I wish we responded to situations more proportionally.
In this case, someone made a joke about women not liking to reveal their true age as they get older. It's a boring cliched joke. Something I've heard too many times in my life (and, most often from women). Is it sexist? I can see the argument. Is it professional to make such a joke on a ruby mailing list? I don't know, perhaps not.
Does it warrant responses like "Knock that bullshit off." or "you made an ass of yourself"... I don't know. Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation. Maybe even worse than the joke itself? I don't know.
Then, folks take the discussion to github and twitter (and, eventually reddit and hn). Presenting only their verdict: "A newer member made a sexist joke, and was called out on it as being inappropriate." No links to the joke. No evidence that the joke is sexist. This makes it so much easier to imagine something really bad. No, we just get a verdict and we should all rise up against this sexism (which absolutely is bad, of course). Let's get our pitchforks. This amplifies one side of the argument and shuts down any useful conversation. Worse, it's used to rush through a CoC change without allowing any thoughtful discussion.
Is this reaction proportional to the original joke? Is the reaction itself exemplar of how we would like to conduct ourselves?
> Does it warrant responses like "Knock that bullshit off." or "you made an ass of yourself"... I don't know. Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation. Maybe even worse than the joke itself? I don't know.
In my experience this kind of stuff is extremely counter-productive. It puts people in the defensive, and remember, you haven't actually said anything: you only gave them a (somewhat rudely phrased) command, which is just not helpful. If I object to some behaviour I typically contact them in private (not in public) whenever possible, and explain how a particular joke or comment made me feel. >95% of the time, you'll get an apology without drama and all is fine.
"Assume good faith" doesn't mean "anything goes" or "give people a free pass", but rather a recognition that most of the time, people really aren't such bad folk, even when they're behaving as less-than-perfect.
It all seems a bit much for a single new user making a joke phrased in such poor English it's barely comprehensible and the very short discussion that followed on that shrug. And there is no real mention that this is somehow indicative of a wider structural problem.
So in the name of being inclusive they're bullying someone who is not a native English speaker for not knowing the nuances of political correctness in a foreign culture? Cool cool.
Yes. That's what happens when a group of hyper-politicized people that see/read about inclusiveness and things like that every day encounters people that aren't like them. It's nice that some Americans are currently noticing the issues happening in their country, I'm happy that people are committing time and energy to this. But many of these people have to grow up and realize that the whole world isn't the USA, that different countries have different problems and not everyone is aware of what's happening in the USA. Going around imposing your values is the exact opposite of what you should actually do.
> That's what happens when a group of hyper-politicized people
Well, maybe you work on undisciplined repositories or technical mailing lists, but most of us do not want to read people's jokes, funny, offensive, or not, when we are on a technical forum.
It's really patronizing to say, "Oh, those primitive foreigners, we have to excuse them for posting offensive jokes on a technical forum."
> It's really patronizing to say, "Oh, those primitive foreigners, we have to excuse them for posting offensive jokes on a technical forum."
That's patronizing because you're thinking of them as "primitive foreigners that posts offensive jokes", while you could think of them as "different people in a different culture that may not share every values with you". I don't understand why Americans are so afraid of swear words and jokes, but I don't think they are primitive or stupid or too uptight for it, they are just different.
Just look at how judging you are: "undisciplind repositories or technical mailing lists". Repositories are undisciplined because there are offensive jokes? Aren't repositories about code? "most of us do not want to read people's jokes, funny, offensive, or not, when we are on a technical forum": who is "us" here? People from the USA? You and an imaginary group of people? The whole world? I certainly don't mind a good joke, and I like some humor that can be considered too much in US culture.
Don't just assume that you're in the right and in the position to judge people.
Anecdotal, but all of the North Americans I've ever worked with, and am related to, swear far more than any Brit I've ever met. Perhaps it is a generational thing?
I can say that as a teen, the amount I swore ruffled feathers daily in the UK. In that same breath, I suppose foul-mouthed kids do tend to shock.
I wouldn't call it "bullying" myself, but it does seem a bit like making a mountain out of a molehill.
A big problem with these kind of discussions is that they tend to escalate quite fast. The battle lines are pre-drawn and anything that looks vaguely "sexist" or vaguely "cancel culture-y" will be shot at, no matter what the actual topic is. So this this (minor) incident becomes yet another front on the Great Culture Wars.
It's unfortunate because it's very hard to have good-faith conversations like this.
I think about this blog post from the creator of redis whenever some thing like this comes up: http://antirez.com/news/122.
> I believe that political correctness has a puritan root. As such it focuses on formalities, but actually it has a real root of prejudice against others.
I'd argue this isn't exactly a Trojan horse, it's a group of poor looking pilgrims who tell sob stories to the guard and convince them to open the gates.
It seems like there does need to be some sort of method for RESOLVING these situations.
I'd hate to make more of a process for parsing a one sentence joke but ... how else do you do it?
So you throw it to a committee who comes back with "We told the user their statement could be seen as sexist and not to make that joke anymore."
There you go. Done. Issue is no longer relevant, time to move on with life. If it comes up again with the same user, then you can worry about bigger things.
I'm sure there would be some bickering after that but at some point you can't have the argument going on forever on every rando social media site and ... version control site...
What you said is exactly right in a world of ephemeral speech, but difficult to employ in a world of permanent records. Anybody can simply link to the joke and stir outrage, over and over, out of the context of the larger learning process.
The Internet never forgets. It is genuinely unclear how to adapt pre-Internet norms. I would prefer presumption of innocence and of a learning process, that is summary dismissal of one-off out of context situations. But viral content (such a fitting expression!) begs to differ.
,if you look at the updated to the code of conduct it is clear what solution they are putting forward. the removed the sentence to honor the principle of charity(removed assume good intent), and gave permission to be public scolds ( added speak with good intent). it's a facisnating attribute of American politics that insist generally upbeat people become public scolds, as if them making a fuss is a convincing learning moment.
Even if its uncool, I agree that that response is uncalled for. I feel like the "dunking" style of social media activism has really become mainstream in wildly inappropriate situations.
You are asking all the right questions... And you will never get an acceptable answer beyond "Some times you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette."
Sadly, the CoC wars were lost several years ago. The victors had the simplest tactic: projection.
"We are just against all the bad things. We are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-prejudice. Why aren't you on our side?"
Well, I have two things to say. First, I eagerly await your omelette. Judging by how tolerant society has become, it should be any day! And second, why be against the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea? Democracy is in the name!
Exactly, and the "nice" approach is talking to people gently about why what they said is "harmful" or bad. But you still have to come to the same agreement or you're bad. It's not actually tolerance its "we'll give you a pass if you come to our side".
There's a saying "to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs." It's a justification used by those who think they're bringing about some great positive change to justify the all the damage they caused.
For example, "In order to bring about our communist utopia, we're going to have to murder a few million people."
I don't think the CoC wars are lost, I'm hopefully we're on the cusp of the backlash.
The first project that succeeds with a CoC of "sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never harm you." is going to be a watershed moment that can recruit the growing population who are sick and tired of the leftist mob and their thought policing.
Over-sensitive, politically-correct people are going to end up in a hermetically sealed bubble of their own making, hooked up to virtual reality and drugs while the rest of us enjoy the real world. I have no problem with that. It's natural selection. Some people are too fragile. I'd rather let them lock themselves away in some virtual universe driving up virtual asset prices than have them in the real world drive up real world asset prices.
I can't believe that so many people are so suggestible. Part of me feels like they can't be serious; they're just acting out, conspiring in an attempt to incite (fool) others to adopt this strange vulnerable mindset.
It's easier for me to believe that it's a conspiracy than to believe that so many people are so gullible. Why am I not richer if the world is so full of gullible people? Where are all these suckers? Maybe I've been overestimating my neighbors and competitors.
What kind of world have these people been living in all these years?
The problem with political-correctness isn't that it's trying to be sensitive to people who have been harmed, it's that it's yet another form of centralized decision making, and thus bound to be wrong about many things.
As an employer, I would never hire someone who goes berserk and attacks others for perceived slights. Work is hard and it is much more fun when you can get along and joke with people you work with. If you feel like you are walking on eggshells all the time, no one has any fun.
It's quoted in the GitHub link, and presumably it'd be trivial to find in the list archives.
This isn't as benign as you characterize it, since it's basically "this date handling bug must have been created by a woman since women lie about their age". Lazy misogyny is still misogyny.
> Is it professional to make such a joke on a ruby mailing list?
I understand what you're doing here (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions) and so aren't looking for a real answer, but the actual answer is: Of course it's unprofessional. Make "women jokes" while working at any modern company and see what happens.
> Is this reaction proportional to the original joke?
Again, this is a mischaracterization. This comment wasn't the cause of the change, but a final straw.
"Misogyny" means "hatred or mistrust of women". I don't see how this expressed either a hatred or mistrust for women. You are calling this person a horrible thing over a very small issue. I do not find this especially empathic.
I wish people were a bit more careful before slinging these words around, not just because it's overly harsh but also because I consider these to be serious issues, but when used as a cudgel carelessly thrown around it devalues the term, and thus devalues the actual real problems it describes (or rather, once described, as this ship, unfortunately, seems to have already sailed).
There really is some nuance to be had in these things.
A joke about performative third parties is not the same as joking about the class itself. That is why Tropic Thunder is still largely seen as acceptable blackface - because it was only used for the purpose of satirizing the act of blackface, not black people. Likewise, jokes about performative over-reactive wokeness by corporations are not insulting any tangentially mentioned race/sex/gender class.
rationalwiki? FYI, citing rationalwiki in a debate is a big red flag in terms of taking the argument seriously.
And in this instance, it's also completely unnecessary to your point. So please don't cite these types of radical sources when making innocuous points. It would be like if I was having a debate about average rainfall, and said something like, "Well, according to the UnabomberFanSite, the average rainfall is 3 inches". It's just so needlessly inflammatory and provocative that your best bet is to cut that out and replace it with a more mainstream source.
As an aside, I do not trust Rational Wiki to be a reliable source of information.
Just one example: Their information about Alcoholics Anonymous’s effectiveness can charitably be described as a dumpster fire: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous (For example, they cite Brandsma 1980, which is a very outdated chestnut anti-AA polemics always bring out; the study is really old and its methodology was pretty bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandsma_1980 )
Rational Wiki is one of the most unintentionally funny and ridiculous sites, given the name. It's probably one of the least reliable and credible sources of information on the internet due to the juxtaposition, a la DPRK's name. It's Pathos Wiki. [Something something Conservapedia, stare into abyss, etc.]
For some reason, it seems there are basically no nominally-neutral websites, forums, or news outlets that exist. (That I'm aware of.) I don't mean neutral; of course nothing is or can be perfectly neutral. I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda.
Indeed. The one thing RationalWiki is good at is, when there’s some quack theory or junk science out there that’s not notable enough to grace the Wikipedia, RW often times has a page on it.
> I mean it seems no one is even attempting to be neutral or even attempting to portray themselves as neutral. There is no concept of an anti-agenda agenda.
> Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation.
It's not ironic. Forceful language (and rather tame still) is not just as bad as a 'joke'. The offence was not at the unprofessionalism of the joke, but at the contents of the joke. That is what fuelled a discussion.
Removing the line from the CoC also was not a response to the joke. It was a response to the ensuing discussion about the joke.
Talking about proportionality as if the change was brought because of the joke is as questioning the proportionality of WW I to the death of archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The 'verdict' as you call it, does not go into detail about the contents of the joke, because it was irrelevant to the reason of why they made a change. It could have easily been a different joke.
> Removing the line from the CoC also was not a response to the joke. It was a response to the ensuing discussion about the joke.
> Talking about proportionality as if the change was brought because of the joke is as questioning the proportionality of WW I to the death of archduke Franz Ferdinand.
I first thought your response was a joke, but maybe you actually mean that, put some emojis next time to show if you are joking
Humor has a fundamental role in bounds probing in a social setting. Make a joke, observe the (nonverbal) feedback, preserve social bonds through shared laughter. In a world driven by CoCs, there is no room for laughter.
In this case, someone made a joke about women not liking to reveal their true age as they get older. It's a boring cliched joke. Something I've heard too many times in my life (and, most often from women). Is it sexist? I can see the argument. Is it professional to make such a joke on a ruby mailing list? I don't know, perhaps not.
Does it warrant responses like "Knock that bullshit off." or "you made an ass of yourself"... I don't know. Seems a little ironic to use unprofessional language in this situation. Maybe even worse than the joke itself? I don't know.
Then, folks take the discussion to github and twitter (and, eventually reddit and hn). Presenting only their verdict: "A newer member made a sexist joke, and was called out on it as being inappropriate." No links to the joke. No evidence that the joke is sexist. This makes it so much easier to imagine something really bad. No, we just get a verdict and we should all rise up against this sexism (which absolutely is bad, of course). Let's get our pitchforks. This amplifies one side of the argument and shuts down any useful conversation. Worse, it's used to rush through a CoC change without allowing any thoughtful discussion.
Is this reaction proportional to the original joke? Is the reaction itself exemplar of how we would like to conduct ourselves?