The very core of the problem is that impact of anything on human minds is, in fact, not objectively measurable. Even formalized attempts to do this - e.g. psychology - suffer from a major replication crisis.

In that scenario, the situation degenerates into "he said - she said". Traditional response was "in dubio pro reo" = "in doubt, let the accused go free".

But modern woke movements generally hollow out this principle and replace it by "believe the marginalized / weaker / oppressed side" and "be strict and hostile against the privileged side", as defined by the contemporary academic ladder of oppression.

This leads to a very paranoid society and I think it will take at most 10-20 years to reverse again, as bad cases start to heap. One of the universal qualities of humanity is that we can all be manipulative dicks, regardless of gender, color and creed, and once you shift the balance of power to the accuser, you will empower manipulative people across the board. And they are perfectly able to poison the common well for everyone.

Edit: 2 downvotes within 20 seconds and zero attempt at rebuttal.

Isn't protected class an american legal term? Seems weirdly ameri-centric for a document of this nature. Not to mention that gay people weren't even a protected class in the usa until last year afaik. Not exactly a very inclusive definition.

Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? I appreciate minorities get a lot of shit that others don't, but its not like bigioted assholes are the only people who harrass other people.

CoCs themselves, and the wider identity politics culture war, are also extremely Ameri-centric.

> the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class?

There is a subset (I like to think that they're the fringe, but have no numbers to back that up) of those who engage in identity politics who do believe that bigotry does not apply when the target is the dominant demographic.

> CoCs themselves, and the wider identity politics culture war, are also extremely Ameri-centric.

An idea can be both a good one and political. And indeed a good idea while Ameri-centric.

The risk is that this might be a status play by authoritarians, who very rarely have good ideas and typically do a lot of damage once they get in to power. I suspect actual minorities & protected classes are more worried about authoritarians than racist jokes. If they aren't they should be.

> who do believe that bigotry does not apply when the target is the dominant demographic

I said something similar about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28664520

Then I literally had a troll stalk me for it, claiming I was racist.

When I asked why: "There’s no arguing with racist pieces of shit such as yourself"

so, while what you say is true, careful pointing that out.

it is the depiction of in-group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

Modern tribalism at it's finest

I've never seen anybody suggest that you can't be bigoted against a dominant group.

I have seen it suggested that specific terms like racism and sexism are not generic terms that apply to any sort of discrimination along racial, ethnic or in the case of sexism along gender lines, but apply specifically to actions that maintain or reinforce the power of dominant groups and existing privileges and positions that advantage them, and that trying to expand those terms to describe all discrimination serves to obfuscate and minimize the existing structural and institutional power disparities.

Or to analogize, if my boss hates me, that's probably a big problem for me and my work. If alternatively hate my boss, that's not really a problem in the same way for my boss. I can't fire them, or decide what projects they can work on. They aren't the reverse of each other, because the power dynamic isn't the same.

It is part of the basic definitions of the Critical Theory worldview, and the underlying Marxist ideas behind it. (Yes, I know invoking those will cause people to presume I'm just parroting talking points, but I am being very precise.)

The gist of the idea is that the oppressed ('minority group') do not need to be bound by the laws that shackle them, created by the oppressors ('dominant group') solely to preserve their own power. Defying the oppressors and violating existing institutions and laws is a baseline understanding of those who fully adopt this worldview. It may be largely a fringe for now, but in America, it's being pushed steadily along the axes of both race and gender first, and other secondary traits following behind.

Wow are you barking up the wrong tree in describing me. This is some strange strawman version of what some left wing people believe, not a description of my philosophy.

Did you read this on Brietbart, or in The National Review, or what?

I was not attempting to describe you, and I apologize if that's what I communicated. My response was intended to be to your opening comment:

  I've never seen anybody suggest that you can't be bigoted against a dominant group.

I am pointing out that that /is/ a current and growing worldview among many, even if you have not yet seen it yourself. Your views are your own, and I have relatively little insight into it from your post.

I would point out that it is the logical extension of what you stated in the first post in this subthread, carried to its extremes. If you don't believe those extremes should hold, I would ask you to consider: what is the limiting factor for you? Where is the line drawn? How far is too far?

I appreciate the clarification.

I don't however agree with you that that's the logical extension of what I stated. Can you explain? I don't feel it particularly relevant to take an idea and carry it to an extreme to judge it's usefulness either.

Perhaps you might instead address what I said initially on it's own terms.

The argument you'd heard basically boils down to turning all power dynamics into moral categories: those who have power reinforce their own power by building systems that make sure there's no repercussions for their own actions if they harm someone under their power. The extension comes when people make it universal instead of specific: defining all human relationships in terms of power and its abuse. Those in power are inherently immoral, and thus under power are inherently moral.

There is certainly truth to this: normally, we would call such a relationship 'corruption of power', and as the adage goes, power and corruption tend to go hand-in-hand. The argument then goes that if you are not in power, the only way to return the relationship to a morally right state is to break the rules the corrupt powerful have put in place to purportedly retain their own power. If you grant the premise of the powerful making /all laws/ and /all institutions/ solely to preserve themselves and oppress others, the conclusion must follow.

The issue in my opinion is one of 'divined intent' - there is an implicit premise, that there is either direct intent built-in to those oppressive structures, or that there is indirect intent that carries the same amount of guilt for the powerful group. But that paints with far too broad a brush, and is really unfalsifiable, since we cannot fully know the mind of those creating and participating in those structures. Yet all too often, the argument boils down to an assignment of malign intent that vindicates any and all action in response. This is usually done with a motte-and-bailey: make the sweeping case that all powerful people think something, then tip-toe around individual examples when confronted, unless it's a cherry-picked target.

There is also the issue of the universal: this holds true of many systems, but not all systems, and not all people within those systems. The argument works by making the claim apply to /any/ relationship involving power.

Lastly, there is the issue of vocabulary. It's a cute trick to redefine words to apply only to a subset of what the words originally refer to, but the goal is confusion of language. You create new words to describe subsets of phenomena, but that's not what's been done in that argument: it hijacks the original meaning to generate confusion, often with the goal of saying, for example, 'if you are against racism [original definition], you will overturn all existing systems [modified definition].' There's equivocation going on in there.

0. There's no singular leftist philosophy in a world where anarchists and socialists and moderates and centrists are all ostensibly on the same side, but there are points of agreement (nazis are bad, every human being deserves equal dignity, people should have agency over their own bodies except where that agency meaningfully harms others, etc). When I refer to leftist thought I'm trying to refer to my understanding of that overlap. Also I'll number by paragraph I'm responding to.

1. To your first paragraph I'd say that's not the usual argument that I've heard from people on the left. I mean there are kooky people out there, but I think most people would say having privilege doesn't make you inherently immoral, nor is lacking power inherently moral. Morality is based on choices, with the understanding that choosing not to act is still seen as a choice.

Having systemic power gives you a greater capacity to affect change. I do think some people will see refusing to act appropriately to change things for the better when it's easier because you have power as more immoral than if you refuse to act when you lack systemic power, so in that sense you are right, but that's only true if you don't act.

Further I just don't think guilt is really the focus for most people on the left, except to understand how we got to the current status quo; What's more important is people taking responsibility and acting, and attempting to share power so that others can also act.

2. There are certainly people who intentionally work to maintain and expand their power; wealthy people who push for lower tax rates on the wealthy come to mind. Still, a large part of feminist and anti-racist theory seems to be about creating knowledge of privilege in people who take it for granted, and then pointing out the responsibility that suggests. There are conspiracy minded folks to be sure, but I don't know that that jibes with the idea of invisible privilege. I suppose you could argue it doesn't and suggest leftist philosophy isn't perfectly coherent or in agreement though. I'll have to think about this.

3. There's a whole thing in leftist philosophy about how intent is not the same thing as impact. It doesn't matter if systems that perpetuate injustice were built for the best of intentions or the worst or are just weird historical artifacts like the electoral college, what matters is the harm done, and how it falls disproportionately on members of marginalized groups. Thus the whole emphasis on anti-racism instead of not being racist, since merely not acting to further racism doesn't mitigate the harm that exists currently, and is thus also immoral. If that's confusing, look up Good Germans.

4. I'm not sure I understood why you were saying this, but to the extent that I understood I think I agree with you that not every relationship with power is affected. I see a meaningful difference in situations where a person has significant institutional or structural power vs situations where the power comes with the approval of those over whom power is wielded directly.

5.A cute trick? So does that mean you are suggesting that racism was not historically a term mainly used to describe the Nazis and other white supremacists, and sexism a term mainly used to describe the gender inequality that women faced?

I would argue that your original definition is in fact a conservative redefinition, one that treats an unequal status quo as an entitlement of those with power by pretending they are the true victims because people are attempting to redress social injustices.

I guess in the post modern sense any viewpoint can be correct because everything is subjective and based on one's viewpoint, but I'm not a post modernist and to me that seems like BS. I think terms are regularly redefined by people on the right in order to muddy the water and generate fear.

I guess I can say, at least we agree the water is muddy?

This has been fun, not sure I'll respond more or not in this thread but you've given me some food for thought.

Certainly agreed the water is muddy, and that only the kooky fringe hold to all these, but that fringe is growing. The widely-hailed current sources for this kind of thinking are Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo; the latter, specifically, is being hired by companies nationwide to run seminars for employees to train them with this kind of worldview.

It's also pushed strongly in academia, and is quite common to hear about among young progressives as compared to older ones. For concrete examples, look into the Mike Nayna documentary on the Evergreen State College's 'Equity Council'; it's an extreme example, but you can hear the same process happening to lesser degrees elsewhere.

I've read Ibram X. Kendi's How to be an Anti-Racist and Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility and while I didn't agree with everything they said, a lot of it was thoughtful, made me think, and ultimately made sense. I do have a lot of privileges that others don't, and I feel obliged to make things better if I can, using the imperfect guides that exist.

I expect in 20 years some of what Kendi and DiAngelo will have held up, and some of it won't have. That's how doing anything new usually works.

I don't expect corporations to solve racism and sexism, or politicians or even people who run seminars.

I've actually given up any hope that my lifetime will see meaningful end of racism or sexism or even childhood hunger in America. Maybe some low hanging fruit or common cases will be better addressed.

When there is a real attempt to do something that actually makes a difference in the world, I expect it to be a bit clumsy, because they are so often trying to solve for the common case or the most costly case, not for every case. That's not illogical, I do the same thing when I code.

Sometimes they will certainly screw up or go to far; nobody said changing the status quo was easy.

Perhaps that's why conservatism has as much support as it does even when it's based on unscientific BS, or even outright lies.It's very easy to treat the status quo as the best of all possible worlds and try to defend it from the imagined horrors of change.

To me that seems such an empty hopeless way to live, and I hope more people in the world strive for something better, even if it's difficult and imperfect.

I assume the Evergreen State College doc is about Bret Weinstein, which I'm familiar with, but I'll watch the documentary. Have you heard or read about Harvard and Lorgia García Peña? https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/why-lorgi...

Protected characteristic in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

EU has the concept but doesn't name them in that way, countries implementing them may do in their respective language (someone else has already commented as such for German): https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundam...

Right, many countries have similar ideas. They all define them slightly differently.

The americentric part is using the american legal term of art in an international context and assuming everyone just understands it, and that its a reasonable definition in context.

The idea that minorities exist and should have some additional legal protection is not the aspect that is americentric.

My point is that I don't think it is using it as an American legal term, it's using it generically for the the broadly understood idea, a lot being common. At least that would be my assumption.

They could hardly go out of their way to find a synonym not in use by any country, and then keep checking in case some country started using it and people started interpreting the document as using it in the sense of that country's law specifically.

It's not an American legal document, so unless it explicitly defines the term as such, that's not what it means, it's just words. If it said 'murder' or 'jaywalking' we wouldn't pick a country that uses those terms to interpret them in its legal sense, we'd just understand the broad sense of what they are anywhere, even in countries where they are not used ('jaywalking' here in the UK).

> The idea that minorities exist and should have some additional legal protection

Again, that's not what it is. The legal protection is against discrimination based on your <something> such as race or ethnicity. No matter whether the particular value in your case is held by the majority or a minority of people.

Taken literally, its a referential term - "protected class" means a class protected by something (in usa typically a statute).

If they don't define the term, then surely they mean the american context - if not, who is protecting the class?

> If it said 'murder' or 'jaywalking' we wouldn't pick a country that uses those terms to interpret them in its legal sense, we'd just understand the broad sense of what they are anywhere

The difference is that these terms have widely agreed upon meanings. I know what jaywalking means regardless of country.

If i use the term protected class generically, who is included? Are we including the following groups:

- vetrens of us armed forces

- vetrens of non-usa armed forces

- political beliefs

- sexual orientation

- criminal conviction

If used generically, its impossible to know - some juridsictions say yes, some say no, in different contexts.

If the CoC was just using the term in an abstract way - to represent the abstract idea of a protected class, that would be fine. However they are not. They are using the term concretely. To understand the CoC you have to know the exact list of protected classes (or at least be able to identify if a specific trait creates membership or not).

Although i think this term is needlessly american, ultimately i'd be fine with it if they defined it. Not defining a term used almost exclusively in the usa kind of implies they mean it in its american sense.

> Again, that's not what it is. The legal protection is against discrimination based on your <something> such as race or ethnicity. No matter whether the particular value in your case is held by the majority or a minority of people.

I should of said marginalized instead of minority perhaps. Although it varries depending on context, and region, affirmative action is often not considered to be in violation of these policies. So its more complex than that.

What term should they use then?

They should just list out the classes they care about or say the criteria that determines if a class is protected.

After all, anyone reading the document would need to know that info, why not make it obvious?

You have what is unfortunately a common misunderstanding of the term protected class. Nobody is IN a protected class, because protected classes are not any particular group of people, like middle class or working class. In the civil rights act of 1964 protected classes are the classifications that the law refers to such as race, religion, etc. So it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion, but it does not protect any religion over any other. For race, race itself is the protected class. So it is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, not just black people or Asians, for example.

> Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class?

The GNOME CoC gleefully states they will ignore complaints of racism against whites and sexism against cis men because "we prioritize the safety of marginalized groups over the comfort of privileged groups".

That's not what that line means at all. That line means that an argument like `let's stop using gender-neutral language in our documentation, it's easier to just say "he" instead of "the user"` won't fly: this type of argument prioritizes the comfort of a privileged group (males) over the safety/well-being of a marginalized group (women and non-binary people).

I'm all for being gender-neutral for the sake of neutrality, but the idea that the use of "he" somehow hurts people's safety or well-being sounds a bit absurd to me.

You are going to have to explain how using 'he' can harm the safety and well being of somebody else.

That is a complete misreading of the clear statement that text is making!

> Isn't protected class an american legal term?

Protected class ("geschützte Gruppe") is a commonly understood concept in Germany, too.

The abstracting concept of "protected group" is not commonly understood. I had never heard of it before this thread. Anti discrimination of course is, but not this specific term.

Neither in the German Wikipedia nor in the Duden (German dictionary) or on the website of the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" (Federal Agency for Civic Education) can I find any reference to "geschützte Gruppe".

The German constitution, explicitly states: "No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.".

This is often emphasized in things like job postings, but never in abbreviated/conceptualized form.

The whole movement is American colonialism.

Like it or not, the ameri-centric views spill around the world causing tensions and misunderstandings. In countries with practically no colored people and no history of slavery certain things seem a bit ridiculous if imposed on the whole community.

Which countries do you think have no slavery in their history?

How many people in the OOS community or elsewhere did you meet that were in favor of enslaving people. Sometimes it is necessary to ask naive questions to determine if you dig yourself into something.

those re/formed within last 100 years.

(and those who actively deny its existence /s)

You are right. It also depends if you include serfdom in slavery. In any case, just to generalize, the countries that practiced slavery were mostly those that colonized the world the most. Many of those who didn't colonize the world used serfs, like most of Eastern Europe. For these people there is no cultural association between slavery and the present. Also the proportions are different: in most countries the non-serfs were a relatively small minority. So waking up one day and reading that, say, all references to slavery are banned seems somewhat strange in other cultures.

One of my many misgivings about CoCs is their over-reliance on the unenforcable.

This is an excellent example - because the original said exactly what needed to be said, but it wasn't being interpreted correctly. Instead of improving the wording, and saying something like "participants should always assume good intentions. However, intention does not make a person's actions immune from criticism, and while assuming good intentions we will kindly encourage each other toward a higher standard of behaviour." ... they instead have chosen to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC.

Throughout the discussion, and on the twitter thread, the overriding message is: Triggering the hurt of a protected party is always punishable.

And it's a sad viewpoint, because it becomes not "Matz is nice and so we are nice", it becomes "We are nice to avoid the ire of a protected party"

> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC.

This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they're vague and unclear, then the only consistent principle is that the people who "enforce" the "rules" can do whatever they want and you have no recourse or due process.

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities.

But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.

I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint.

I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important.

I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided.

Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings).

The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?

> I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good

Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.

Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules.

If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want.

At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.

This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.

The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.

FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.

Sadly true. But I reluctantly stop short of attributing that nasty side-effect as a defining goal of the CoC movement, because - you know - I always try to assume good intentions :)

(Though, if you feel Hanlon's razor is a better motivator for you, I won't judge)

Rules can be enforced however fairly or not the rulers want. Better rules don't make for better rulers - at best, they make it more obvious when a ruler is not being fair.

Maybe, but I think there are social contracts that you are overlooking. If I write a rule, and then I violate a rule (or refuse to censure someone for violating a rule) then I can be rightly accused of hypocrisy.

People believe themselves to be within a certain margin of "good people", and having incontrovertible proof of being "The Biggest Hypocrite" makes them uncomfortable.

There are of course those who don't feel that discomfort; there are even those that commit victim-filled crimes without remorse. Often, there are external forces we can lean on to bring those people into line or out of society - and agreed, in the case of Open Source Software communities, those external forces don't always exist or are not reliable for regulating something as insignificant as moderation policies on a mailing list.

There are also those that would leverage that discomfort for their own immoral benefit, and bad rules are equally good enablers of that kind of person.

But I don't think it's fair to say that the quality of rules is meaningless - if there is any level of accountability in the sub-community of moderators (or in the community as a whole), good fair and enforceable rules have power.

Why is there a protected party? Why can't everyone be protected only a few?

This statement is a borderline hate crime in the US.

Exactly!

This is a complicated question, and for those new to this kind of discussion, it deserves a complicated answer. This is not that answer, but here are some thoughts:

a) We are a reactionary species, unfortunately. And that served us well when the burning questions of the day were "Tiger friend? [BITE] No, tiger never friend" but less so when discussing the social weight felt by minority and historically persecuted groups, the benefits and pitfalls of hyper-vocal "allies" and the social disenfranchisement felt by potential allies bitten by persecutions that they are told do not exist.

b) We are a reductionist species, unfortunately. That helps us when understanding the complexities of mathematical infinities and physics and the workings of the human central nervous system, because - between similarly educated peers - a scientific community can abstract away the irrelevent bits and share groundbreaking research outcomes with relative ease. But when "normals" try to enter the discussion, they mistake the simplified abstract descriptions for a simple concept and end up contributing nonesense or reporting falsehoods to the rest of the world (e.g. are we moments away from fusion generators? Are we on the cusp of ignition? No, no we're not).

And so, when discussions take place about the relative protections and privileges inherent with social majority groups and justify the particular resource expenditure on helping to rebalance centuries of systemic prejudices, people will misread what they understand of the zeitgeist and say "Your social privilege, as defined by your [race / gender / sexuality / ability / age / etc] means that your feelings need no consideration"

c) We are a self-absorbed species, unfortunately. It contributes to our survival and that of our dependants to ensure that we take the resources we need so that we are in a position to then help the rest of our clan. Weirdly though, we also have faculties for patience and imagination. And so we are happy to imagine ourselves in the shoes of someone we consider as "sufficiently other" to the point where we will fight for them as if they are our own clan, which is in a way wonderful (not always - see "white saviourism") but it means that those similar enough to be relatable receive a negative consideration, being not different enough to be worth the emotional investment, but not similar enough that they are truly "in the same boat", though we feel like they are. For example, try to analyse your perceptions of the poor and homeless that live near you, compared to the poor and starving people from distant countries.

It just "feels different", right?

That "local mistrust" is just as much an undeserved prejudice as the fact that you probably imagined those "people from a distant country" with a particular skin colour.

And lastly:

d) Our emotions deceive us constantly. That small racism dig in part C - if that affected you (sorry!) might make you susceptible to further emotional manipulation, because (see A) we are a reactionary species, and so from there it's easy for someone to manipulate us to reduce (see B) the world into "overprivileged vs underprivileged" clans, take on the underprivileged as our own (see C) and thereby increase our prejudice under the guise of eliminating prejudice.

Then echo chambers, then reinforcement by media, friends, catchy superficial soundbites, our employment... and finally our own selves, because once you've declared your unwavering support for a vaguely positive cause, it's very hard to walk that back.

And convincing someone to reverse a commitment they have made that has superficially positive soundbites because they are taking a damaging approach is a lot harder than reversing a prejudice they fell into through normal upbringing.

Maybe, long-term, that isn't a problem. Over the generations, we'll react ourselves to a position where everyone is protected. Short-term though, we'll have to use our privilege to be a force for good in between protected factions.

It has been brought into conformance with the standards of corporate HR departments, whose job it is to shield the company from discrimination lawsuits, not really to foster a kinder community.

If there are any CoCs left that do not adopt these standards, they will be brought into conformance soon. Corporate sponsorship depends on it, and open source is nothing without corporate sponsorship.

What is a higher standard of behavior exactly? More formal? More informal? What goal does it have? Fundamental Christians have a pretty high standard for behavior, I doubt this is the goal.

This is an undefined spiral to infinity mainly relying on de jure expectations.

Sexism - the believe that on sex is supreme to the other is already redefined to mean anything suggestive.

These updates have a very nebulous definition of harassment. According to the new CoC, almost anything can be considered harassment. As far as the "intent and impact" of the intentions, assuming that someone acts in bad faith is a good way to turn a misunderstanding into actual hatred. Such a result should be considered worse than having to deal with a few bad apples who try to take advantage.

They're meant to further empower accusers and reduce burden of proof and remove the need for critical thinking, empathy, and nuance. Accusations equal guilt.

Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?"

It's quite common to have someone express a personal opinion that they themselves don't interpret as harassment (e.g. because they don't belong to the group they're talking about, they see no issue with the way they talk or maybe they might be upset) only to be incredibly surprised and defensive when someone later calls them out.

With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all.

There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense where none could reasonably be presumed to have been given, and to blow minor transgressions out of proportion.

“When victimhood becomes currency, there are bound to be counterfeiters.“

> With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all.

Really, since the norms change so quickly, the only safe thing is to say nothing at all. Over the last 10 years I’ve seen a lot of my favourite progressive authors torn to shreds on social media for being monsters. The problem is that they were trying to be open minded and progressive in the 30s or 50s or 80s instead of today and that’s unforgivable and their work should be banned for not anticipating future cultural shifts. It doesn’t matter that they were trying their best and lived in a time and place that wasn’t 2021 Twitter

Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups.

There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.

> The only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all

It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.

> There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense where none could reasonably be presumed to have been given, and to blow minor transgressions out of proportion.

People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent. Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?

>Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups

It is not a natural change. It is being forced on people. Words and understandings of concepts change of course, but in the past society would slowly start accepting the change. Now a days when a word changes if you don't start using the new definition that day you are a bigot. People don't do well with sudden change.

> There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.

Jokes are jokes. If it is wrong to make a joke about women then it is wrong to make a joke about men. Anything else is sexist discriminatory double standards. Either you can joke about anything or nothing.

>It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.

Society is losing empathy. We used to understand people could make mistakes and improve themselves. Now the first time you make an innocent mistake you are canceled. You are thrown out of polite society and defamed on social media. That is the opposite of empathy.

>People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent.

The person you were responding to was not saying that a person being canceled is a victim (though they possibly believe that). They were saying that people cancel other people so the person doing the canceling can play the victim regardless if they actually took offense.

>Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?

I don't think anybody would deny some people are offended about things. I just don't think that matters. If I say hello to somebody and they are offended by that should I be canceled for it?

> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?"

How can you possibly read any possible minds. Even if you can predict the 'reasonable' person, outliers can take offence and you don't know what can offend them.

People can and do take offence at anything. This leaves two possible solutions.

1) Eventually fuck up.

2) Immediately leave the community and find greener, less insane pastures.

I've taken #2 in almost all cases, because I'm definitely going to screw up because I'm human.

> You act like fucking up is the end of the world.

People stopped forgiving and forgetting years ago. Every mistake people make follows them forever now. “Fucking up” is the end of the world for their careers since nobody wants to hire somebody who was publicly outed on Twitter for whatever they allegedly did

Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?

I think you're overlooking the role that rapport plays in this. If you don't have a rapport (it's a new relationship, for example), one doesn't have that to rely on (this describes a significant portion of online interactions, like this one!).

If one has a solid rapport with someone, and that person says something that one find upsetting, one's much less likely to attribute that behavior to malice, because rapport is just social context.

> Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?

I think a more accurate thing to say is that those who are harmed and cannot contextualize it to be reasonable are not willing to enable that harmful behavior by the person that has harmed them. Empathy is just the act of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes to gain respect for their perspective". I can empathize with an asshole and decide that their behavior needs to be called out _despite_ OR _because of_ the context I have for that person (e.g. I might be more likely to call out inappropriate behavior in those with power than in those without power, with whom I might work more closely to come to an understanding privately, as there's really no use kicking someone when they're down).

You can't have rapport with a Twitter mob. Individuals, yes, but I've seen time and again when individuals are pressured by the mob until they finally turn on the friend who 'made a mistake' and excoriate them even more fiercely than the mob itself has.

Keep in mind how this CoC change started: it wasn't by a one-on-one rapport with an individual.

And also keep in mind the freezing effect you're having on people new to the industry who need mentorship to help them mature. Sometimes you're screwing up because you're young and need to temper your own tongue.

And sometimes the screw-up isn't actually a screw-up, and a mountain gets made out of a molehill. This is more often the case than anything else, as this entire post demonstrates, and it would be wrong to conclude the premise as part of the argument.

The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake.

For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA who knows the history of this phrase may take offense. If the person from the USA feels that this may have been an attack, they should be free to raise this issue, and the person from Eastern Europe should apologize for making them uncomfortable, even if it was unintentional. As long as they do this, no further harm should happen to either person.

However, if the person who made the comment refuses to apologize/explain, or keeps repeating this comment since "to me it's not offensive, it's just a joke/reference" etc, then this should be considered a problem and someone with authority should intervene.

Similarly, if the person who took offense refuses to accept the mistake after an apology or explanation was given, then once again someone with authority should intervene and correct this error on this other side, as it unnecessarily creates a hostile working environment.

This is the intended reading of that line. Of course, that line can also be mis-applied by immediately punishing the person from Eastern Europe in my initial example.

Note: I used "person from Eastern Europe" in my example because that is where I am from, and because I have personally seen others around me using references to US culture without knowing the full context in just this way, without ill intent but in ways which would probably shock someone who assumes that the context is well known (for example, casually addressing peers using rap lyrics containing the infamous N-word).

The changed rule explicitly removes good faith considerations.

It is impossible to evaluate what could be interpreted as harassment. Maybe 10 years ago you could have, but today everything is harassment. Words are changing meaning and becoming offensive so fast people cannot even keep up.

Reasonable people believe that they have a duty to be careful about how they communicate, and have a duty to consider others intent.

In Australian law, and I'd imagine generally in many other countries, intent is a big part of judging a wrong. But of course, it's possible to cause harm without intending to, so there are other things to consider. Common phrases are 'reckless disregard', 'willfully ignorant', 'negligent' or sometimes 'lack of consideration' (which is different to intent).

Obviously it isn't a binary situation with either intent or impact being the sole arbiter - so the baseline used in almost all situations is the 'ordinary' or 'objective' standards. These can vary depending on the environment and context, and are simply defined because they are hard to define across all scenarios.

I guess I find it surprising that a code of conduct like this should sway between intent and impact in quite so binary a fashion -- human behaviour isn't software.

> intent is a big part of judging a wrong

As well as being a bedrock principle of the law, it's also basic common sense. If I accidentally step on your toe, that's obviously different to me deliberately stamping on your toe in an intentional attempt to injure you. If you set out to deliberately injure your colleagues then this is OBVIOUSLY different from doing the same thing accidentally and should be treated differently - and anyone with a working brain can see this.

The idea that "intent doesn't matter" is preposterous. Accepting it as a premise leads to insane and preposterous conclusions that no-one believes. People who say that "intent doesn't matter" don't actually believe it.

People do believe it, because thinking that intent matters makes it impossible to defend their other position: that the most important thing is how the "offense" is received.

If intent matters (as you say, anyone with half a brain knows it does), then if you receive my comment as being offensive, I am still right because I didn't mean to offend you. What they want is to make sure they can tell me I'm wrong anyway because the person was offended... hence, my intention didn't matter.

Offending someone doesn't make your position wrong, it may make you an asshole in their eyes, but it doesn't make you wrong.

Speaking of 'you stepped on my toe', that is a classic schoolyard bully line.

Yeah - no longer assuming good intentions is a weird thing to change. I guess it makes it easier to claim bad intentions?

Their position is that intention doesn't matter, what matters is how an action is received.

But this opens up an enormous hole for abuse! Somebody might be offended by just anything, if they choose to!

How dare you! /s

It covers the case when someone makes an inappropriate joke then defends themselves saying it was just a joke.

The person being inappropriate will always hide behind their intent because they can only argue about their own role in the exchange (e.g. they can't argue that the target person/group isn't really hurt).

When a conversation is derailed away from the damage caused to the intent, the harasser wins. What are you going to do? Establishing a default assumption takes that away. Always have good defaults :)

This is largely true, but there remains the issue that there are some people who, for whatever reason, almost seem to go out of their way to assume bad intent and interpret what was said or written in the worst possible way.

There is probably some sad history behind many of those individuals, but reasonable people can disagree about how to deal with the situation.

The current fashion implies that as soon as one such person enters the community, everybody has to start metaphorically walking on tip toes.

Maybe a better outcome overall would be for the person to get therapy.

Everybody has a line somewhere for what they consider "too easily offended". This is true even for the staunchest defenders of the current fashion, because even they understand implicitly that offense can be faked.

So yeah, you need good defaults, but that's really a discussion about where exactly that line should be drawn. I doubt either extreme is the right answer.

Perhaps we can pair serial 'it was just a joke' with serial 'that's offensive' people in an infinite outrage loop and then go on with our lives?

> It covers the case when someone makes an inappropriate joke then defends themselves saying it was just a joke.

Tell them to not make these jokes here and flag their account, repeat a handful of times and kick them out if it persists despite warnings. No need to interpret intent, no ability to hide behind ignorance after several warnings.

> Always have good defaults :)

It is impossible to harass people if you just ban every new account under the assumption of guilt.

Having a position of always assuming good intentions can be gamed by people with bad intentions.

Do you really not see that the opposite is also true? Having a position where good intentions are not assumed can be gamed far more easily by people with bad intentions

Do you really not see that either extreme is more exploitable and less resilient than a more pragmatic middle ground? Personally, my guess is that the optimum is usually towards assuming the best, but that it shifts depending on the level of antagonism present.

It also is an issue for all others. FX I don’t know if it is appropriate to say “you guys” to a mixed crowd anymore, but if I hadn’t seen that some people get upset about that I wouldn’t think twice about it and just emulated American movies. Buffy isn’t exactly sexist and she says it often and to a mixed crowd.

At least in English you have the neutral word "they". In french you only have the plural of "he" or "she". This means that when you point to a mixed crowd, you must choose which of the plurals you use.

The grammatical rule is that one male flips the plural gender to male. If you do not know the sexes, the plural is male.

As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kindergarten. This always sounded a bit weird, though.

I do not approve some "grammatical inclusivity" horrors that are being invented from time to time, but some innovative-but-not-distruptive changes would be welcome.

>As a French, the construction comes naturally because we've been taught that at school since kindergarten. This always sounded a bit weird, though.

If you follow the grammatical history of French, the neutral gender just got folded into masculine.

>but some innovative-but-not-distruptive changes would be welcome

You can't really produce grammar by decree, at best you can systematize what already exists. The only "sane" way to have explicit neutral in French would be to go back in time, reimplement declensions and possibly mangle phonology in the process. That won't happen. All forms of "inclusive writing" are from the outset destined and meant to be an elitist signal rather than an actual linguistic feature. They won't survive and they'll been seen in the future as a strange, idiosyncratic trend of the age. A bit like Renaissance orthography, where countless letters were added without meaning to simply look fancier.

> If you follow the grammatical history of French, the neutral gender just got folded into masculine.

This is not just grammatical history, this is the current grammar rules.

However some people are trying to force a change of the rule by making up new words and rules, such as "iels" instead of "ils/elles".

Like I said, I do not approve of the horrible ideas we have, with dots everywhere - this transforms words that are fine as they are. I am for simplification, though (nothing to do with the current topic, just a thought).

What I am missing are the concepts young people are bringing in more and more, where they have words that become unisex (potes for instance). I listen to my children and (without any scientific analysis), it sounds to me that there is less of a boy/girl cut that there was in my times (this may be regional - this is for west of Paris).

And I agree with you that only naturally appearing changes will stay, not the ones forced on us. A typical example are the surrealist ideas of the 90's to have French equivalents for everything computer. Some stayed, the majority is now part of comedies.

German is also developing (unofficial) gender-neutral nouns using an asterisk ending but I think it’s also an open discussion about how best to handle it. It’s mostly often seen when referring to a person’s role, position or job in a way that includes all genders and non-binary people. I speak the language but it’s not my mother tongue so native German speakers might explain it better.

There's two types of gender-neutral nouns in German being used:

- apprehending markers like -*in, -_in, -In [1]

- forming a gerund from a verb describing the activity

e.g. the word "Bäcker" - engl. "baker" - could be written as "Bäcker*in" or "Backende" (from "backen", the verb), depending on the speaker. Note that the gerund form eliminates conveying info about gender, unlike an "universal" marker like *in.

[1] for plural forms, those are expanded to -*innen, -_innen and -Innen

As in things like ~fireman~ -> fire*? How do you pronounce it?

Basically you take the word stem, add the asterisk and then append the female ending, you pronounce it by putting a stop where the * is and then saying the feminine ending (at least that’s how I’ve seen it done). This probably wouldn’t work in French since they hate putting stops anywhere :)

Some info and alternatives here https://www.goethe.de/ins/th/en/m/spr/mag/21967217.html

The thing is, since we don't have a separate neutral in French, masculine is also used for neutral. Which means it isn't that weird when we use masculine for groups with women, as we also use genders for everyday objects. A desk is masculine for some reason, and a table feminine.

Well, to me saying "ils sont là!" when there is a crowd of 200 girls and one boy is still weird :) I would probably say "elles sont là!" despite it not being grammatical.

As for the genders of nouns, my native English French speaking friends are usually in pain.

I feel the same, and I think it's fair to switch to feminine in these cases. My point was just that it sounds a bit less weird than saying "elles sont là" when there is 200 girls and a boy.

If you're in a mixed crowd that cares how you say "you guys" you should probably rethink whether you want to associate with these people.

It makes it easier to fight trolls who hide behind bad faith arguments.

Changing it enables a certain kind of flame-war where people become entrenched in thinking the other side is out to get them and actually evil. Assuming the best intentions is a good way to make sure you combat what someone is doing rather than attacking them as a person.

"Did you intend to say that you dislike me because I'm gay?" is a pretty easy way to route out a troll.

Sincere apology or not, you get to know.

I've been moderating communities for 15 years, I've seen tricks from all manner of trolls and handling trolls with an even hand is still tricky; but being genuinely inquisitive is usually the easiest way to get around it. Even when tensions are high it makes people feel heard and understand their impact.

"I'm just highlight how fragile and deranged you are, funny how you instantly tied it to homosexuality though, must be suppressed hatred! I'm surprised your wife's boyfriend lets you post such stupid garbage."/s

You don't get to know anything. Good trolls have also been trolling for 15 years, they've seen tricks from all manner of jannies... See where I'm going with that?

Saying that, I do agree with you, staying inquisitive and positive with bad trolls typically tampers down their rage.

Direct and to the point.

Do you have any other examples?

I wish it was that easy. Very often trolls feed on attention and love the sealioning.

It makes sense to be objective rather than assuming good intentions.

Assuming good intentions enable troll to engage in endless sealioning.

"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?

> “Protected class” means stuff like race, sex or veteran status.

“Protected class” is an (American) legal term, with situation-specific definitions. (It means different things in federal employment law, federal public accommodation law, federal fair housing law, and the various states employment, public accommodation, and fair housing laws of each of the States.)

It is entirely unclear what it means in the Ruby CoC, and the explanation in the discussion thread is literally “everyone knows what ‘protected class’ means” which is obviously entirely false. Its a term used by someone who has some overly precise, overly generalized idea of what it means, doesn’t realize that they are wrong, and thinks everyone agrees with them.

It boggles the mind that people could actually think its obvious what behaviour is unfair discrimination and what isn't. Like have they never opened a history book? Or noticed the countless lawsuits on the subject? (I think usa has a sort of arbitrary enumerated list, but canada doesn't explicitly enumerate so there's fun court cases over things like do drug laws discriminate against people who enjoy the taste of marijuana, etc)

Or a troll.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712977

Troll or not, he was supported by those people.

Who supported them? What did they support?

No one supported hmdne's claim everyone knows what protected classes are.

Jacob Herrington encouraged hmdne to make another PR mostly. Consider he recognized hmdne was trying to derail his PR. And he said he'd be in support of finding a better way to communicate the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. Not removing that part.

Matz approved both PRs. But it isn't clear he read the discussion.

From the PR: https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2690

> @hmdne commented yesterday

> @Try2Code A protected class is a group of people that has been historically discriminated or a group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination - but that's not all. For example the People of Color are a protected class, because of slavery. Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause. The non-heterosexuals are a protected class, because of discrimination. Women are a protected class obviously. I don't know how to better define it. The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition.

Side note: anyone follow what this means? “Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause.”?

> @peterc commented yesterday

> Since California has been mentioned, I'm guessing these: https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes

"group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination" -->the humanity part is the part that have a problem with tbh (explanation below)

The "(as humanity)" should be removed. A protected class in US/UK might of been the oppresor in other countries. Example below.

Romania and Bulgaria have been invaded countless times by the ottoman empire for hundreds of years. Why would a romanian or bulgarian even consider protecting them(muslims)? Black were part of that same force(and high ranking officials) that pillaged the 2 countries. Why would eastern europeans even owe them anything?

EDIT: As an eastern European I don't ower any of them any protection. If anything those 2 classes owe us according to historical facts.

> Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause

Uhhhh this person has to be trolling, right?

> "Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status

Only american vetrens. Screwing with canadian vetrens is still fair game according to this CoC i guess.

Honest question - are young or old also a protected class? I disagree that CoC clauses should be based on protected classes only, because I think there are possible types of discrimination that should be addressed in CoC.

In a legal context, yes, age is a protected class. So if past practice is anything to go with, I guess quips like "ok boomer" will now be officially verboten on the Ruby mailing lists and in Ruby events.

*Old age is protected.

It’s legally OK to discriminate based on a minimum age, but not a maximum age. No voting, alcohol, tobacco, driving, guns, executing contracts, renting a car etc. until 18/21/25.

Age over 40 is a protected class

Interesting, that "Age (over 40)" are cited as "Protected class". So people over 40, which feel harassed by many of these "new rules" can actually do something about it?

I think anyone can report anything they don't like.

It's more that insults against people over 40 (or that reference people over 40) will be taken seriously, where as insults against/referencing 20 year olds apparently won't be.

So, I'm assuming "ok boomer" would not be OK, but "ok junior" would be.

From reading the comments, it sounds like it's actually self-described "non-protected" folks that are proposing these rules. And the incident started with some male developers getting upset about a joke/insult about females.

Protected class is used for the person on the receiving end of harassment, not for the nature of the harassment.

No, many other rules would still apply including “Behavior which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.”

That's one of the rules they removed.

No it isn't? It's unchanged in the linked PR.

"Also changed yesterday"

The line about protected classes is not in addition to a general rule against harassment, or emphasizing that kind of harassment in particular, it replaced that rule.

There is a separate rule against personal attacks, but is that rule supposed to take over harassment in general? That sort of makes sense in a vacuum, but then it leaves the exact meaning of the 'harassment against protected classes' rule kind of confusing. What does harassing a class mean exactly, and can you harass a non-protected class?

It was removed in a follow-up PR, "Remove abuse enabling language pt. 2", which is linked to from the first:

> Encouraged by the quick success of this PR, I made #2691 with another small change. One step at a time at fixing the world :)

https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2691

Ah, well, but remember... intent doesn't matter...

It was changed later.[1]

[1] https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/commit/7e96640e1ca...

Really developing backwards on all accounts. This is a purity spiral. If you allow it to infect your community, you can be sure it will at some point consist of toxic people that feel slighted on every opportunity they can get.

This is exactly why many people were not really open to COCs because this is an eternal battleground with creeping behavior expectations because of some unsolved personal problems.

"My views on verbal abuse are summarized on [verbal abuse platform]."

So if a woman accused a while man of having “small hands” for having some opinion, that’s not sexual harassment because white men are not a protected class?

White men, identified by race and sex, are legally a protected class. People with small hands are not, unless the smallness of their hands is considered a disability.

This is correct, assuming US 'protected class' works broadly the same as UK 'protected characteristic'. I don't know why this comment is being objected to?

It's about discrimination on the basis of the value of someone's <characteristic>, not that particular values ('white', or 'female', etc.) are held in some special regard.

The obvious example is hiring: you can (should) hire white people, black people, men, women, and so on. You can't (legally) hire someone because of one of those traits, or allow it influence your judgement.

(It's why I find quotas/diversity reporting a bit troubling - it sort of assumes an equal outcome, or something close to it, is a natural state, since you can't say 'hire more women' if you find that's what's lacking; you can only try to remove existing (illegal! conscious or not) bias in the other direction. But what if the lacking group didn't have equal opportunity, so on merit they really weren't the best hires? - I know, that old argument - point is, if that's the case, hiring for an equal outcome, so-called 'affirmative/positive action' is actually illegal.)

(IANAL but I have to assume there are exceptions where an otherwise protected characteristic is actually required due to the nature of the work. The police need a certain number of women, (and men, but that's the problem side) diversity aside. Primary schools presumably have the opposite problem.)

It's true. Protected classes are people of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. For example, an airline in the US that wanted to hire only female flight attendants would likely face a lawsuit from male candidates.

What is a protected class? I don't understand why harassment would be fine against some, but not others. That sound like the very thing that a CoC is meant to prevent.

Also, now mods don't have to tolerate opposing views. :)

Now the big question is if mods are a part of the protected class or not :)

Exactly. The moderators need to be better.

A reasonable moderator should flag a joke as this as not appropriate in professional conversation without any CoC changes:

  # Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)

When they say “there will be no jokes”: a joke told by professionals in professional setting might have different meaning than originally intended.

Protected class if definition even exist can mean completely different things. Saying that US definition is the only one that matters is unwelcoming to people from other countries.

edit: non just unwelcoming, it can be considered discriminating

You beat me to it - I saw the updated CoC this morning and wrote https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/issues/2694

My thoughts follow yours entirely - the author is tweaked about the failure of the moderators and twitter is not a place for commentary on a pull request.

(There's a certain irony here to the author of the PR complaining about the difference between the intent and impact of a statement and then... completely missing the point of why their PR is meaningless).

This just seems to be establishing proper boundaries?

I don't know what specifically motivated this PR, but I assume something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning .

> I don't know what specifically motivated this PR

It's mentioned in passing a couple of comments in. To highlight it (because it's easy to miss):

"I watched a group of people use these specific phrases to justify making sexist remarks over a communication channel that falls under these guidelines."

It's really odd to make fundamental rule changes to respond to things like that rather than carving out exceptions for sexist remarks specifically if those are the problem.

'This section shall not be interpreted to defend any communication reasonably seen as sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory' is much clearer than changing from 'assume good faith' to 'assume nothing, intent doesn't matter as much as impact. '

The PR author elaborated further in the linked Twitter thread: he believes that a policy of assuming good faith is bad on its own merits because it tends to benefit white men. (https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/144328685321023079...)

They quoted the start of a thread the author summarized saying it's bad because it gives cover to bad behavior. And can require people who recognize a pattern of bad behavior to persuade themselves they're paranoid. You might disagree. But those points have nothing to do with race or sex. And pointing out it's easier for people who face less bad behavior is about white men only incidentally.

I don't think it's a good idea to respond to this in depth, so I'll just say that I disagree with his assessment.

Apparently this mailing list comment triggered this reaction:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

I tried really hard to follow the threading in that but I came away being completely unable to parse it, at least on mobile. What was the attempted "joke"?

Guy reports a behavior where date math doesn't return the result he expected and jokes that it might have to do with how women don't like to admit when they're aging.

I am fairly conservative libertarian leaning guy made in Russia and even I find this kind of joke absolutely unacceptable in professional setting.

I wouldn't have made the joke, myself, but it's also not really insulting to anyone. It's not saying that women are bad at math, or that women broke date arithmetic to seem younger, it's just referencing that phenomenon.

What about a joke where adding weights resulted in quantities too large, and it's suggested that it was written for dudes who want to say they can bench press more than they really can?

Same, I find this joke to be inappropriate in professional settings. May be it doesn’t offend anyone or may be it does, you never know.

I'd rather that joke were not made. There is a difference though between a discreet 'not a great moment' and public 'absolutely inacceptable [and we should hound the poor sap out of all gainful employment opportunities for life]'. A classic management principle is 'praise in public, criticize in private'. While the joke was was indeed inappropriate, the public reaction was 10x worse.

I can agree that there should be no public flogging, provided it is first couple times. If it has been explained to the individual that certain behaviour is considered unprofessional and yet they insist on engaging in it then... well, there should be consequences.

> A sexist joke

...against a protected class. All others are allowed, apparently?

> Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated.

That's... interesting?

Some of the most vitriolic flamewars I've seen on the internet were between western straight white males. I don't see the point of special casing this clause.

Protected class is a programming term ;)

That doesnt explain any of that.

i am so done with OSS communities.

Regarding the "good intentions" change, the explanation in the linked twitter thread makes sense to me: in some contexts, assuming good intentions is a way of excusing bad behavior.

It's hard to agree on the exact boundary between enabling a jerk and making an issue out of nothing. But the old "assume good intentions" policy does sound to me uncomfortably similar to "if you're offended it's your own fault". Which is generally how people treat victims of harassment in communities where that sort of harassment is tolerated.

That is misunderstanding of the principle. Of course you still need to use your head. For a community to be welcoming for people that aren't too extroverted, not fitting anyone on that mailing list really, your approach is very counter productive if you really want to empower voices that normally don't speak up.

It is also required for completely dry technical discussions. I am not sure I would want that in open source communities though, but that is certainly a preference.

I don't know. Assuming good intentions is an advice for you, so you don't get offended. And assuming good intentions doesn't justify the impact. Even if you assume good intentions of a driver, if he drove badly and did some damage he is still responsible for the damage. Assuming hus good intentions doesn't change anything. Skill, following the rules and effect are what matters when it comes to judging.

Next time you get in a car accident maybe the police should throw you in jail for wilful destruction of property. It doesn't matter if you did not intend to damage the other car since intentions don't matter. You did the crime you should do the time.