can't everyone be protected only a few?

This statement is a borderline hate crime in the US.

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

#600

Post by Oak_ »

mikojan wrote: post #221
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'…

> Isn't protected class an american legal term? Protected class ("geschützte Gruppe") is a commonly understood concept in Germany, too.

The abstracting concept of "protected group" is not commonly understood. I had never heard of it before this thread. Anti discrimination of course is, but not this specific term.

Neither in the German Wikipedia nor in the Duden (German dictionary) or on the website of the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" (Federal Agency for Civic Education) can I find any reference to "geschützte Gruppe".

The German constitution, explicitly states: "No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.".

This is often emphasized in things like job postings, but never in abbreviated/conceptualized form.

Post reply on HN