Fair point, and one I needed to reflect on.

I think in my past, whenever I've been in a leadership position over a group of people, we've all been there to achieve some goal. We were all cooperating to reach the same end -- and those with a different opinion of that "end" were excluded.

I have also been on the opposite side of this: I've been a member of groups whose goals I did not agree with. And no amount of civility or communication would bridge that chasm; therefore my opinions and thoughts were excluded (and I voluntarily left).

There is no right or wrong here -- if I step back and stop injecting my own feelings into the conversation: there are just differences.

I don't like theories. I don't like abstract things that try to become a source of truth, while completely ignoring and marginalizing the very real human element involved. I have no respect for them.

In my view, "don't be an asshole" is basically: you join a group of people, do not carelessly or intentionally go against the norms of that group. Do not insert yourself into a group of people that you know you will not get along with. There is no right or wrong, but there is conflict and no conflict.

But even now, as much as I have tried to take a step back with an objective lens, and disassociate from my very real thoughts, feelings, and beliefs: what is the point? I hold all of these because they are integral to who I am. As do the people of the Rust community.

Disjointed thoughts, without a goal to neatly encapsulate them all. Or perhaps my goal was to share my human experience with others? To socialize and create bonds with others? Quite a silly thing to do on the internet.

Something you may have missed here. What if the shared goal and belief of the group, was one that in practice is also exclusionary?

In that sense, even if the tone stays civil in group, the problem is still there.

Any examples of how this happens in practice with software projects? Actually curious about this.

Have you remarked how few software projects, even big and visible, handle privacy well, especially if you consider things like stalking? And then what happens to the people that come talk about it in these groups?

The people are pushed out because "their concerns are not something this project is about". Which is consensus and focused on getting results right?

That's just vague accusations/opinions, zero examples.

Perhaps you are afraid that other people might not come to the same conclusions if you let them make their own judgements?

>We were all cooperating to reach the same end -- and those with a different opinion of that "end" were excluded.

If you mean those with a different opinion about the overall "end" of the project, this would make sense.

If you mean those with different opinions about any part of it, like how the project should implement reflection for example, it makes absolutely no sense to exclude them.

This would translate into an authoritative culture, where everything is predetermined, and no dialogue is allowed, except perhaps for trivial matters.

> I have also been on the opposite side of this: I've been a member of groups whose goals I did not agree with. And no amount of civility or communication would bridge that chasm; therefore my opinions and thoughts were excluded (and I voluntarily left).

What if you couldn’t leave? Perhaps the cost of leaving is too high, or you’re required to for a job. Membership in many groups isn’t even a direct action, it’s a by product of some other action. Take functional programming, I love it, but holy fuck I should have known as soon as I saw the word “pure” there’d be fucking Nazis, xenophobes, and bigots.

> Do not insert yourself into a group of people that you know you will not get along with. There is no right or wrong, but there is conflict and no conflict.

Take my functional programming example: I have caused and will cause conflict. Because sometimes “not being an asshole” is actually being an asshole. Life’s full of color like that, you know?

Seriously? You encountered Nazis in functional programming fora? Like, more than in your typical programming fora? (Any at all is more than I've met, but then I never socialize much.)

Maybe they meant “Functional Programming Nazis” like in “Grammar Nazis”; i.e. not actual Nazi Nazis.

Excluding someone else from a group doesn’t make someone an asshole. Every group has one or some thing(s) that separate them from the rest, otherwise they’d never have formed a group. Maybe it’s a vision, or a goal, or a belief, but there’s something that holds the group together. Contrary to what you’re saying, it’s integral to the cohesion of that group to exclude people who will not fit well.

There are countless examples of this phenomenon throughout history. Take for instance, the formation of the USA, the Catholic Church (Great Schism, Protestant Revolution, etc.), the American Civil War, etc. On a smaller scale, I know I’ve worked with people who would be a good fit on one team, but don’t match the culture of another. Or people who are very passionate about something, but wouldn’t do well in a group focused on something else. Sometimes, even, people have the same ends and such different means that they cannot coexist in the same group. You can see this with sports teams; everyone wants to win games, and some players or coaches don’t fit on certain teams because their idea of how to win doesn’t align with others’.

The reality is not everyone fits into every group. Trying to force that will yield a lot of resentment on both sides, in my experience. Much better to nip the problem in the bud.