Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

shujisado.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#241

Post by EnergyAmy »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #226
EnergyAmy wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing the point. Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?

You misunderstand the exercise. I'm asking for a demonstration, an example of genuine discussion.

I don't really know what to tell you, other than that it would help if you stopped being deliberately obtuse.

"Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that welcome related tangents, but directly responded to your comment with genuine discussion directly about "trans people existing".

If you're going to no-true-genuine that conversation that's fine I guess, but I don't really understand the point of wasting time on simple rhetorical tricks that don't fool anyone.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#242

Post by wastle »

thrance wrote: post #234
wastle wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak of "all these so-called TERFs", but the article you linked, in the very first sentence, qualifies this with "some": " Some trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups and politicians who oppose legislation that would expand transgender rights in the United States. " As for "TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates", which you claim, the t…

Wow, you really got me with that "some". Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF? I won't waste anymore time arguing with someone who refuses basic facts. The truth is, that TERFs have done nothing to further the feminist cause. At best they give ammos to the right, who in this day and age, is acting openly anti-feminist, and amping up rhetoric agains…

> Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF?

Yes of course, and I know several personally. It's a fairly common set of views in the UK.

Over here it's not like it is the US where there's such a strong party political divide over this issue and as a consequence feminist groups (like WoLF, mentioned in the Wikipedia citations of the section you linked) decided to appeal to politicians on the right because the left has been so captured by trans ideological beliefs. Though not all on the left. If you're interested, look up Kara Dansky, radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, who has been trying to convince her party for years of the case for women's sex-based rights.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#243

Post by axython »

curtisblaine wrote: post #6

CoCs are one of the reasons why I choose to not contribute. I don't enjoy the risk of someone with an axe to grind to drag me into some absurd GitHub comments drama and feel justified by some generic wording on the CoC.

Serious question - Why do you contribute to HN, which has a CoC?

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#244

Post by [deleted] »

serial_dev wrote: post #201
ang_cire wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every person who does something problematic is actively seeking to do so in order to hurt someone . Also, there are plenty of people who are looking for spaces that are "okay" with their views, and a CoC that makes it clear the space is not can absolutely make them avoid it. You are so focused on the strawman of problematic people being mustache-twirling villains trying to disrupt spaces they dislike, that you're…

> you're discounting the actual purpose of CoCs, which is to make it clear who your space is for Code of conduct is not about that. It's about how to behave. My community is not that special that you need a user manual on how to behave, you should have learned it by age 10, latest. Technology Z meetup / user group is a space for people who are interested in Technology Z. Repository Y is a space for people who are int…

[deleted]

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#245

Post by kelseyfrog »

EnergyAmy wrote: post #241
kelseyfrog wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the exercise. I'm asking for a demonstration, an example of genuine discussion.

I don't really know what to tell you, other than that it would help if you stopped being deliberately obtuse. "Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that wel…

I'm asking what you think a genuine response would be from someone who disagrees with you. So far, it appears that that doesn't exist. Is there any response you can construct that you feel would meet the criteria of being genuine? It's a very simple request.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#246

Post by nim_chimpsky »

I won't go as far as to say "Rise of Ubuntu" a private corporation with a Advertising and PR budget. Is 70,000 packages and indication of the fall of Debian ? A self-governing body (Debian) with a CoC (no matter how imperfect) is worse than a Benevolent (Sic!) Dictator, Really ?

I am beginning to wonder if this blog post is not too different from the raging far right agenda of dismantling all "regulation". "Open Source" has had some nefarious far right loud mouths at least in the past. It would be no surprise if this is another.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#248

Post by EnergyAmy »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #245
EnergyAmy wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really know what to tell you, other than that it would help if you stopped being deliberately obtuse. "Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that wel…

I'm asking what you think a genuine response would be from someone who disagrees with you. So far, it appears that that doesn't exist. Is there any response you can construct that you feel would meet the criteria of being genuine? It's a very simple request.

As per my previous comment:

> Do you agree or disagree that "trans people existing" is too vague to be meaningful? Alternatively, what exactly do you mean by "existing"?

A genuine response would be responding to that, not metacommentary while refusing to engage. A simple response of "By existing I mean ..." would be perfectly genuine.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#249

Post by satisfice »

majorchord wrote: post #89
satisfice wrote: post #19

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…

I would like this too, and it sounds like a good idea in theory... But what I worry about is that it may presume that the staff themselves already operate in (your interpretation of) good faith, and I don't think that is always the case. What is a user's recourse when they disagree with the mods? And what says they will comply with any decision reached from said recourse? You could say "we must allow disagreements",…

It’s not just theory. It’s how things work in the actual world that you live in. My “theory” is an attempt to harmonize our procedures with the way we all live in the world right now.

I am a pluralist (a person who accepts that he must live with people he doesn’t necessarily like) not because I want to be, but because the alternative is constant rage and war.

Take any social group, anywhere, ever. Whichever one you choose: there are people who care about each other to some degree, and who hurt each other to some degree, and who have some sort of procedures and heuristics for dealing with that.

I suggest heuristics based on accepting the fact that people will behave in ways that irritate each other, even when a community is maximally healthy. Let’s accept that as normal. Then what? Then let’s work on what it means to be a member of the community. Let’s establish a protocol for membership based on a hierarchy of trust, or prestige, if you will.

Yes, if the trusted people are actually corrupt then your community is screwed. Go and make a new one.

Focus on building personal tolerance and resilience. Distinguish between matters of taste and matters of conscience.

To anyone who says this system leads to discrimination: ALL systems lead to discrimination. Yours does, too. Humans are like that. This problem can only be solved from the heart outward.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#250

Post by stale2002 »

EnergyAmy wrote: post #241
kelseyfrog wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the exercise. I'm asking for a demonstration, an example of genuine discussion.

I don't really know what to tell you, other than that it would help if you stopped being deliberately obtuse. "Genuine discussion" includes responding to the topic of "trans people existing" by pointing out that "existing" is vague and needs further definition. That is genuine discussion, inviting you to clarify what you mean by "existing". I helpfully included a few other relevant bits of genuine discussion that wel…

Just FYI, you are wasting your time with this user.

They've done this same tactic and question avoidance, perhaps quite literally hundreds of times on Hacker News. And I am frankly surprised people haven't caught on to this user and that they are even still allowed around here, given that this type of stuff is almost their sole contribution.

Its intentional, as well. I remember reading a comment where I think they just straight up admitted to doing this.

If you want a fun read, go back through their comment history and you'll find a multitude of users having the same problem as you are having with interactions with them.

Post reply on HN