Re:GitHub's Code of Conduct
by JoshTriplett on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @10:12PM
(#10045621)
> If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you.
Granted. I've certainly spent a pile of time commenting in this thread, and none of it was new. But just as it's reasonable to link to a FAQ rather than answer the same question for the Nth time, it's also not unreasonable to link to a detailed response to an argument rather than reiterating it for the Nth time, especially when it's far better supported and researched than something off-the-cuff.
> To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument.
Sure. And if someone really wanted to try to argue against those points, by all means do so (in an appropriate forum and context, not on a project mailing list for instance). But ignoring those arguments because of the site they're on or the people who made them is a perfectly sensible reason to end the discussion, just as if someone said "I'm ignoring everything you just said, my arguments still hold, so there".
I'm disinclined to read a pile of arguments in favor of creationism for exactly the same reasons I'm disinclined to directly get into an argument with a creationist: there's no possible way it's worth my time to do so. If I've found myself making some set of poor life choices that led me to become involved in such a debate, then of course I'd read and respond to arguments made in it, as with any other discussion. I'd also be inclined to consider whether I'm primarily trying to convince that person, or primarily convince the set of as-yet uncommitted bystanders while writing off that person as likely a hopeless cause.
Granted. I've certainly spent a pile of time commenting in this thread, and none of it was new. But just as it's reasonable to link to a FAQ rather than answer the same question for the Nth time, it's also not unreasonable to link to a detailed response to an argument rather than reiterating it for the Nth time, especially when it's far better supported and researched than something off-the-cuff.
> To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism asserts answer the argument.
Sure. And if someone really wanted to try to argue against those points, by all means do so (in an appropriate forum and context, not on a project mailing list for instance). But ignoring those arguments because of the site they're on or the people who made them is a perfectly sensible reason to end the discussion, just as if someone said "I'm ignoring everything you just said, my arguments still hold, so there".
I'm disinclined to read a pile of arguments in favor of creationism for exactly the same reasons I'm disinclined to directly get into an argument with a creationist: there's no possible way it's worth my time to do so. If I've found myself making some set of poor life choices that led me to become involved in such a debate, then of course I'd read and respond to arguments made in it, as with any other discussion. I'd also be inclined to consider whether I'm primarily trying to convince that person, or primarily convince the set of as-yet uncommitted bystanders while writing off that person as likely a hopeless cause.