Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#281

Post by a-dub » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

I like it. It captures the best spirit of the CoC stuff while also explicitly calling out and avoiding the parts of existing attempts at this stuff that some perceive to be aggressive.

Can basically be summed up as: 1) Everyone is welcome, 2) Don't scare people away by being shitty and 3) Keep it on-topic

But it seems that the discussion here misses the absolute best part. In true GNU fashion, Stallman refuses to accept grammatically incorrect use of pronouns and instead offers a brand spanking new extension built on a homegrown abstraction.

Here comes _GNU_ENGLISH!

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#282

Post by palimpsests » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:42 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #106

LiterallyDoge wrote: post #29

Is it really this complicated to treat other people with respect?

I think part of the problem is that everyone has different definitions of respect. For example, some people find it disrespectful to correct someone if they use a word wrong, but I find it disrespectful if someone doesn't correct me.

What if they don't know to correct you, do you feel disrespected in that case, as well?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#283

Post by ryanobjc » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

seattlebarley wrote: post #167

civodul wrote: post #28

As co-maintainer of GNU Guix, I want to point out that the views expressed in Richard Stallman's message are his and not those of the Guix maintainers. In particular, by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence. More importantly, by writing that he disagrees with "making diversity a goal", RMS seems to deny the role we free software peopl…

I'd just like to know how you come to the conclusion that evening out the demographics in the free software community could in any way improve the quality of projects. I guess you're looking for better harmony in the community? Still, please explain how setting quotas would improve anything, rather than stirring up more strife.

This is a good example of bad faith arguing. The original poster never mentioned "quotas" but this comment presumes and assumes that is what is happening.

The use of words like 'please' doesn't make things better.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#284

Post by 794CD01 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #216

yarrel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't an attempt to be polite. They didn't use the long form of their name (which would be irritating but I can see that being an attempt to be polite), they used a rather infantilising diminutive. The effect was condescending and "Sal" was well within their rights to object. In the general case, telling someone that actually you are the person who has the last word on what they are called is bullying.

Sure, if someone says "call me this" and you don't, I agree, that's annoying. But it should be a polite request, not the start of a fight. And what is the long form then? The only female name I can think of that shortens to Sal is Sally. This whole story seems suspect.

Sally is traditionally short for Sarah, though if someone with a longer name like Salvadora/Salvatoria were living in an anglophone society, I could also see them going by Sally.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#285

Post by sound1 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #220

Clearly RMS believes in having software licenses with teeth, which is why he so strongly advocates the GPL over the BSD and MIT licenses. When he disagreed with Apple's stance on IP litigation, he didn't just exhort them to be excellent — he boycotted them for several years. So it's not that RMS is strongly opposed to coercive enforcement; he just doesn't value people as highly as he does code.

I think the spirit of RMS' argument is to benifit the people in general. In first the intent is to get the software to be accessible to as many people as possiblez and now his intends to make sure that talented people don't shy away from contibuting to open source projects just because of rigid policies. In my opinion he's been quite reasonable in both cases, whether you and I agree with his proposed method.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#286

Post by SolaceQuantum » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #268

nrclark wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read much about NVC, so I can't speak to how the term is used there. But if it's anything like Crucial Conversations, they define/analyze conversational violence in a lot of detail. I thought it was a really interesting read. CC defines conversational violence as things like labeling, misrepresentation, accusations, defensiveness, getting angry, etc. I'd assume that NVC probably has a similar definition. I…

I like those insights. The danger with labeling words as violence though is that it leads many to the conclusion that words should be policed in the way physical violence is. A critical difference between words and physical violence is that words can cause harm to a listener based on the listener's interpretation and reaction to those words. If a fist hits my jaw I can't control whether it breaks it. But I have contr…

While I agree that violence in context of language is different from physical violence in that the harm can result from an interpretation of the listener's part, I also suggest that certain forms of language are equivalent to physical violence in that there is no non-harmful way to express something. For an extreme example, I do not know of a non-harmful rhetoric to advocate the genocide of an oppressed group.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#287

Post by palimpsests » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:45 PM UTC

Nickersf wrote: post #246

LiterallyDoge wrote: post #29

Is it really this complicated to treat other people with respect?

Respect is earned not given. Treating others with common decency is expected in a professional environment, and that's a two way street where both parties need to have a common understanding of what decency is. Finding that commonality becomes harder the more "diverse" the community involved is. People's cultural, religious and political beliefs clash and have for thousands of years, and no we're not going to be the…

Why is respect earned, not given? The way you've stated that sounds like an axiom.

It called me to contemplate, and realize that I hold the opposite axiom – that all beings, including humans, deserve respect fundamentally. Some people might behave in ways that call this into question and modify the degree to which I feel I can truly hold respect for them, but that only happens with more information about how they are organized or disorganized.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#288

Post by ryanobjc » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

nonce42 wrote: post #244

ve55 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>correcting the biases, conscious or not, that have led to the poor diversity of our communities What you're missing is a proof that the only reason a community is not 'diverse' is due to 'biases' within the community. You will find this is a very hard thing to prove as a general concept. Reminds me of the following paragraph: >For the record, here is a small sample of other communities where black people are strongl…

> Swimmers (2%) The low rate of black swimmers isn't just an interesting quirk, but the consequence of historical actions to keep blacks out. For instance, public pools in New York City used to be kept deliberately cold on the theory that this discouraged black participants (source: The Power Broker). Lack of swimming skills has deadly consequences; black children drown in swimming pools at 5.5 times the rate of whit…

Thanks for this one.

The history of black people being excluded from pools has an UGLY history. The grandparents positioning this as some innocent thing is... well.... Check this out: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/motel-manager-pouring-acid-...

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#289

Post by xamuel » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #63

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

On the relationship between persuasion and force from a psychoanalytical perspective, Zizek has a nice example showing in what ways persuasion can actually be more subversive : >The psychoanalytic concept that designates the short-circuit between the repression and what it represses is the superego. As Lacan emphasised again and again, the essential content of the superego’s injunction is ‘Enjoy!’ A father works hard…

Zizek is good at uttering profound-sounding things, but there's no substance. Anyone who has raised young children knows there's a high chance they'll call your bluff.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#290

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:47 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #257

pjc50 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the "you should be retroactively aborted" one?

yep. I think it gets the point - irreconcilable differences in the foundations and applications of intelligence - more efficiently across than the alternative of an attempt at long winded logical based explanation of that irreconcilable difference to somebody who just doesn't understand/share your logical apparatus because of that difference.

Wow, I didn't think anyone would try to defend that and double down on the dehumanisation.