Hacker News Reader

Comment by GFK_of_xmaspast | Hacker News Reader

Parsed apart, that's:

* Don't be a creep or stalker * Don't tell sexist / racist jokes * Don't tell a trans man he's really a woman, or a trans woman she's really a man * Be a grown up * No, seriously

which seems pretty reasonable.

The arguments against a conference having a code of conduct aren't really that different from the arguments against the Constitution having a Bill of Rights back in the day, and now in these latter days I think we can see how that all worked out.

View on HN

That may be what's meant, but it's not what it actually says. If your Code of Conduct is worded so poorly that it's literally impossible to avoid breaking it, then it's unclear to me what the purpose is. You're left with discretionary enforcement, which is what you already had before you sat down to write a CoC.

> You're left with discretionary enforcement

I think that's the point.

I'm eating the downvotes on this one, but compare quotes like "the people surrender nothing, and as the retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations"[0] versus "codes of conduct are not necessary because harassment is already illegal."

[0] Alexander Hamilton, as seen here: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-404pinsker/2010/09/29/the-ne...

if you can't speak to someone without consent, how do you get consent?

It's usually pretty easy to tell if someone wants to / is willing to talk to you or not, and if you can't tell that should be answer enough.

so we're going on implicit nonverbal body language sorts of things? how does this account for diversity? people from different backgrounds, different socializations, etc give and receive signals differently.

this is like communications 101.

this legit seems kind of insensitive, ableist and elitist.

In other words, "if you're autistic and can't read body language, assume that nobody wants to talk to you."

Real inclusive there, pal.

> if you're autistic and can't read body language, assume that nobody wants to talk to you

This is a good point, which is why we exercise judgment. Pretty much all laws are written for an imaginary "average individual" because they cannot possibly account for all the wide diversity of people's mental and physical abilities, but that's why determining whether there's been a violation of the law is entrusted with a person, not an algorithm, who can consider whether there have been extenuating circumstances, and being autistic qualifies. Obviously, many laws aren't meant for people who are unable to comply with them, and every law recognizes that there may be valid reasons for breaking it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com