211–220 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is genuine discussion typically like this? I'm not really getting a sense of back and forth. It sounds more like wanting to have one side of a conversation without really inviting a response or room for nuance.
I directly addressed your statement. "Trans people existing" is a vague statement that avoids talking about specifics. Discourse is toxic because of rhetorical tricks like this where you desperately try to avoid actual discussion.
The thing is that codes of conduct do not help honest actors “regulate” and deal with troublemakers. I used to organize meetups and I visited meetups organized by others who had code of conduct, and I just never understood what they were hoping to achieve with that. If someone behaves poorly, you can point at a document all you want, but it doesn’t help you deal that the problematic individual. A document that you pu…
I'm the ‘enforcer’ of a fairly large board games meetup, and the CoC is very simple: there's 3 rules. Newcomers are especially likely to ignore some of these rules, so I notify them the first 2 times. 3rd strike and they're out. What I like about the simplicity of our CoC is that anyone can read it in a few seconds, and we can point it out to people without seeming bureaucratic or annoying. Happy to share with others…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.
> Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. Who cares? > TERFS are still feminists. You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that. The conservative idea of a woman is one of…
You're making a similarly incorrect fallacy of association between TERFs and anti-feminist conservatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them I think you mean, "if someone is behaving poorly, the coc did not deter them". The people who it did deter aren't behaving poorly.
I'm just having a hard time imagining someone who wants to be racist sexist xenophobe jerk to other people, but they saw you drafted a CoC last year in the root of your repository, so they won't... Or they were racist sexist xenophobe jerks, then you point out that "our community has a CoC", and they will stop. None of these things happen in real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for people with boundaries. I've done work I was absolutely delighted with in both process and product with people whose views I detest. If you can't grow up enough to do that, you can't have a civilization. If I have to like you in order for us not to fight, I warn you that we're going to have to fight.
What was the most detestable view?
I want a code of conduct that explicitly allows debate, disagreement, and normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your words. What matters is that people are operating in good faith. I would also say that IF you have been accepted as a member of a community then you and your feelings must matter to that community unless and until you are ejected from the community. There needs to be a system for accepting and…
> normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your word This is the Trammel problem: if you want a PvP-enabled project, you discover that people are mostly interested in the part where they hurt others feelings and then go bananas when their own feelings are hurt. > needs to be a system for accepting and expelling people The private member's club is an old institution. But people tend to notice and object when it…
I said that a community must be a place where every member’s feelings matter. My feelings matter. Your feelings matter. But that doesn’t mean you can’t say things that annoy me (which you just did and I bet you don’t regret it).
You can say hurtful things as long as you are acting in good faith— saying what you believe is true and helpful.
You might think you are disagreeing with me. Nevertheless, you are demonstrating part of what I’m talking about: social life is unsmoothable without draining it of meaning and impact. Let’s instead develop resilience.
> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. Of course he would, he has made several transphobic remarks in the past. Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". Ostracizing people from projects because you are prejudiced again…
Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. However, there's probably a cutoff point for core infrastructure where we should move away from having a single person in charge.
> Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. If I start a project that attracts contributors[1], I don't see anything wrong with rejecting someone's CoC "contribution" with " I am the code of conduct. We don't need another one." ================== [1] I try not to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is genuine discussion typically like this? I'm not really getting a sense of back and forth. It sounds more like wanting to have one side of a conversation without really inviting a response or room for nuance.
I directly addressed your statement. "Trans people existing" is a vague statement that avoids talking about specifics. Discourse is toxic because of rhetorical tricks like this where you desperately try to avoid actual discussion.