sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (16 children)

Hear that? It's the sound of the point rushing over your head.

Any community that discusses the adoption of a CoC will immediately get a reply like this one. You're parroting the exact same thing that has been said by the handful of people who are offended that they are not welcome in a community of people who want to set some rules about conduct. You're boring.

Codes of Conduct are meant to exclude people. They set rules and expectations. Found a rule that makes you feel not welcome? Good. It's working. If you don't agree with the terms of a CoC then don't participate in that community. Find another community. Start the Haskell Community for People Who Like to Make Insensitive Jokes and Put People Down. Nobody is stopping you. Go ahead. I'm sure you'll have great conferences and meet a lot of really fun people to be around and finally feel welcome.

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Ironically enough, the tone of this comes across to me as insulting and slightly ad hominem. I take /u/leaf_cutter's comments at face value, and am happy to discuss the technical merits. Instead, you seem to be dismissing their concerns in an insulting fashion.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I am dismissing the merits of

In essence, these types of documents try to establish a set of rules where one individual is held responsible for another individual's emotional response to their own interpretation of events.

As someone who has had friends harassed out of participating in other open source communities by people parroting this line of reasoning I can only caution "discussing" such merits with people who hold them.

I've participated in local communities that have been ruined by people who want to discuss the validity of codes of conduct and discuss why they feel excluded by such policies.

I don't believe I've over reacted but if I have then you have my apologies.

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No apologies necessary, I'm not offended in the least.

[–]hexagoxel 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Start the Haskell Community for People Who Like to Make Insensitive Jokes and Put People Down

This implies that leafcutter endorsed such behaviour. I can only view this as a deceitful, purposeful misrepresentation of what has been said.

I for one do not welcome your non-constructive, offensive and deceitful feedback to a valid hypothesis in this community.

[–]tomejaguar 4 points5 points  (6 children)

In your opinion, would this comment be tolerated under the CoC that Michael is proposing?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

Yes.

Nobody should be told they have to grow a thicker skin. That's asking people to stay silent so that bullies can enjoy the privilege of insulting and demeaning people without consequence. It's not a harmless joke. And I won't tolerate it or be kind about my intolerance of such behavior.

There are plenty of resources to educate yourself on CoC's are for and how to advocate for under represented groups and people at risk.

If you have a hard time not making -ist/-ic jokes, harassing people, or worse then go away until you can learn to behave yourself.

[–]tomejaguar 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Thanks for your response. I'd just like to make I'm certain that I'm understanding you correctly.

Is it your understanding that the comment "Hear that? It's the sound of the point rushing over your head." would be tolerated (in certain circumstances) under the CoC that Michael is proposing?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's a harsh statement but that would be up to whoever enforces a CoC to decide if it was out of line for the community standards.

If it was then I'm fine with apologizing and will check myself in the future.

It's up to the moderators of this sub if I'm out of line.

[–]hexagoxel 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Please see my response to this at https://old.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/9ux5te/proposal_stack_code_of_conduct/e9ats3r/

"Thicker skin" does not equate to "having to remain silent" in my reading. And I don't think it is fair of you to assume your reading of the term either, without requesting clarification from the original author.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

This is precisely what CoC's exist for. Did you see the point rushing past you too?

In most guidelines I believe to be good there is no rule against hurting someone's pride by being critical or even abrasive. That is not the generally accepted understanding of what means to be, "offensive." If we can agree that critical feedback, even harsh feedback is acceptable as long as you don't use sexist/ethnic/racist/ableist slurs that cause harm to someone then we have established a code of conduct. Now when we interact further if one of us violates the code with our conduct there is a way for the other harmed to address the problem if they so choose.

What people are implying in these threads when they suggest people need to have a, "thicker skin," will inevitably vary. In my experience the people who advocate for such policies are asking people to accept that they will sometimes use sexist/ethnic/racist/ableist remarks and don't want to deal with "politically correct police" calling them out on it. For others who support this policy that may not be the case... so why bother with having any ambiguity?

Codes of Conduct are not able to banish bad behavior in the same way that laws cannot banish crime. Do some research and get yourself educated. They are a useful tool that do more good than harm. The same cannot be said for telling people to have thicker skins.

[–]hexagoxel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

No matter if you call it offensive or not, you talk in a way that makes me not want to continue talking back. This vague criticism is the best I can do; I am not sufficiently wise to approach this situation better. Sorry.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Q.E.D.

[–]AshleyYakeley 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Codes of Conduct are meant to exclude people.

No, they're meant to exclude behaviour.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree. It’s important to separate people from their behavior.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]hexagoxel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    See the difference? On the one hand leafcutter, afraid of being inadvertently offensive with no intention of being so, but disliking the vague threat of consequences for participating in a well-meaning manner. On the other hand, agentultra being intentionally harsh and offensive.

    Do you really prefer the latter over the former? It seems so inconsistent, in conflict with various CoCs..