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

The SQLite Code of Ethics

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 408 posts

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#381

Post by account42 »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #300
logifail wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a set of beliefs The elephant in the room in many current attempts to encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.

Let’s be blunt, when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot. Of course nobody says that so directly- they use dog whistles so that people who are being attacked know to leave while the bigots retain a veinier of civility so they can radicalize others by saying “look how hostile and irrational that group got over my innocuous sounding sta…

Sure, it's much easier to discount competing thoughts and opinions if you just discard them as bigotry.

If anyone is radicalizing others it is those that treat everyone that does not 100% agree with them as radicals that must be pushed out instead of as people.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#382

Post by account42 »

prirun wrote: post #354
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot. If you a actually read the article you quoted, the main argument he’s making is essentially “well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”. That may or may not be true on a college campus (and at a public college the argument is likely immaterial because a government run institution is, and should be, bound by f…

“well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress” In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.

> In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.

The implication here is of course that it is only worth talking to those that you can convert to your side, which is of course admitting that you are in fact opposed to diverse thoughts. Are you open to change your opinions or do you only expect others to adjust to your standards?

Of course those calling others bigots and using unionically using dog whistles like "dog whistle" is a very opiniated thing to do. Should we also take those things as a sign of irrationality and not engage with their ideas? Perhaps.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#383

Post by account42 »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #308
toomim wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my experience at all.

What experiences do you have to the contrary? I’ve moderated a few community spaces and this has been the way it’s gone every single time it’s come up for me.

Have you reflected on the fact that all those community spaces have had one thing in common - you moderating them? Perhaps listening to peoples concerns about lack of diversity of thought instead of labeling them bigots would allow you to see things differently. Most people don't feel as strongly about controlling the discourse of others that they end up moderating any not to mention multiple spaces.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#384

Post by account42 »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #296
kibwen wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that somewhat short-sighted. Let's use a different example. Imagine you live in a society that allows personal gun ownership. Obviously, in such a society you still don't want people running around shooting each other willy-nilly, so you make a law: shoot someone, go to jail. Now imagine someone pulls out a gun and shoots you. Result: you're dead, they go to jail. However, you'd really prefer not to be dead. S…

There's a 99.9% chance [1] any comment this long is tinfoil hat level crazy. 1. I've been on the internet.

I don't agree at all with the gp or the use of the "paradox of tolerance" to shut down those you agree with, but I agree even less with discounting commings based on their length. Long from responses should be encouraged as they require the commenter to at least put in some time and hopefully some thought as well and also because many things are complex enough that shortening them just to please the twitter-brained loses vital details.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#385

Post by account42 »

kibwen wrote: post #243
generalizations wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the developers are saying "we will treat you this way regardless of how you treat us" > in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance I have a lot more respect for people whose ethics are not conditional on the behavior of others.

I find that somewhat short-sighted. Let's use a different example. Imagine you live in a society that allows personal gun ownership. Obviously, in such a society you still don't want people running around shooting each other willy-nilly, so you make a law: shoot someone, go to jail. Now imagine someone pulls out a gun and shoots you. Result: you're dead, they go to jail. However, you'd really prefer not to be dead. S…

The problem with your analogy is that

a) someone being shot and someone pointing a gun are very well defined things while what is or is not intolerant is very subjective

and

b) unlike in your analogy, if someone expresses a opinion you consider intolerant then you are not dead, you can still defend your own opinion and counter theirs and most importantly you have not been harmed irreparably.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#386

Post by account42 »

doctor_eval wrote: post #197
bcrosby95 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only works if you don't label half the population as intolerant.

It's not about labels. Speech that singles other people or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise racist, sexist, etc is intolerant. In a just society, we simply ask that one makes one's point without throwing specific groups under the proverbial bus.

> Speech that singles other people or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise racist, sexist, etc is intolerant.

I wish more people would actually agree with that and not just apply it to groups thet they think need protection.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#387

Post by account42 »

Akronymus wrote: post #181
Ferrotin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is a response to the bigotry and harassment problems that were endemic to the open source communities Such as???

Advocating for removing a contributor for a statement on a different site, unrelated to the project, for example? https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

And this is supposed to be a good thing?

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#388

Post by quickthrower2 »

scns wrote: post #348

As good as the intentions behind them are, they work much better by leaving negations out. Do not murder -> Leave other people alive Do not commit adultery -> Be truthful to your partner Do not steal, Do not covet -> Be content with what you have Do not bear false witness -> Speak the truth Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself -> Treat others like you want to be treated Do not become attached…

Leave other people alive sounds weird to me. Sort of implies you go around accidentally killing people by default and a handy reminder to not do that is what this is.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#389

Post by CRConrad »

Natsu wrote: post #295
KMag wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say National Socialism was purely left. It was economically extremely left-leaning and most of their social policies were extremely right-leaning. (Though, racism knows no political bounds... Stalin also practiced genocidal policies.) It's true that Hitler thought the US's free market economy was a Jewish ideal, and he thought the economic free market incentives (in the form of huge government contracts) w…

I mean, the economics of National Socialism aren't what people usually hate about it, they hate the authoritarianism where you were either their kind of socialist or they would beat you up and cast you out of society, even if you were some other stripe of socialist. So they became nearly universally hated by fighting anyone who wasn't one of them.

> ... the authoritarianism [of the Nazis] where you were either their kind of socialist ...

They were no kind of socialist.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#390

Post by CRConrad »

gunfighthacksaw wrote: post #200
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not talking about silencing people I disagree with in terms of opinion. I’m talking about fascists disagreeing that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups should be alive or allowed to thrive, or have certain rights. If you think holding views like that is OK, you walk, talk and quack like a fascist. That's a nice motte-and-bailey lumping together "should be alive" and "have certain rights". The former is a very s…

> A religious person who opposes abortion is not a fascist. I’d call them a theocrat, but lets not forget the close ties between fascism and the church/new political-religious movements in Germany and Italy. > An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to compete in womens' competitions is not a fascist. This one is nuanced because transgender folks being allowed to exist openly is still fairly recent, and openly in…

> I’d call them a theocrat, but lets not forget the close ties between fascism and the church/new political-religious movements in Germany and Italy.

Or better, let's.

Because what you're doing is just jumbling shit up together so words lose all meaning.

Post reply on HN