> The devs seemed very friendly and responsive, but are typical exclusionary Leftists that are not welcoming to people with different beliefs
What are the beliefs being excluded?
What are the beliefs being excluded?
Most CoCs I've seen simply state a variation of "don't be an asshole", "don't act like some people aren't actually humans", etc - which seems reasonable to me: being an asshole drives away contributors, treating some people as subhuman has a similar effect.
I have yet to see a CoC that limits beliefs (e.g. "no christians", "no muslims", "no atheists"), nor politics (e.g. "no democrats", "no republicans", etc), nor any other group really - I have certainly never seen any CoC that excluded sexuality or biology, and I would love an example because I think that kind of discrimination is important to acknowledge and avoid.
I'm sure that you could find some smaller projects that do shit like the above, but by and large CoCs are generally boring "respect other people in the community" drivel.
Considering the torrent of transphobic posts related to this issue, this could be a hostile account takeover or maybe a transphobic developer. I associate the language used here with 4chan above all else, though some far-right groups use the same lingo.
1. https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html
2. In that it assumes a Christian God. Rules: 1, 10, 21, 41, 42, 49, 50, 58, 60, 62, 70, 72.
The current rules under Lenny are ~dont be an asshole, dont cause drama, respect people.~ And yet people are lying about, brigading, spamming, and trying to destroy the project (and apparently harassing and sending threatening messages to Lenny) because he did not adopt a different CoC.
As far as I can tell, your message is itself misinformation.
OR maybe some were removed before. All I know is clearly this targeted harassment campaign are not being forthright and truthful, otherwise the github history would not show what it shows.
[0]: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/commits/develop/README.md
Additionally, everyone who has ever contributed to the project gets a "Contributor" tag on their profile (current recognised contributors with permissions get a "Member" tag). You can see the trolling PR authors and approvers lack those.
So no, the trolls, including those giving the grey checkmark approvals, are not the former maintainers.
Edit: it looks like some randos opened some PRs in the past couple hours. But that was after he already went rogue and kicked everyone?
I am not aware of any modern CoC containing such section.
* ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed.
* Reasonable communication of boundaries...
Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on
* Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable.
* Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on.
* Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
e.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour.
Again, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules.
I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etc
This always feels like a self tell for people with a very authoritarian mindset.
Just because someone like yourself would use conduct to exclude individuals from participating does not mean that others will.
I think that is the point here. The developers had a disagreement, and now some of them and some community members, and a crowd of previous completely uninterested people are now sending death threats and spamming the forums and github. Some people do not seem to think that their is enough room in this world for disagreement and deciding to work separately.
So this is a simply knee-jerk over-reaction.
Talk about an overreaction.
The people acting like that should be excluded.
However that isn’t what you originally said, which was that CoCs typically exclude people on the basis of beliefs or biology. What I have been trying to work out is who and what is being excluded, and by whom?
If you are going to make that claim, you have to be able to provide concrete examples, as it’s a fairly significant issue that needs to be addressed.
I was trying to explain what I saw in my experience in their discord community. I don't remember the rules, or any specific interactions, it was just a overall leftist dog-whistling aura of if you are not like us you don't belong here. I never encountered anyone who was not friendly and accommodating, so while the server made me feel uncomfortable I was and remain ostentatiously a member because of being a big fan of the software product which I have used extensively for about 7 months now.
Here’s the thing, many projects have adopted CoCs over the last few years because in the absence of specific documents saying “don’t be racist, sexist, antisemitic, transphobic, homophobic, …” there were people doing just that, and then saying it wasn’t against the rules.
There a significant problem in which people have been trying to claim that racism, sexism, antisemitism, transphobia, homophobia, etc are a core part of their religion or political beliefs, and so must be allowed. These same groups make claims like giving gay or trans people the same rights as non-gay or non-trans people is somehow giving those people privileges.
The reason they make those claims is solely to do a very classic trick employed by white supremacists, which is to claim that by not allowing them to dehumanize others you are discriminating against them.
It’s a generally common refrain used by any group discriminating against any other group - from neonazis against Jews, Israelis vs Palestinians, to the jim Crow states against black people in the south. In all cases the group that wishes to discriminate claims that being denied the right to discriminate is itself discrimination.
And let's be honest - those ideas are excluded in the name of inclusivity. If you interpret "inclusivity" as meaning "accepts everything", you end up at a paradox quite quickly. It's the paradox of tolerance, yet again. And its cause is the same thing: misunderstanding the goals based on a naive reading of the name.
Inclusivity isn't about including absolutely everything. It's about maximizing the variety present. And doing that does have the cost of rejecting people who drive others away.