Why the Open Code of Conduct Isn't for Me | Hacker News Reader

Why the Open Code of Conduct Isn't for Me

dancerscode.com

42 pointshunterloftis30 comments

I tried explaining this to my friends who work for GitHub and Facebook just shortly after they offended me by bashing and making fun of Christianity without cause (no one brought it up, or anything remotely related to religion). I don't need to name them. They read HN and know who they are.

I chose to be offended because we're amongst other friends in a Skype chat who promote this sort of thing: environments where discussions and comments that would offend people should be avoided. I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be? The the degree they promote this to is equivalent to what's in that CoC. It's well-intentioned, as mentioned in this article.

What I'm not fine with is them being hypocrites about it. That's when I choose to be offended. I don't speak ill of anyone in that chat, but to have such "progressive" individuals claim this is the environment they want, and to selectively choose what they want to apply it to is reasonable grounds to get mad.

My problem with these codes of conduct are that the people who promote them have repeatedly persecuted me, and even went as far as to try and deface me in front of my employers.

I think the concept of it alone is fine, but the people advocating for them have been nothing but offensive to me, ironically enough. The people advocating for this haven't been peaceful, respectful individuals. They've made personal attacks on me.

There is a slight difference. One doesn't chose to be black or be gay or chose what age they are. These are givens. One does however chose to believe in a religion. Also, blacks and gays and senior citizens don't generally have a habit of proselytizing and judging others morally inferior based on differences. Being blacks or gay or a senior citizens also doesn't require a world view totally at odds with manifest reality nor require financial support or political or even violent action. Some religions do.

To add, religion is an idea and ideas deserve no respect. It doesn't matter how much you choose to think that idea defines you personally.

One chooses to be a feminist. Fair game in your opinion?

Yep, fair game. Feminism, racism, whatever "ism" are beliefs. Not intrinsic characteristics. When people believe things someone else finds silly or repugnant and they are mocked... suck it up. Rough luck and too bad. Defend or ignore. Ideology and belief systems shouldn't be protected against mockery and there shouldn't be a free pass to not be offended on this. Unlike intrinsic characteristics.

I say this because it's part of my religion of free will. I really wish people would stop mocking my religion and oppressing me:)

I rather like your "religion" (at first glance it seems logically consistent), but I wouldn't personally espouse it except in the kind of company that might tolerate modest proposals :)

There is the "bootstrap problem", which is that what you're describing is more or less a truncated form of humanism - and that in itself is of course a belief system much in the manner of a religion (I guess, as you observe above).

Practically speaking, religion and belief are enshrined as "protected characteristics" for discriminatory purposes in most human rights laws. Right up there with age, disability status, sex, sexual orientation and so on.

Sure, "enshrined"... i.e, useful to the state. When not useful or maybe harmful, enshrining doesn't take place. Instead they send federal agents to burn your compound down. And thus it has always been.

I personally don't care for organized religion (nor organized much of anything for that matter). But this bias is irrelevant to the point. That is... belief systems are not the same as intrinsic characteristics of a person and don't in any way deserve the same respect. The comment about "my religion" was to illustrate a simple point. That is, it is practically impossible to respect and refuse to counter all belief systems. Which why would we?

Now, for a workplace where people need to get along, yes, there should be rules about not being rude. But that might include not mocking the kind of shoes someone wears or their preference in movies. Or their religion. But that's as far as I would take belief protections. Religion has gotten a special pass for far too long, probably because it has been useful to the state.

> One does however chose to believe in a religion.

That's a remarkable contention, and one which strikes me as flat-out wrong. One doesn't choose to believe in something; one either does or doesn't.

One either does or one doesn't because one chooses. Consciously or subconsciously it is a choice. Maybe there is a lot of social pressure in the choice, maybe the fact there is a choice isn't clear, but it is still a choice. Particularly in this day and age when one everyone can see there are many different ways of looking at things. One isn't born a Christian or a Nazi or an Anarchist.

That really doesn't make sense. One doesn't choose to believe something; one just does. There's no subconscious or conscious choice. Believe is something one does (it may even be that belief is the thing the brain does, but I don't know that I'd go that far).

Sudden thought on reading this: If you have a code of conduct that says that causing offense is the criterion, and someone wants to remove you from the community for whatever reason (malice, jealousy, whatever), all they have to do is repeatedly claim offense at what you say. There is nothing you can do except withdraw from the community. No defense is possible to this attack.

Note well: I am not advocating this attack. I am merely noting the way that offense-based codes of conduct can be used to ruin people.

There needs to be some kind of bar here where a certain level of offence is necessary before it's considered serious enough to act upon.

If I hate the color purple and you have a purple logo, am I "offended"? Likewise, if I'm afraid of spiders and your logo is a spider, is that problematic?

This Code of Conduct is an attempt to set a baseline people can aspire to adhere to, not a set of iron-clad rules.

If someone's running an "Denial of Attack by Claiming Offense" on you, then clearly they'd need something to be offended about. What could you be doing where no matter what you did, they'd still protest?

If you post consistently, and I am looking with malice for things to semi-plausibly take offense at, I'll be able to find them.

For example, I took a look at your posting history here. In the first page, I found two things that I could have used to claim offense. (I won't say what they were, because it would require contortions that I don't want to have to go through, and because I'm not actually trying to do this to you.)

You're being paranoid.

Per the disputed quote of Cardinal Richelieu:

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

I have opinions and I'm not afraid to express them when having a discussion or argument, especially when it's of a more existential nature, the sort you might have on Hacker News or especially a more general platform like Reddit.

However, when I'm working with other people on an open-source project, I don't have time for assholes of any sort. This goes for people being dismissive or discriminating as well as those who are quick to harp about being oppressed when clearly it's not the case.

Context is extremely important here.

>However, when I'm working with other people on an open-source project, I don't have time for assholes of any sort. This goes for people being dismissive or discriminating as well as those who are quick to harp about being oppressed when clearly it's not the case.

What about those who are domineering about enforcing their preconceptions of appropriate communication on others regardless of interpersonal and productivity cost, even when they weren't privy to the communication in the first place and no party involved in the communication cares for their opinion on the subject?

Me personally, I think those guys are the worst of all.

That is exactly right. And it will even go further. Someone will see your twitter feed/blog/facebook/whatever kids are into these days, find something "offensive" about it and complain about you on the Github project you're part of (and probably to your current employer and your mom).

Maybe the project owner will try to say that the CoC only covers what happens in the repo/chat, but the "victim" will explain how she doesn't feel "safe" anymore working with you and you will be kicked out.

Ah, like https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9928904 (Social Justice, Ideological Hijackings, and Ideological Security)

Did any body else notice that r/programming seems to have taken down the link to the discussion from their page. The link to the discussion is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3e5c6f/why_the...

It seems to have over 700 points and is around 16 hours old, but I am unable to find it on the r/programming hot tab.

If administrators of r/programming or reddit took it down, I would be interested in why.

To those that are up in arms about "political correctness", what is your counter proposal?

I'm a firm believer in your Right to be Offended, but you know what? Maybe GitHub isn't the place where you should expect to be offended. Maybe this Code of Conduct is an attempt to set the conversational tone.

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to spray your thoughts and opinions on all platforms, public and private. You have a problem with GitHub? Get your own site and go nuts.

It's that aspect of the internet worth defending tooth and nail. GitHub is not the internet.

This doesn't apply to all projects on github, just projects managed by github.

Yeah, that's why I'm baffled that people are losing their shit over this.

Because it's setting a bad precedent that others are likely to follow/adopt. "Let's do that. Github did it". Beware cargo cult political correctness.

Political correctness is the oppression of our intellectual movement so no one says anything anymore just in case anyone else gets offended. What happens if you say that and someone gets offended? Well they can be offended, can’t they? What’s wrong with being offended? When did stick and stones may break my bones stop being relevant? Isn’t that what you teach children? He called me an idiot! Don’t worry about it, he’s a dick.

Now you have adults going “I was offended, I was offended and I have rights!” Well so what, be offended, nothing happens. You’re an adult, grow up, and deal with it. I was offended! Well, I don’t care! Nothing happens when you’re offended. “I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord, and I was offended, and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy."

Nothing Happens! “I want to live in a democracy but I never want to be offended again.” Well, then you’re an idiot.

How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake.

It’s a valid offense, I’m offended. They’re cooperate shills, posing as musicians to further a modeling career and frankly I’m disgusted.

- Steve Hughes.

I really wonder about people who believe that they have the right to not be offended. It is a disturbing trend. Religion offends me, but I seldom bring it up. The biggest issue I have, though, is that the people who are "invading" these public repos are in no way contributing to the project. They throw a fit and then vanish into thin air. It is some of the most vapid bs I have read about in recent weeks.

> race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion, and mental and physical ability

I think they missed "chosen brand of kitchen sink".

KOHLER for life

I have yet to read an article complaining about a code of conduct that isn't actually complaining about not being able to be an ass without consequence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com