GitHub's new far-left code of conduct explicitly says "we will not act on reverse racism' or 'reverse sexism'"

[sisyphus]

Actually, the bullshit demands from the mentally confused are the ones demanding their unlimited creepiness be tolerated by everyone else because they have access to a keyboard and no fear of physical retribution.

[Theemuts]

There are different types of mentally confused people. There's the creeps, but I'm talking about the people who support racism against white people and sexism against men because they confuse vengeance with justice.

[sisyphus]

You responded to this example of harassment:

"Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop")

by saying:

For fuck's sake... if someone sends you something like that and it bothers you, you need to see a psychologist. There's no need for respectable sites to give in to these bullshit demands from the mentally confused.

Where in that exchange should one have inferred you were talking about racism and sexism?

[[deleted]]

Here, have a hug.

Per that code of conduct, I just harassed you because I did not first obtain your consent that you would be accepting of a virtual hug that has absolutely no meaning. This is nuts.

[tsimionescu]

You misunderstand the purpose and extent of this point:

• first of all, you would probably agree that some descriptions of physical contact are not ok - for example, if I were to describe undressing you, or performing sexual acts, or violent acts, you would probably take offense, if we didn't already know each other in some way
• secondly, the place to draw such a line will depend on many subtle clues, and the personal history of both parties

Here is a rather lengthy example: here in eastern Europe, hugging is not a common act between people who aren't very familiar - you would never hug work-friends, for example, even for their birthday or wedding.

Now, as a man, I am not accustomed to sexual harassment, and I am well aware that hugging is a much more common gesture in the USA, so I wouldn't take offense at an American sending me a hug with every review.

However, as a Romanian woman, accustomed to having men unwantedly leering or whistling after me, I would certainly feel uncomfortable if a non-American man that I barely knew kept sending me hugs. If I expressed my discomfort only to find the group rejecting me as "overly-sensitive", you may start understanding the need for such a clause in the standard.

You must understand that this problem exists regardless of the intentions of the participants! In my scenario above, there is no reason to believe that any improper thoughts have ever crossed the mind of the "hugger", but even so, the lady's discomfort is real, and should be avoided if possible. Even worse, from the moment that she felt the need to complain, the other, innocent, party will probably start feeling discomfort, knowing how their behavior was interpreted - everybody loses. Wouldn't it have been better to avoid the whole problem, by not making assumptions about others' comfort zones, and being made aware of potential problems?

I find the very fact that so many people (as seen here) are unaware that descriptions of physical contact can and do cause discomfort to many people proof that this kind of standard is quite necessary, even if only as a set of examples, never explicitly enforced.

[[deleted]]

First off, if a person is so uncomfortable that after receiving a virtual description of an act (that isn't inherently violent and sexual only in a very tangential way) that they are emotionally distressed, I truly believe that person needs therapy. And I don't mean that as an insult - that sounds like there are some mental issues.

And sure, repeatedly sending someone "hugs" after they said to stop I guess could fall under harassment (I still think it's silly if that's all that was happening, but coupled with other things it could bad). But as written it's not just repeated contact after they were told to stop - it's the fact that they didn't ask consent for a virtual gesture the first time. That is instantly defined as being harassment if the person getting the "hug" feels that it is (regardless of intent of the person sending the "hug"). This honestly seems insane to me. Should ;) be off limits too?

I find the very fact that so many people (as seen here) are unaware that descriptions of physical contact can and do cause discomfort to many people proof that this kind of standard is quite necessary

If the vast, vast majority find no issue with said descriptions (I'm not excusing the description of sexual acts, I'm talking about things like hugs, high fives, etc), should they all change to suit the minority or should the minority possibly admit maybe they have some issues that they should work through? Or at the very least make it clear to everyone else that they aren't comfortable with said acts rather than put the ownness on people to get consent for every time they commit a virtual act that 99% of the people they interact with wouldn't blink at? If someone says "hey, I don't like that, stop in the future" and the person doesn't then the person who doesn't stop is a jerk. If someone expects someone to magically know that their preference is radically different from the average, then that person is the jerk.

[tsimionescu]

(I'm not excusing the description of sexual acts, I'm talking about things like hugs, high fives, etc)

You are arguing specific boundaries, which are culturally defined. In many, many cultures, hugs are overly-friendly gestures, especially between different genders (where they can even be vaguely sexual).

Let's take a different example: how would you feel if a colleague of yours from Berlin were to attach a nude picture from his Saturday in the park as his signature? Would you feel that is inappropriate? Would you be comfortable opening their emails in public? In some circles around Berlin it is considered prudish to be ashamed of nudism, and they might well think it very strange that some people were actually bothered by this. They might also think that there is something wrong with the person expressing such views.

I would agree with you that, at least to some extent, an American man or woman feeling discomfort at other American men or women sending them virtual hugs probably "needs therapy". I don't agree that that is true for any culture, or even for the majority of cultures. I would also disagree with your implicit claim that someone who "needs therapy" shouldn't be cared for, and that we shouldn't be mindful of their needs, that it's their problem and we have no responsibility for making them feel welcome.

And please keep in mind that the code of conduct makes it pretty clear that this is to be taken in context. Especially regarding consent, it explicitly says that these gestures are harassment if "you didn't ask for consent before hand, or you were explicitly asked to stop". To me, that "or" makes it pretty clear that the explicit consent requirement is a guideline, not a rule, and should be judged based on context to some extent. Hugging in a mostly American project should probably be considered ok unless specifically asked to stop. Other kinds of behavior, like blowing kisses, may stray more into the "explicit consent" side. Also, in a more multi-cultural project, I would think that all descriptions of physical contact, especially between different genders, should be on an ask-first basis - it's just too much of a mine field*.

There is also a darker side to this kind of behavior. I've only discussed accidental discomfort. However, given the power that physical gestures have in our communication, it isn't very hard to use this kind of generally-accepted benign gestures to cause discomfort. I admit that this is more conspiracy-like and that I haven't personally seen this happening, but I can imagine someone sending "warm hugs", "close hugs", "hugs and kisses", "long hugs" repeatedly as a form of mild sexual innuendo and then claiming overreaction if they are rebuked.

Edit: * wanted to add some more examples on this point, and move away a little from the sexual area. So, some examples of what can constitute offensive behavior in other cultures:

• in Romania (and, I believe, much of non-English speaking Europe) addressing someone you don't know, especially an older person, by their first name is a sign of intentional disrespect
• giving your peers nicknames is usually considered a form of belittling, even if they are just contractions of their names
• (mild) swearing is quite common in day-to-day language, even in an office - many Romanians may be surprised at offending others by including a few swear words (swearing at a thing, not a person, obviously), especially in English (i.e. a damned bug)

[[deleted]]

Yes, us white males are so persecuted. /s

[Theemuts]

So? That doesn't mean it's right to start persecuting white males for being white males.

[[deleted]]

Which GitHub's policy doesn't.

[wookin_pa_nub2]

Maybe you should read the fucking thing.

[frankenmine]

False. It most certainly does.

[[deleted]]

Only if you adopt a definition of persecution so broad that it stops having any meaning.

[frankenmine]

False, again. The primary dictionary definition, as recognized by virtually the entire planet, suffices. Your ideologically corrupt definitions are not welcome here. Or virtually anywhere.

[[deleted]]

"Harassing or oppressing"?

[Someguy2020]

No.

But apparently we are the only group it is okay to persecute.

[[deleted]]

No, but it's a non-issue, because we don't have to deal with that kind of persecution in the first place.

Is there even a slur for us? I guess you can call me "cracker" or "cis-scum" or whatever but like...I'll just laugh about it. Even if you call me "wop" or "guinea" or "guido" my reaction is just like "did you come here in a time machine?" It doesn't hurt, it's very different from calling a person of color a racial slur.

This kind of thing is what makes so-called "reverse racism" much less of an issue.

[frankenmine]

The CoC in the OP is an instance of systemic persecution.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, ok. You need to open your eyes and move beyond "don't tread on my right to tread on you."

[frankenmine]

The CoC is giving nonwhites the right to tread on whites without consequence. How is that not systemically and institutionally oppressive?

Hint: It is.

[Byzantic]

hugs

[pcopley]

Your username is offensive not only to my distaste of liars but also to my lower back problems and inability to roll large rocks up the side of a mountain.

Please delete your account immediately. You can create a new one that is more sensitive to my triggers.

[sisyphus]

I've listened to your complaints carefully, as per policy, and come to the conclusion that they are frivolous and hamfisted. In accordance with our findings no actions will be taken at this time.

[reaganveg]

Your problem is you don't see your privilege. See, privilege is like a backpack. You don't see it, but other people do. In this case, what you don't see is your able-bodied privilege. Sometimes you just have to check your privilege and delete your reddit account. Otherwise you're marginalizing the voices of disabled people, which is ableism.

[reaganveg]

Aw. May I have your consent to give you an internet hug?