I stand where Grue is. The rules, whatever they are, should be equally enforced across all repos. I think the general concern is that it will end up being arbitrary, and sorry to sound callous, but the CEO sounds like a bit of a pushover who will buckle to sensitivities. This sends a strong message to everyone in the company, especially those that push the big red Delete Repo button.

I'm totally for a list of words we can't send into a repo. I'm not for GitHub becoming a platform of drama and open political discussion and judgement.

I get that GitHub is a place that users choose to use, and that is exactly what people (and GitHub esp.) should be concerned about. GitHub's power comes from its critical mass. No one is going to maintain multiple git repos, and no one is going to want to pull from multiple sites. While I don't think GitHub will hit the rocks anytime soon, it is only a matter of pissing off the wrong group of people. Once they bounce, the clock is ticking for GitHub. They are a highly regarded site that built a ton of trust and goodwill. I hope that greg nice's fears don't become realized.

this part in particular:
no. just because someone claims they are offended, doesn't automatically assume that a wrong has been committed. there should be no responsibility to listen to frivolous claims, yet these types of documents and the precedents being set (meritocracy rug) are the exact things which will empower more frivolous claims

the problem is the growing trend of political correctness in general, to the point where anyone who feels 'offended' by anything at their own whim, thinks they are entitled to getting their way. first the rug, then the coc, next thing you know, repositories are getting deleted. thats the way their company culture is headed. will it be the same way for society in general? these idiots get confirmation from github and SJWs and white knights and start thinking that their idiotic entitlement claims are an acceptable way to behave, and then they start doing it elsewhere as well. then, the true cases of abuse (that jjshabado is concerned about) require double the attention to get noticed over the frivolous feminists/****** claims

"entitlement" = wishing to be able to contribute without abusive language being directed at someone
not "entitlement" = if you don't like my abuse, GTFO BECAUSE I REFUSE TO CHANGE MY BEHAVIOR

Greg. It doesn't say that every time someone is offended there is a wrong that must be righted. Hope this clears it up for you.

And so we get back to a lack of actual problems with the code of conduct.

Wait, this part wasn't even merged in when greg first made this thread.

so then don't make assumptions

github's greater intent of political correctness in the name of inclusion still persists. you need look no further than the other subsequent links that were posted in this thread to see potential for abuse playing out. if you don't see it as a problem then so be it. i don't need to convince you

"entitlement" = not liking the word '******' in someone else's repository and having it removed

"entitlement" = wishing to contribute but not liking someone else's tweet and demanding that they be removed from their status as project maintainer before any contributions are made

you are not entitled to either of those things. you are not entitled to anything. well, under current github regime, seems like you are. currently, you are entitled to anything at your whim, as long as you claim you take offense.

And more posts without any actual concrete problems.

I need to leave before I start treating this thread like it's in politics unchained instead of programming. Because I think what I want to say is probably only appropriate in one of those forums. Damn censorship.

lol at white males terrified about how bad things are getting with all this "political correctness"

Ya 'political correctness' is just like a crafted weapon; the non white male groups have deployed.
They'll keep coming.., the missiles and you guys will never stand a chance of trying to reverse them.

It is the shutting down of conversation that frightens me. It doesn't matter what term you want to use.

We've already seen so many instances of blatant lies being used to push agendas and smear people. We aren't even able to point out the lies without getting ourselves hurt, losing our jobs, or possibly getting our GitHub repos nuked. Don't you see how this is a problem? What does race and gender have to do with any of this, outside of bowing before extremists?

The first real incident I was exposed to was Donglegate:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events...adria-richards

The problem was someone may have said something Adria found offensive (I don't know if it was or not; I wasn't there). She didn't open her mouth at the moment, but didn't have any issues making a world-wide fuss over the situation, causing people to lose their jobs.

At the same time, she felt she was allowed to make sexual commentary and that was okay because... she's a woman and a feminist?

In Adria's world, and many others, we should live in a world where it is okay for one group of people to say the exact same things as other groups of people are forbidden to ever say, and even if what the former says is far more offensive, they should be forgiven.

So, we have people like Adria walking the world, who is being promoted by people who believe in what she says and all of this is getting egged on by internet trolls.

Well, I should be careful, my GitHub repo might be next if I keep talking like this.

and how come black guys can say the "N" word but us white guys can't?!

Argle bargle reverse racism!

Low Key, I think my argument is too subtle for you to wrap your brain around, but I'll try it this one last time.

I don't use the n-word. I believe that words are an expression of yourself and I also recognize that there words that can be used as weapons. I, under no circumstances, directly insult a person. While I'll gladly attack an idea, I don't make anything personal.

Don't define words with actions you never witnessed. When you do, you are granting words with power they don't have, and often do not reflect how the person thinks or feels.

Yes, Chris Rock is more than free to do a 2 hour HBO standup bashing white people and dropping the n-word all he wants. At the end of the day, I don't have to tune into it. I also do not believe he is attempting to spread hate. For him, that is a character, and he doesn't go around talking like that in real life. If he did, he wouldn't have a career.

But... there is a double standard. Not in what we are allowed to say, but in how we define hatred. The word "hatred" is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

I hate talking about race, but if you must go there, and use my race and gender against me, I'll tell you a bit about myself to clear up the air. I grew up as a "statistic," meaning I was the 0.3%, a white guy who grew up in an all-black ghetto. I went to one of the worst school systems in the country, and yes, I grew up knowing and cherishing the taste of government cheese.

So, double standard... I could tell you plenty of stories where, well, if it was the opposite, it would be called racist. In the world I grew up, it was "that white mother ****er shouldn't be here." It was perfectly acceptable, in the eyes of certain sick people, to drive up on someone, get out, then stomp their face in, all while telling that person to get the **** out of their hood. Never mind that the kid lived around the corner and he had no say so in where he lived.

I had one white friend who was stomped nearly to death in a parking lot of a fast food parking lot by three carloads of black people. He had to get reconstructive surgery on his face, lost an eye, had dozens of bones broken, collapsed lungs, and spent the next 3 months in the hospital. It was totally random, and had I walked home with him that day...

I've had friends, well "friends," who were a different color than I was. I was forbidden from ever meeting their friends or their family. I was called all sorts of hateful and terrible things by my "friends" who, well, they just had to. They didn't feel any animosity toward me, but they had to say those things because it was in their culture to do so. I could see the apology in their eyes.

(before you call me racist, I get along just fine with all races, but oddly, a little bit less with white people. I didn't grow up in that culture)

So, when people are making a bunch of hay over words that has little to no meaning, like "meritocracy," I in many parts feel sorry for them, but in a part, feel kind of glad for them, you know?

The problem is that, we've allowed people to redefine words to all sorts of things that don't mean what they say they mean. When we let people control language in a dangerous way, we end up with doublespeak and we allow people to abuse others while arbitrarily giving others a free pass. While I believe these people deserve a voice, they are irresponsible when they try to sideline people, effectively behaving in the exact way they are supposedly rallying against. They want their cake and eat it to. They want to use their own anger and hatred to push down other people. They are no better than their opponents.

I won't deny there are issues, and no one is, but we have to put the looking glass on each side of the party, or we end up replacing one disaster with another. Hatred goes both ways; oppression goes both ways. Sorry if one or two guys where jerks to women, but that doesn't mean all guys are jerks.

But what does all of this have to do with GitHub? I hope they aren't opening up another platform for the unhealthy misrepresentation of language, promoting lies about intent and actions. In other words, they should be staying clear of all of this and stay well away from the powder kegs. GitHub is not the place to burn people at the stake.

story checks out

lol this thread has devolved into people faking their concern for abused women to simply troll responders

devolved?

you mean all you guys' rambling nonsense had a point?!

Faking?

It's an interesting reality that some of you guys sell yourselves. Our concern for women is fake. GitHub is censoring the white man. Women are more concerned with neo-chivalry than good old fashion sexism and harassment.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-harassment.

If you want to get rid of harassment, get rid of the harassers. Zero tolerance, point blank. Dude makes a sexist comment to your women, get rid of him on the first offense. For $90k / year, you can find equal and better talent, and I hope better rounded people.

If you want more women in your company, try hiring women.

Neo-chivalry is my admonition to those (men) who don't get off their ass and do anything to change things for the better. Their opinions are as worthwhile as their actions. They can go on all day about this or that sitting online, but do any of these guys tell another guy to shut his mouth at work? Nope. Do they make an effort to bring more women into their company? Nope.

The murder and rape threats on (anti)social media is hate in spades and I hope all the guys who said those things lost their jobs and kicked out of the industry. It is up to the leaders to mop up the floors. Yeah, it will be bloody, but so what.

if you haven't trolled anyone then the reply wasn't directed towards you. you continue to argue a point that no one is arguing against. save your time

Well once again you're not actually posting concrete examples of what you're talking about.

Every single time you've posted something concrete you've been shown how you're just plain wrong.

i guess you don't want to save your time, and instead would rather continue to argue. you've already admitted that you see this as politics discussion which is probably why you are just blind rage posting from your existing viewpoints. anyway, feel free to reread to find my examples, and then find subsequent links that were posted where my concerns have become realized even without the CoC

Lol. I'm pretty sure I'm calmer here. But we could always do a text analysis to find out.

You have this belief about the world that is based on rejecting anything that doesn't fit your view as someone trolling or faking or making things up.

Every concrete thing you've posted has been pointed out how you're wrong. And everytime you just ignore that.

You totally ignored everything asking for how the coc would encourage abuse while doing nothing positive. You ignored how your representation of 'righting wrongs' is inaccurate. You ignored how your example of productive discussion getting stifled was completely wrong.

You are the embodiment of a person in a privileged group trying to justify your attempts to protect that privilege.

oh so you just post the opposite opinion and that is sufficient as 'proof' nowadays. gotcha. you also ignored the _fact_ that the consequences that i was concerned about are already happening regardless of whatever opinion i hold that has been 'proven' wrong

i'm probably considered a minority in this country, but i dont know nor care. regardless thats irrelevant. see: ad hominem

+1 To greg.

Toward the end of this video you'll notice the black guy gets in trouble for merely being in close proximity to a hyper sensitive female.

Even in their sexual harassment propaganda they show how innocent gentlemen can be wrongly accused. People suffering from depression and other mental illnesses may also be adversely affected when a fun work atmosphere is sterilized to accommodate a white womans privilege.

That video illustrates how they're not designed for the 'workplace' and in theory a programmer could eliminate pretty much all of what they do.

Lady at 3:00 isn't getting much 'x' in her life and now believes few possible things.
1. It is inappropriate for the guys to be looking at mud wrestling on company's time.
2. She has become so self centred in her views, where she finds mud wrestling a demeaning event for any gender to participate in.

Company shouldn't care what two men are doing on anyones time, if they are productive compared to everyone else working. Company should have the lady seek therapy under company expense.