5 ms·

You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem is n

You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem is not that these are just controversial topics - They're beliefs and actions that directly infringe on others ability to lead their best and healthy life. Tolerating hatred by disguising it as 'diversity of thought' is just a way of masking and shielding people who need to be brought into reality. You cannot be an moral participant in our profession while believing that others lifestyles don't belong.

yorwba 9y ago
Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries. It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about. Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.
- yttrium 9y ago
  That's a false equivalency - members of a community hating each other is not the same as members of a community conspiring to oppress other members of a community. The idea that two reasonable human beings will find something they don't have in common is not equivalent to finding out that the coworker next to you doesn't think you should have human rights. Part of being a mature person is being able to realize that some members of a community hold positions that are fundamentally incompatible, even if they represent a net positive from a work standpoint. It doesn't matter if your coworker has partially aligned interests with you if some of their other interests infringe on your human rights - that's when you choose not to interact with them, and to exclude them from the community until they change their ways.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    How does excluding the coworker help you? It certainly won't make them suddenly realize that you do deserve human rights after all. Why not make the best of the situation and create something of value to both of you?
    - yttrium 9y ago
      Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future. Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you. The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        How does excluding that person ensure that they won't use the fruits of your labor for an effort that will you cause you harm? If you think that was the ultimate reason for them to work on the same thing as you, they can still make use of your work indirectly. If you think that they are not just a one-dimensional character, and just happen to enjoy some of the same things as you; then excluding them deprives them of that enjoyment, but it doesn't really help you, does it? Your second paragraph seems to assume a fixed number of developers working on a project, and in that case there is no downside in replacing them. But what about an open-source project where they keep sending PRs for bug fixes and features that all have technical merit? Would you ignore that and redo the work? If I'm working on the same project, should I avoid merging their work to accommodate you? While I agree that a community where everyone can feel comfortable is something to strive for, I think that does not require excluding some members for the views they hold. It is enough when they don't push those views onto the others.
dsacco 9y ago
> You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem with this philosophy is that it has a significant potential (and likelihood) for abuse. You feel very strongly that your view is the Correct View about the rights of gay people. Maybe you are! That specific example doesn’t matter here - what matters is that the passion you feel is not a valid heuristic. Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours? I posit that we should begin only with the axioms that 1. outright violence and advocation of violence should be impermissible, and 2. advocation of any controversial agenda does not belong in the workplace, violent or otherwise. Adding more to that has the insidious side effect of being used to suppress opinions which are actually diverse. Therefore, when an opposing perspective does not violate one of these axioms, we should consider it with a principle of symmetry: both parties feel very strongly about their views, and your personal feeling that you’re correct is not unique. You can be effectively intolerant of violence, but I do not consider it plausible that you can construct a framework for tolerating diversity of opinion without tolerating some opinions you find personally abhorrent. That implies the person who implemented that framework has only Correct Views and no Incorrect Views, which seems extremely unrealistic.
- fzeroracer 9y ago
  Comparing people who don't eat meat and people who are gay is a false equivalence.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    I'm not comparing people who don't eat meat and people who are gay. I'm comparing the strength of nonviolent opposition towards both those groups, which can be absolutely equivalent. I stand by what I said - when we're talking about nonviolent personal beliefs, passionate investment in your own belief is not a sufficient reason to bar those with opposing views from participating in the community if they can do so peaceably. There is no heuristic which will let a given party or organization accept only the Correct Views while disallowing all the Wrong Views; as a practical matter, for the sake of diversity, you should limit your shunning to those who espouse violence and those who discriminate in the workplace.

yorwba 9y ago

Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries. It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about. Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.

yttrium 9y ago
That's a false equivalency - members of a community hating each other is not the same as members of a community conspiring to oppress other members of a community. The idea that two reasonable human beings will find something they don't have in common is not equivalent to finding out that the coworker next to you doesn't think you should have human rights. Part of being a mature person is being able to realize that some members of a community hold positions that are fundamentally incompatible, even if they represent a net positive from a work standpoint. It doesn't matter if your coworker has partially aligned interests with you if some of their other interests infringe on your human rights - that's when you choose not to interact with them, and to exclude them from the community until they change their ways.
- yorwba 9y ago
  How does excluding the coworker help you? It certainly won't make them suddenly realize that you do deserve human rights after all. Why not make the best of the situation and create something of value to both of you?
  - yttrium 9y ago
    Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future. Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you. The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      How does excluding that person ensure that they won't use the fruits of your labor for an effort that will you cause you harm? If you think that was the ultimate reason for them to work on the same thing as you, they can still make use of your work indirectly. If you think that they are not just a one-dimensional character, and just happen to enjoy some of the same things as you; then excluding them deprives them of that enjoyment, but it doesn't really help you, does it? Your second paragraph seems to assume a fixed number of developers working on a project, and in that case there is no downside in replacing them. But what about an open-source project where they keep sending PRs for bug fixes and features that all have technical merit? Would you ignore that and redo the work? If I'm working on the same project, should I avoid merging their work to accommodate you? While I agree that a community where everyone can feel comfortable is something to strive for, I think that does not require excluding some members for the views they hold. It is enough when they don't push those views onto the others.

dsacco 9y ago

> You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem with this philosophy is that it has a significant potential (and likelihood) for abuse. You feel very strongly that your view is the Correct View about the rights of gay people. Maybe you are! That specific example doesn’t matter here - what matters is that the passion you feel is not a valid heuristic. Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours? I posit that we should begin only with the axioms that 1. outright violence and advocation of violence should be impermissible, and 2. advocation of any controversial agenda does not belong in the workplace, violent or otherwise. Adding more to that has the insidious side effect of being used to suppress opinions which are actually diverse. Therefore, when an opposing perspective does not violate one of these axioms, we should consider it with a principle of symmetry: both parties feel very strongly about their views, and your personal feeling that you’re correct is not unique. You can be effectively intolerant of violence, but I do not consider it plausible that you can construct a framework for tolerating diversity of opinion without tolerating some opinions you find personally abhorrent. That implies the person who implemented that framework has only Correct Views and no Incorrect Views, which seems extremely unrealistic.

fzeroracer 9y ago
Comparing people who don't eat meat and people who are gay is a false equivalence.
- dsacco 9y ago
  I'm not comparing people who don't eat meat and people who are gay. I'm comparing the strength of nonviolent opposition towards both those groups, which can be absolutely equivalent. I stand by what I said - when we're talking about nonviolent personal beliefs, passionate investment in your own belief is not a sufficient reason to bar those with opposing views from participating in the community if they can do so peaceably. There is no heuristic which will let a given party or organization accept only the Correct Views while disallowing all the Wrong Views; as a practical matter, for the sake of diversity, you should limit your shunning to those who espouse violence and those who discriminate in the workplace.