Hacker News Reader

Comment by calvinmorrison | Hacker News Reader

Would you please stop breaking the HN guidelines? You did more than anyone to turn this thread into a flamewar, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid here.

Replacing everything you posted with "." doesn't help.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Last time I participated in a discussion about adding a CoC to a project it boiled down to people just not liking that it's called a Code of Conduct. They agreed that we needed a basic set of rules etc for moderation purposes but opposed having a CoC, but they were fine as long long as it wasn't called a CoC. I neglected to point that out to them.

I think that's a reasonable perspective. As demonstrated by the incident here, the specific term "Code of Conduct" tends to attract people who don't like to be tolerant of opposing views and don't think it's appropriate to assume good faith. If you want to maintain those standards, which have traditionally been seen as necessary in online communities, it's probably best to use alternative terms which don't have that baggage.

How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?

No.

Throughout history, men have bonded by expressing humor, angst, and emotions regarding sex. It may be an outrage by the moral fashion of today. But, you would have a hard time making the case that this behavior is unusual by incumbent standards of collaboration.

You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.

It was a very "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Snark is not an inappropriate response.

It is inappropriate if you want to convince people of your viewpoint, which is what I stated. The aptness with respect to other goals could vary of course.

This is a casual conversation, not a trial. Refusing to treat inappropriate questions seriously discourages more questions like that in the future, which is also a solid goal.

In that case I'm sure you could think of better way to discourage nonproductive dialogue - rather than being snarky - if that is the stated goal. At least something less self-defeating.

Either way I think the question was warranted. Especially since the long passage from the Unabomber's manifesto they chose to quote when pressed for a response was rather illuminating regarding their beliefs.

I'm offended by your insinuation. Take that back and apologise right now!

The problem is that almost anything, no matter how benign can be considered "offensive". A phrase as innocuous as "pregnant women" has become offensive under this ideology. The goal posts are constantly moving and if you're caught on the wrong side you get persecuted.

It’s not one or the other: offensive behaviour and competitive purity-spiralling should both be rejected in equal measure.

But that's kind of the point, no? You could literally just have your comment as the CoC and it would be good enough to cover the joke in question.

So why is the pull request necessary? It very obviously opens up the potential to be abused by people who would love to kick others out of the community because they don't like their political opinions.

Let me explain.

See, first people were irate that the code of conduct existed at all, they felt that having a definition of harassment was bad because "some people get offended at everything". Then they were angry when that definition was narrowed, because they felt that it didn't protect them enough.

Obviously, the code of conduct is the only thing in common here, so that must be the problem.

Remember, the code of conduct is bad because "some people" make it their business to get offended all the time - that could have a chilling effect on discussions! That's why we need freedom warriors to protect us with over-the-top vitriol and hyperbole every time a code of conduct is brought up.

How about not laughing about an "offensive joke" them? If you dont find it funny it wasn't for you. The jokes where not made to make you cry they where made to make people laugh it just doesn't fit your humor.

Oh how far we have strayed from the early Internet.

I was there and in most places people were way nicer than now.

But banter, irony and jokes were more accepted and not policed and politicized.

banter, irony and jokes are still accepted in all communities I'm know of, and I'm active in various popular FLOSS projects. I've never heard of a CoC prohibiting such things.

> The rest of us normal, sane people need to stop letting "good intentions" let the trojan horse of endless CoC, morality games, witch hunts and ideological warfare from continuing in the name of 'being non-offensive'.

Amen. These days my instant response to this kind of posturing is to disengage as far as possible from all involved. It's an ideological cancer that turns previously productive communities into a morass of backbiting and one-up-person-ship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com