undefined | Better HN

0 pointszAy0LfpBZLC8mAC7y ago0 comments

I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not be offended, which implies the right of anyone to prevent speech simply by declaring that they are offended by it, which is seen as a major danger to society and in particular to minorities who don't have the luck of being recognized as a protected class by those who push for these CoCs.

Or to put it more succinctly: People see a bait and switch. The superficial language doesn't really seem all that objectionable, but if you look into the ideology behind it, you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

crispyambulance7y ago· 5 in thread

    > you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole" actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mACOP7y ago

Well, I guess it starts even in the CoC itself it you read it closely?

For example, it says "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: The use of sexualized language or imagery [...]". That is codifying a very specific value, namely one of sex negativity. If you are sex positive, you are at risk of being labeled an asshole for that. (And mind you, that quote continues "[...] and unwelcome sexual attention or advances", so it is clearly in addition to what could be reasonably considered a neutral "respect others' personal boundaries" sort of "don't be an asshole").

Then, there is this whole problem of not considering people who have deficiencies of sorts with regards to social interaction, and it seems to me that that is very much part of the ideology. Try to read the kernel CoC from the viewpoint of an autist, and try to reflect on how included you feel from that perspective when you are essentially told "because we want to have a welcoming environment for everyone, we shun people like you".

And more broadly, not necessarily directly tied to the specific authors (I just don't know the specific authors well enough to be sure), occurrences like this come to my mind: https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard...

"Inappropriate" and "offensive" are so subjective that you could argue the "code" doesn't really codify anything, it just is a tool to use and to interpret as you see fit if you have the power to do so, while claiming that it's somehow a more objective judgement that you arrive at based on "rules that have to be followed".

pseudalopex7y ago

Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it.

Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.

1 more reply

brobdingnagians7y ago

Being more than superficially religious would qualify. For example, the statement "I support traditional marriage and think it makes for a stronger society". There are lots of people who would scream their heads off in public at someone for simply saying that. There's quite a few examples I can think of...

VonGallifrey7y ago

Many of the CoC's I have read specifically allow Racism against specific targets and allow sexism against specific targets. In veiled language off course, but it is still there. Even when that stuff isn't there it will be misused to target political "opponents" as we have already seen starting with the Linux CoC.

crispyambulance7y ago

There will always be some people looking to take advantage of "the rules".

For some, that means finding bizarre loopholes far outside any reasonable intention of the rules. For others, it means attempting to enforce the rules with such rigidity that almost anything can be seen as a violation.

I think a healthy community will realize that it is not their rules that makes them resilient, but rather their ability to use sound judgement and be flexible about problems and solutions. Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse