News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by PragmaticPulp on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:36PM (#21475938)
> Hmmm number 3 doesn't seem like a negative or counter-intuitive.

This is the core of the problem: Some people like the idea of robotic, semi-scripted conversations according to a well-defined set of rules. They think that if there's a rulebook, they can predict how people will respond to them. Or worse, they think they can control how people react and respond.

Yes, we should put some constraints around egregious communication issues as well as provide general guidelines, but the important thing is to let people interact naturally within those loose constraints.

> I feel like software devs (in bay area startup world, or FAANG) are usually a certain demographic and they usually come from a place of privilege where they've never had to do the mental work that's involved in communicating effectively across diverse demographics.

It's a fallacy, though. You can't create perfect rules for human conversation. Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills, even if it's somewhat painful along the way. The basic skills can be guided with simple rules and guidelines, but the problem comes when you try to control too much of the conversation or set the constraints so tightly that it's a minefield to navigate.

Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by dwoozle on Thursday November 07, 2019 @03:09PM (#21476825)
I like robotic conversations at work because my work is not important to me, and I don’t want to bring my “full self” to work. I like to get in, do my shit, conduct communication in a formalized manner, and get out in 6 hours and go do stuff that matters to me.
Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by bluntfang on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:46PM (#21476041)
>Some people like the idea of robotic, semi-scripted conversations according to a well-defined set of rules.

Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic". You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.

>You can't create perfect rules for human conversation.

Is anyone here claiming that their goal is perfection?

>Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills

And there's nothing wrong with receiving help and guidance while you're on that journey.

Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by concordDance on Thursday November 07, 2019 @03:04PM (#21476789)
> Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic".

I'd much rather save my mental energy for the coding.

If having to carefully think about how every turn of phrase could be seen and completely giving up on being able to make friends at work is the price of hiring less privileged people? I'd rather stay in my privileged monoculture thanks. The underprivileged can go join the company with the underprivileged monoculture and everyone can be happier, communicating in the style they prefer with people who are ok with that style.

Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by twothumbsup on Thursday November 07, 2019 @08:00PM (#21479121)
"i cant make friends if i cant make dumb jokes about minorities and women"
Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by bluntfang on Thursday November 07, 2019 @07:40PM (#21479035)
you're gross.
Re:Code Health: Respectful Reviews == Useful Reviews by kortilla on Thursday November 07, 2019 @02:41PM (#21476564)
> You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.

No, it has nothing to do with that. As an unprivileged person, CoCs were harder for me to follow because I grew up using much harsher language and being more direct.

CoCs mainly seem to be about privileged people affirming to each other how “woke” they are.