I love that the guy who won't pay his interns because they can live on welfare is in here berating people for not being progressive enough.

Also love the insinuation that I don't think various minorities should be allowed to speak because I recognize this particular brand of SJW as rabble rousers. Just look at the **** they stirred up in that thread. It's proof in itself that they've launched a successful attack.

For more context, this is the Contributor Covenant:

http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/

I don't see anything really wrong with it. I think many people take issue with the last bullet, as that can have ambiguous and arbitrary meaning depending on the project BDFL and the contributors. It is no different than a typical workplace. Some things that are okay at Company X is considered offensive at Company Y, but open source is more open and public. I think the fear is that there seems to be a race for some common bottom denominator, where the entire world is dehumanized, we are afraid to speak openly, afraid to make innocuous jokes, etc, for fear of unbalanced repercussions. I totally support not racing to the bottom.

Was it here or the BS thread that someone posted a link to the leader / follower commit in Swift? It was interesting how the original was offensive, but the change was also offensive, depending on who you ask.

At the end of the day, no one of us is perfect. We've all said stupid **** we regret, but we shouldn't have to lose our entire lives over it. Of course, using overtly offensive language is not acceptable, but I think everyone is just struggling with the gray area because there really is no cold hard perfect words that everyone can agree is non-offensive to every single person. We have to take some risks, and calling an idea stupid is far more educational and useful to people if it is taken as the idea, not under the blanket of reinterpreted terminology.

Ugh... what?

That's not my insinuation at all. I think the majority of people like you and Greg are not blatantly racist/sexist/whateverist.

My point is that you want to defend "freedom of speech" and like concepts - except when people are saying things you don't like.

You still haven't quoted an actual attack from that issue.

DaveT, I agree with what you're saying generally. And I'd point out that nowhere does it say people that violate the 'covenant' should be tarred and feathered or even removed from a project.

And I agree that there's an obvious grey area for a lot of this stuff. But I don't think putting in something that at least frames the discussion for the grey area is a big deal. And proposing said framework is certainly not an "attack".

I don't think the covenant is an attack, and yes, I think it needs a catch-all, but that's sort of the bummer about it.

People are losing their jobs over this stuff. Exhibit A: dongle-gate. Granted, one can say that just desserts was served in that case, but still.

I think having a discussion is kind of strange. I don't know what it is about the programming community in general, but the way it is being handled is kind of strange to me. I feel like there shouldn't be a discussion at all, but then again, if you walked into my office and disrespected my employees, I'll hand back 10x whatever you came in with. If you walk into my office and say "women can't..." I'll give you a look that says I'm not going to tolerate that. If one of my employees says anything like that, there is no second looks; they're gone.

The extreme is straight-up zero-tolerance, but at the same time, we can't cowtow to every single sensibility. i think that... having this kind of talk is making the situation much worse. Not only does it force everyone to walk on eggshells, it also openly demonstrates a world that, while claiming to be inclusive, is actually being more exclusive. A woman considering a career in computers opens up twitter or HN, sees all the drama, and says "**** that. I don't want to be a member of this **** for 40 years." The SJWs or whatever you want to call them are actually making the situation worse by creating a world where attacks are considered okay. The fact that this is all happening in the first place is a sign of very poor leadership all across the industry and that is really where the blame should be. I think that, from what I've seen, programmers are overly-babied, which is sad when we are talking about adults.

I believe the idea that having this conversation openly makes it worse for minorities/women is based on a flawed premise and one that I suspect the vast majority of minorities/women would disagree with.

I don't understand this. Unless you mean that it excludes people like the dude who was bashing transgender people on Twitter. In which case... meh.

In fact, its interesting to see different perspectives on this. Because it seems to me (and I certainly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary) that this is mostly about making programmers be adults and behave in an adult way. And most of the complaints seem to be about the loss of 'freedom of speech' which boils down - I want to be able to be offensive.

I think I said it earlier, but I'll say it again. I haven't heard a single person I respect complain about this. Because whats contained in the covenant is a non issue. It literally changes nothing about how they conduct themselves on a regular basis.

Yes, I agree with you! I disagree with the way it is being done.

When you talk about "people" you are talking about "other people." That label, while not intended, is something a lot of people are sensitive to, even though "other people" is not explicitly said, a lot of people, especially those in the "other people" camp, do hear it.

I find the term "Female Founder" very strange, and yes, when I was in SF, people actually used that term. What the **** difference does it make if the founder is male or female? It is akin to saying "not bad for a girl," which is straight-up offensive and silly terminology.

By purporting to be "non-offensive," many people are actually being highly offensive to people who just want to live their lives and "do."

I could go on with many other silly examples like that, but at least, from my own friends, who are across the spectrum of race and gender, they find "[race | gender] [role]" kind of silly, and if they had the choice, they wouldn't interact with any person that would use anything close to that terminology because they figure you are inherently small-minded and bigoted, but I guess you and I respect different kind of people.

It's a description. How is that offensive or based on "Not bad for a girl"?

But, ok, you find that offensive. How is that relevant? As in how does something like the covenant linked above lead to more things like this? They're not advocating for terms like this.

What's an example?

This is ridiculous.

There are real problems in tech (and outside of tech) that things like the covenant address and bring up for discussion. Things like sexually offensive and violent threats. Anyone thinking that "female founder" is the big issue just seems unbelievably naive to me.

I agree we must respect totally different types of people.

I'm using that as an example of calling out people for being different, which is exclusionary. Do you not see how this is relevant? I personally don't find this offensive as I'm not a woman, but I'd steer clear of anyone that uses that term.

When the only voices are the ultra-feminists or whatever, they are actually excluding people who don't want to be part of the club. Yes, it is okay to be angry and yes, it is okay to bring things up for discussion, but attempting to smear an entire industry and cost jobs is just being a bunch of drama queens, and I'm sure you will agree that most women aren't drama queens, so it stands to reason that most woman wouldn't want to be a part of it.

I gave you an example...

The covenant brings up things that management should have never tolerated in the first place. The fact that we need to tell people that the things you listed are "bad" shows that there was a load of failures in people management in the past. When this is still an issue years after all of this has been going on, it is a failure of management today.

It might help you have perspective if you grew up as an "other person." Trust me, the terminology hurts like hell, but you learn to just deal with the terms and try to recognize that people are trying to be kind, but ultimately you can never get past the point that they are seeing you as something different. It is best to not use terms that differentiate people, and it is best to not use gender or race labeling terms. Just do your best to see someone as a human. The best way to do that is call it that; your mind, internally, changes.

Attacks were already considered okay. The oppressed fighting back isn't an attack, it's a response.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. There are a few extreme cases (like the leader/follower crap) but that's hardly an accurate representation of what's happening generally here. Nor is it what things like the code of conduct are generally trying to address. Finally there are way more extreme cases on the other side - people posting sexually violent insults - for example.






.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what the example of people purportedly trying to be non offensive but actually are offensive.






Ok, let's take this premise as true (I don't actually think it is - we're typically talking communities with at best an informal volunteer management system). The covenant would still be useful. Unless we believe management is magically going to get better something needs to be done to push things to get better.





I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. That's a personal thing and I see where you're coming from. My point is that we're very far from a point where what you're talking about is the big problem. Relatively passive [adjective role] type comments take a backseat to sexually violent or outright dismissive hostile comments.

And again, I'm not really sure what your actual issue is with things like the code of conduct.

It is true. Women and minorities leave the industry at an astonishingly high rate. Further evidence is shown that people are actually gaining enough skills to be a part of the open source community to the level that this is an issue. If these people were kicked out of the industry when they showed these traits, there would be no issues today because these *******s wouldn't have the ability to gain the requisite talent.

I'm not claiming that this happens at work, but I am claiming that posters HN / Twitter / FB are taking things to very high extremes. As an outsider looking in, the environment looks extraordinarily toxic. If you are attempting to bring "others" in, then it does well to reconsider the image everyone is creating.

I'm pretty sure I said I have no issues with the code of conduct.

I think it all breaks down the old saying: it isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

http://kotaku.com/the-steam-players-...hip-1755178862

Goddamn social justice warriors censoring porn games maybe!

I'm sorry, what is your issue?

If people want to play risque games, that is their prerogative and they shouldn't be judged for it.

The fact that Steam even allows these patches to be openly listed on their platform is a good thing, IMO.

Steam apparently has some standard of what they call acceptable, and I'm guessing they have the standards listed somewhere. If game makers decide to violate these standards, there is no loss because the players can get patches anyways. In fact, you can consider these patches free publicity for the games.

If you don't like what the TV is showing, don't like what the radio is playing, or don't like what the game is showing, turn it off and look for something else. There is enough in this world that everyone can be happy. We all have our personal lines we won't cross, but that doesn't mean I should call someone out for having different lines, and this certainly doesn't mean that I should prevent people from entertaining themselves.

I enjoy horror films, and many people find it disgusting. Does that mean NetFlix should cut all the blood scenes so that no one is offended?

I'm guessing this doesn't happen anymore, but WalMart used to be a big seller of CD's, and they would not sell albums that had an adult content warning on it. The artists compromised by selling CDs that didn't have these warnings. I think the most famous example was Eminem releases and non-offensive CD. Of course, I didn't have to buy my CDs from WalMart and I never did, but that doesn't mean that I should be angry at WalMart for promoting its sense of values.

one side is trying to promote censorship

the other is trying to prevent it

i'm surprised this is so difficult

Someone opened an issue about adopting the code of conduct. It said things like:

CENSORSHIP!!!!!!

And the reaction ITT was to label it an attack. You know, almost like they wanted to shut down these kinds of issues from being opened in the first place.

And, of course, its just a silly claim because the idea that all censorship is bad is just unbelievably naive and dumb. So maybe try to make a bit more of a sophisticated argument?

https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/stat...34282607378432

It's a coup attempt. Stop playing dumb, JJ. This person already tried to have a maintainer removed from a project over tweets, https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941.

I was just made aware the same thing is happening with the php community as well,

https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comment...de_of_conduct/

She attacked the anti-trans dude I guess. But that wasn't your claim.

And I have zero problem with removing a bigot for being a bigot. Sorry?

Welcome to the real world. Being an ******* means a bunch of people don't want to work with you. You have a right to not be arrested for being an ass. But that's about it.

Can you quote something where ruby is under attack yet?

Thinking that transgender people are not accepting reality, in the context of discussing whether gender reassignment surgeries are offered too easily to transgender minors, doesn't seem particularly out of line and certainly not the type of bigotry that warrants significant consequences. I don't see how it even contradicts the scientific consensus, where GID/GD is considered a psychiatric disorder. Not accepting reality isn't even necessarily considered a bad thing in other contexts. Pre-op transgender people that wish to undergo gender reassignment surgeries are definitely unhappy with the reality of their physical appearance not matching their mental model. Could we say that they are trying to change this reality instead of accepting it? How wrong is it to describe that situation as not accepting reality? How offensive would it be for me to describe Christians as not accepting reality because they believe in afterlife?

In the twitter conversation that was cited, it seems to me that others were trying hard to pretend that he said that transgender people are insane or delusional, which is a wrong and uncharitable interpretation of what he said. To the extent that he implied that transgender people have a mental issue, again, that's not controversial.

This is not to say that Elia is not a bigot or the way he talks about transgender people doesn't have a transphobic undertone but we're dealing with people here. Almost everyone has opinions that are offensive to some and if expressed carelessly, could subject them to an attack by an online mob. I would definitely be wary of someone who would instigate an attack along those lines, even if I'm sympathetic to their cause and the personal sufferings that may have lead to such tendencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - doesn't this rationalize any status quo? You're saying that any outcome is justified because that's the real world and whoever was kicked out of the project was kicked out because people don't want to work with them for whatever reason. No one has any right except the right not to be arrested. That's a valid, pragmatic and almost tautological point of view but isn't that the opposite of what those promoting CoCs are saying? Is it okay for the 4chan crowd to bully a company into firing an outspoken feminist because well, that's the real world and being an ******* has consequences?

Candybar, you just wrote three long paragraphs that seems to end with you basically agreeing he's a bigot/transphobic.

As for the last paragraph, it feels like you're missing the context. The rallying cry of the people claiming that proposing to use the code of conduct 'is an assault' is the argument about censorship and freedom of speech and yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think your characterization of what I'm saying is accurate. I'd go into it more, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. It's kind of disappointing that a lot of the conversation in this thread has seemed to be explicit or implicit support for the status quo (and a lot of silence).

And so be it. So maybe it's best I just follow what I preach and stop participating in tech communities that don't make an active effort to stamp out this crap.

i don't think hes playing dumb. i think hes just on level1, reaction mode

good to see the top rated reply is something sensible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comment...onduct/cym62t7
watching the youtube link now

welcome to the real world. being a stuck up, politically correct, pro-censorship white knight also means a bunch of people don't want to work with you. you have a right not to work with them either. go start your own ruby fork with your own CoC

works both ways pal

its crazy how coddled everyone wants to be and how this is even a debate. this stuff is taught at the grade school level. weren't you people required to read Farhenheit 451, The Crucible, Huckleberry Finn?

the ironing

The point is that to the extent he's revealed to be a bigot, most people are, and maybe we should all strive to be better but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that the level of bigotry that's involved here (and even that's not clear) is actionable. I've worked with at-risk transgender people and transphobia is completely mainstream - it's hard to find people who are not transphobic in some significant way, even among those who volunteered to help transgender people. With gay rights and racism in the first world, we can at least say, you know what, we've tried and it should be clear by now to everyone what the right thing is and if you're still not on board, maybe it's you, not us. It's probably not a productive attitude, but at least it's defensible. But with transgender, I think a lot of people are ignorant not because they are bad, but because they haven't been exposed and haven't really had a reason to be educated. Treating "soft bigots" like criminals is the surest way to lose the middle to the hardliners on the other side. And even on the question of "soft bigotry" I think what Elia said is borderline, not clear cut.

You're saying that well, in real world, **** has consequences. I completely agree. But that's not a defense of the consequences. That's the question I'm asking - are the consequences proportional? I'm part of the liberal tribe and it doesn't make sense to me. How is it fair, how is it going to make the world a better place? Our tribe is a small minority in the big scheme of things - why are we trying to maximally abuse our powers in the little corners we control which has no practical consequences beyond emboldening the radicals among us while justifying the faux victimization on the other side? If we truly believe that we're right, why aren't we engaged in education and dialog, but rushing to fight and eliminating dissent?

Social justice is a perfectly good cause to fight for but you can't preach social justice on one hand, and then turn around and say, I don't really care how someone was treated, when you're being an *******, you deserve what's coming to you. That to me is not social justice - it just seems to be a way to channel our inner bigotry while feeling smug about it.

You can't stamp out "this crap" - unless you manage to isolate yourself in a complete echo chamber, some of your neighbors, coworkers, parents of your children's friends and your extended family are going to be bigots. If we can't work with bigots, we can't make the world a better place.