Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove abuse enabling language #2690

Conversation

@jacobherrington
Copy link
Contributor

@jacobherrington jacobherrington commented Sep 29, 2021

My rationale for these changes are documented on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/1443286841533374469

@jacobherrington jacobherrington requested a review from as a code owner Sep 29, 2021
@jacobherrington jacobherrington force-pushed the jacobherrington/remove-abuse-enabling-language branch from dc6dac6 to 8ff5273 Sep 29, 2021
@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 29, 2021

I suggest we also remove this point from the conduct guidelines:

  * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account.

Copy link
Contributor

@olivierlacan olivierlacan left a comment

I wholeheartedly approve this PR, for a host of reasons anyone willing to educate themselves could learn without me having to repeat them.

Intentions are not magical shields against criticism. Our community deserves our having higher standards for discourse and standing up to casual misogyny in the form of repeated tasteless so-called jokes by anyone, ever.

@jacobherrington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jacobherrington jacobherrington commented Sep 29, 2021

@hmdne I think that's a good point, but I'd like to be as explicit as possible in this PR; I watched a group of people use these specific phrases to justify making sexist remarks over a communication channel that falls under these guidelines. I really would like to see them removed, so I don't want to push beyond that goal.

However, I think it'd be a good idea for you to open another PR and suggest your change! I'd be in support of finding a better way to communicate the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect without implying that anyone is obligated to tolerate harmful behavior.

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 29, 2021

@jacobherrington I disagree. I view this PR is to fix the holes that people with other worldviews may use. Why fix one hole while leaving another wide open?

And while we are at it, maybe also we should correct this rule:

  * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

To become something like (what do other posters think? Can we make it even stricter?):

  * Behaviour which can be considered harassment will not be tolerated.

The law should always protect the victim, not the perpetrator. This is so that a harasser won't be able to use a meritocracy argument, which as we all know, is dehumanizing:

https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of-the-meritocracy

@jacobherrington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jacobherrington jacobherrington commented Sep 29, 2021

@hmdne I don't disagree with your points, but I think these changes are distinct and for the sake of the Ruby maintainers, we should be specific in each PR.

I really do think having a broader discussion is important and your points should be part of that discussion.

Opening an issue on this repository could be a good place to start; re-writing the guidelines document will require buy-in from the larger community and the maintainers.

I'm hoping by keeping the suggestion small and pointing to a real world example of this language enabling harm, it won't be so hard to get the ball rolling.

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

I understand @jacobherrington. I will participate in this discussion. It will be very important to hear other feedback before we come up with a coherent PR.

Let me just quote the post, which started all this:

Hello,

Another example - perhaps somebody could fix that (many errors have that
source!)

Date.today

Date.today +1 # no error, but wrong result!

# Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)

I am shocked that some people defended this person, as it is clearly against the universally accepted corporate values. There should be absolutely no tolerance for making jokes mentioning the protected classes.

Copy link
Member

@JuanitoFatas JuanitoFatas left a comment

👍🏼 👍🏼 👍🏼

@JuanitoFatas JuanitoFatas merged commit e7558c5 into ruby:master Sep 30, 2021
1 check passed
hmdne added a commit to hmdne/www.ruby-lang.org that referenced this issue Sep 30, 2021
@jacobherrington jacobherrington deleted the jacobherrington/remove-abuse-enabling-language branch Sep 30, 2021
@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

Encouraged by the quick success of this PR, I made #2691 with another small change. One step at a time at fixing the world :)

@hsbt
Copy link
Member

@hsbt hsbt commented Sep 30, 2021

@JuanitoFatas WAIT. en/conduct/index.md is created by @matz originally. We should get approval from him before merging this.

@yous yous mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2021
103 tasks
@Try2Code
Copy link

@Try2Code Try2Code commented Sep 30, 2021

Encouraged by the quick success of this PR, I made #2691 with another small change. One step at a time at fixing the world :)

sry, but this is getting ridiculous. all this wording about good intentions - so with this conduct we are all good ppl talking no trash, always the right way (yes, sir!).

As a consequence, there will be

  • no more space for any kind of humor (cause someone could feel shocked)
  • no more general criticism (cause some ppl might feel too offended) unless we use the perfect working for that (btw: do we have a dictionary already for expressing criticism in an correct way. I would like to have one - just to be on the save side)
  • but hang on: what if some ppl still feel offended even IF we use the right words? Do they loose the right to feel offended in that case?

zero tolerance means that we end up in our happy-pink-pony-farm-world and I don;t think this is a healthy development. I agree with the try-to-be-nice approach to 100%, but it's only an approach. It's nothing we can enforce in my opinion. I think discussions should be open and free unless people get insulting like on a personal level. this is totally off-topic in should be done in a private chat. We need responsible ppl who moderate discussions so that everyone feels save, pointing to rules does not do the trick from my experience.

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

but hang on: what if some ppl still feel offended even IF we use the right words? Do they loose the right to feel offended in that case?

@Try2Code if they are not a protected class, they will lose that right, yes. That's California Core Corporate Policies in work. And we enacted them.

@Try2Code
Copy link

@Try2Code Try2Code commented Sep 30, 2021

ok, so as long as u belong to a protected class you are allowed to feel offended. who are these classes?

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

@Try2Code That's common sense. We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class.

@peterc
Copy link

@peterc peterc commented Sep 30, 2021

Since California has been mentioned, I'm guessing these: https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes

Everyone belongs to protected classes depending on context. It's not about some people being protected and some not. Everyone has a sexual orientation, marital status, race, etc. and harassment on such characteristics is verboten. (Although it was before too - the change in #2691 actually seems to reduce the scope of what is considered harassment to me as it was universal before?)

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

@peterc I disagree. According to the latest guidelines, there is no such thing as a "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism".

@Try2Code
Copy link

@Try2Code Try2Code commented Sep 30, 2021

hang on (again): we use the term protected class and do not know what it means? semantics?

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

@Try2Code Everyone knows what a protected class means.

@Try2Code
Copy link

@Try2Code Try2Code commented Sep 30, 2021

sorry - this is a very weak explanation. esp. if you want to judge peoples behavior on it. THIS opens the door for many possibly fruitless discussions about what people think should be a protected class.

Ether you have a definition for it or your don't. but in that case the term should simply not be used.
Isn't it just to central for the whole point of having a conduct to do without a clear definition?

@jacobherrington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jacobherrington jacobherrington commented Sep 30, 2021

@JuanitoFatas WAIT. en/conduct/index.md is created by @matz originally. We should get approval from him before merging this.

I would very much like @matz thoughts on this change. If he feels these guidelines shouldn't change it should be reverted.

However, I will definitely continue to advocate that these two guidelines change, even if it is decided that the commit is reverted.

There are likely more places the Ruby guidelines should be revisited, but these two lines were specifically used to justify making casual sexist jokes on the ruby-talk mailing list; they should be changed if Ruby, as a project, opposes that sort of behavior (I would think this so).

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

@Try2Code We don't have to define a "computer". We all know what protected classes are and if you don't, you will need to educate.

@jacobherrington Matz already approved of those changes.

@Try2Code
Copy link

@Try2Code Try2Code commented Sep 30, 2021

@hmdne you obviously do not want to answer my question. There IS a definition of a computer and a definition of a car. but here we do not touch the physical world, but social interaction between humans.

And all you can say is: guy, you should know what I am talking about, but I won't tell you. please educate yourself.

Then please, educate me! Where is the definition? I was just asking for that education in my post before, but you do not seem to willing to provide it. why? did I write something wrong?

@hmdne
Copy link
Contributor

@hmdne hmdne commented Sep 30, 2021

@Try2Code A protected class is a group of people that has been historically discriminated or a group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination - but that's not all. For example the People of Color are a protected class, because of slavery. Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause. The non-heterosexuals are a protected class, because of discrimination. Women are a protected class obviously. I don't know how to better define it. The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition.

@hsbt
Copy link
Member

@hsbt hsbt commented Sep 30, 2021

Unfortunately, I also didn't know what means "protected classes" until this discussion. In Japan, We don't use "protected classes" terminology, We use "Race, Color, Religion, Gender, ... etc" explicitly.

I understand @Try2Code situation. I'm asking this to @matz in next week.

@ruby ruby locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 30, 2021
@jacobherrington jacobherrington restored the jacobherrington/remove-abuse-enabling-language branch Sep 30, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants