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

Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#41

Post by asveikau »

mr_pinnen wrote: post #18
asveikau wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think microaggressions are definitely a thing, but the term is being misused here.

I agree, but one persons microaggression is anothers milliaggression.

So perhaps the best way is openness and receptive communication on all sides.

A: maybe you didn't mean it, but when you said _____, I felt it was subtle a slight to ____ or I had a bad experience with that.

B: hmm, you're right I didn't mean it. I will take that into consideration.

Bad reactions include:

A: I'm going to be silently angry at B and write snide things on social media. I will label them with loaded terms.

B: This is outrageous! What has the world come to with this politically correct BS?! Suddenly I have to think about what I say?!

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#42

Post by pbhjpbhj »

owenversteeg wrote: post #39
detaro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it happens quite a bit, at least if people dare to use their actual identities for their contributions instead of hiding behind something neutral.

I agree that people should be able to use their actual identities and receive the same treatment, but it's worth noting that in the programming world most people create accounts that either simply don't show their identities or obscure them. That does seem to be changing rapidly, though, and I wonder why. I mean, right now in this very thread the 3 commenters are "0815test", "detaro" and "pbhjpbhj". For most people I…

>in the Javascript world I usually see Github profiles with real names, a photo, location, and a bio... //

But do you bother to do a join to see if the people are URM in their locality? Like you need to know if someone is in Nigeria, Nepal, Nebraska, or Nagasaki before you can say they're an URM? OR are we supposed to only care if someone is an URM in a particular area of USA -- which would be superironic.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#43

Post by criddell »

yankeehue wrote: post #32

Here's one of my opinions: Everything anyone ever says is their own opinion based on their own experiences. Here's another: We'd all be better off if we held the opinion above, and remembered it when assessing what people say. We'd be able to interpret statements like "Contributing to OSS is awesome!" as "In my own experience, contributing to OSS has been awesome", where such an interpretation doesn't erase or overri…

You get that automatically if you try to be charitable when interpreting somebody's words. More often than not, this will put you on the same page as the person you are talking to.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#44

Post by criddell »

icebraining wrote: post #17

I'm flagging this because the inevitable HN thread will consist only of people tripping over themselves to mock the people involved, and zero serious discussion.

I don't think you should flag it until the discussion devolves. So far, it's pretty reasonable.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#45

Post by jnty »

ggambetta wrote: post #2

I suppose this is the natural consequence of making "microagressions" a thing. What a time to be alive.

Microaggressions are definitely a thing and one misuse of the word does not invalidate the concept. If you see a misuse of the term 'sexism' it's not okay to say "I suppose this is the natural consequence of making 'sexism' a thing." The same is true here.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#46

Post by asveikau »

LaGrange wrote: post #14
asveikau wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think microaggressions are definitely a thing, but the term is being misused here.

I'll go further: it's very common for abusive people to intentionally misappropriate the vocabulary of people they abuse. This ranges from "telling me to clean up after myself is a microagression" to "we're going to name our fascist party socialist LOL." Someone's waving their power around, plain and simple. EDIT: also, this thread is going to be baaaaaad.

Perhaps, but I think sometimes we are very eager to label people as abusive or toxic as a shortcut to understanding them. So I would avoid being too casual with permanently categorizing behavior of abusers.

I have also seen mental illness lead to behaviors that one could call abusive, gaslighting, etc. The wrong kind of label doesn't get those people where they need to be.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#47

Post by dsr_ »

yankeehue wrote: post #32

Here's one of my opinions: Everything anyone ever says is their own opinion based on their own experiences. Here's another: We'd all be better off if we held the opinion above, and remembered it when assessing what people say. We'd be able to interpret statements like "Contributing to OSS is awesome!" as "In my own experience, contributing to OSS has been awesome", where such an interpretation doesn't erase or overri…

No, sometimes people are trying to state facts about the world. Those aren't opinions. Sometimes they're wrong.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#48

Post by yankeehue »

dsr_ wrote: post #47
yankeehue wrote: post #32

Here's one of my opinions: Everything anyone ever says is their own opinion based on their own experiences. Here's another: We'd all be better off if we held the opinion above, and remembered it when assessing what people say. We'd be able to interpret statements like "Contributing to OSS is awesome!" as "In my own experience, contributing to OSS has been awesome", where such an interpretation doesn't erase or overri…

No, sometimes people are trying to state facts about the world. Those aren't opinions. Sometimes they're wrong.

Regardless what they think they are doing, they are still stating their own opinion. If we can try to interpret things in this way, even "I am stating a fact" becomes "I believe I am stating a fact."

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#49

Post by yankeehue »

criddell wrote: post #43
yankeehue wrote: post #32

Here's one of my opinions: Everything anyone ever says is their own opinion based on their own experiences. Here's another: We'd all be better off if we held the opinion above, and remembered it when assessing what people say. We'd be able to interpret statements like "Contributing to OSS is awesome!" as "In my own experience, contributing to OSS has been awesome", where such an interpretation doesn't erase or overri…

You get that automatically if you try to be charitable when interpreting somebody's words. More often than not, this will put you on the same page as the person you are talking to.

Actually, I think it's easier to remember it's always an opinion than to always be charitable. Maybe I really don't like a person and so it's very hard to be charitable in a given moment, but that person's statements are still their opinion and don't get to override my own experiences.

Re: Contributing to OSS considered “dangerous advice”

#50

Post by sjcoles »

DanBC wrote: post #40
sjcoles wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we're supposed to simply know what other people's past, present, and future experiences may or will be? Wouldn't using indicators like class, race, and gender to make these assumptions be a micro-aggression in and of itself? E: To be clear I am honestly curious. This whole argument gets into a circular reasoning of "oh you should just know you silly cis het male, if I have to tell you it won't make a difference/de…

> we're supposed to simply know what other people's past, Can you tell me how I can reword "be mindful of" to avoid the implication that you need to know anything at all about other people? Because that's not what I wanted to say. What I wanted to say was "being aware of micro-aggressions is a small part of not being a complete cunt".

The issue I have is the goal posts are constantly moving in an ever frustrating way.

In one setting being mindful of one aspect that may affect the group will be acceptable but may be perceived as a slight with another group of listeners.

It truly feels like a no-win situation.

Yes, I do think micro-aggression is real, but when disparate groups, even if they are morally or politically aligned, have vastly different definitions it becomes a tool to oust instead of include.

Post reply on HN