Re:Rust's 2019 Roadmap
by lone_haxx0r on Wednesday April 24, 2019 @01:26PM
(#19740723)
I am worried that when non-marginalized groups are harassed, the punishment won't be as severe as harassing someone who is from a marginalized group.
I'm not the one who needs to give examples. They stated that they particularly "don't tolerate excluding people in socially marginalized groups". So, I imply that they are going to be more strict against this behavior in that specific case, otherwise there would be no use in making that point.
For example:
"We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone."
Is a perfectly understandable clause, and no further information would be needed in case they were not planning on discriminating based on the "group" that people belong to.
It's analogous to saying: "Killing is bad, it's particularly bad if the person you kill is a politician."
It implies that killing a politician is morally worse than killing someone else. If you didn't want to imply that, you would simply say "Killing is bad", which everyone can understand.
I'm not the one who needs to give examples. They stated that they particularly "don't tolerate excluding people in socially marginalized groups". So, I imply that they are going to be more strict against this behavior in that specific case, otherwise there would be no use in making that point.
For example:
"We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone."
Is a perfectly understandable clause, and no further information would be needed in case they were not planning on discriminating based on the "group" that people belong to.
It's analogous to saying: "Killing is bad, it's particularly bad if the person you kill is a politician."
It implies that killing a politician is morally worse than killing someone else. If you didn't want to imply that, you would simply say "Killing is bad", which everyone can understand.