18 ms·

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 communi

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.
    - yttrium 9y ago
      You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse. I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door. If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that. One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.
      - explainplease 9y ago
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    What is your basis for "rights"? The idea that there is a right to having a gay marriage recognized as a marriage by the state is very novel. How did that novel determination happen exactly? It can't be the will of the people because then rights are not recognized so much as commanded or agreed upon (in which case, it's possible that the will of the people can change and poof go your supposed rights). P.S. My impression is that you believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, that it's not possible to have intelligent and powerful arguments against the idea.
    - yttrium 9y ago
      Yikes my dude - a trip through your comment history shows me you're not going to be an enjoyable debate partner. The basis for 'rights' is that anyone should be able to live their life free of fear of harm and oppression. Gay marriage is just the most recent branch of an ongoing attempt to have the majority of Americans just leave gay people alone and let them live their life in peace. You seem to be under the impression that gay people exist in a vacuum where marriage is the only thing they can't do. Restrictions on marriage are just the latest in a long list of barriers that have to fall in order for gay people to have the same rights the rest of us have. My belief is that opposition to gay marriage is indicative of an objection to the idea of gay people themselves, since nobody who has any issues with gay people being gay has issues with gay marriage. It's just a thin veneer of respectability bigots put on in order to appear more civil.
      - grzm 9y ago
        > "Yikes my dude - a trip through your comment history shows me you're not going to be an enjoyable debate partner." Please don't do this. If you think having a discussion with a particular individual is going to be problematic, choose not to have it, or engage as constructively without calling them out like this. You're already involved in a contentious discussion. If your goal is to actually move the needle in some meaningful way, doing this is counterproductive. Regardless of how wrong you may feel someone else is, you have an obligation to raise the bar yourself, even more so when discussing topics such as these.
      - 9y ago

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.
  - yttrium 9y ago
    You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse. I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door. If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that. One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.
    - explainplease 9y ago
- bobthechef 9y ago
  What is your basis for "rights"? The idea that there is a right to having a gay marriage recognized as a marriage by the state is very novel. How did that novel determination happen exactly? It can't be the will of the people because then rights are not recognized so much as commanded or agreed upon (in which case, it's possible that the will of the people can change and poof go your supposed rights). P.S. My impression is that you believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, that it's not possible to have intelligent and powerful arguments against the idea.
  - yttrium 9y ago
    Yikes my dude - a trip through your comment history shows me you're not going to be an enjoyable debate partner. The basis for 'rights' is that anyone should be able to live their life free of fear of harm and oppression. Gay marriage is just the most recent branch of an ongoing attempt to have the majority of Americans just leave gay people alone and let them live their life in peace. You seem to be under the impression that gay people exist in a vacuum where marriage is the only thing they can't do. Restrictions on marriage are just the latest in a long list of barriers that have to fall in order for gay people to have the same rights the rest of us have. My belief is that opposition to gay marriage is indicative of an objection to the idea of gay people themselves, since nobody who has any issues with gay people being gay has issues with gay marriage. It's just a thin veneer of respectability bigots put on in order to appear more civil.
    - grzm 9y ago
      > "Yikes my dude - a trip through your comment history shows me you're not going to be an enjoyable debate partner." Please don't do this. If you think having a discussion with a particular individual is going to be problematic, choose not to have it, or engage as constructively without calling them out like this. You're already involved in a contentious discussion. If your goal is to actually move the needle in some meaningful way, doing this is counterproductive. Regardless of how wrong you may feel someone else is, you have an obligation to raise the bar yourself, even more so when discussing topics such as these.
    - 9y ago