Hacker News Reader

Comment by barumi | Hacker News Reader

> They don't have to be that way.

They really have, because that's the sole reason they exist.

It's like arguing that a oppressive totalitarian regime doesn't have to oppress their citizens.

> (...) they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe.

CoCs aren't welcoming letters. CoCs are designed with the express purpose of letting you know that you will be punished if you do or say anything that the leader's deem unacceptable, and to be used as the basis for persecuting and punishing you if you still fail to fall in line and comply with the leadership's will.

Hell, you don't need to communicate to anyone that they can and will be safe. Either that's already implied, or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it. In fact, it's patently wrong that the goal is safety. It is not. The goal is compliance and submissiveness.

View on HN

> Either that's already implied,

A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe. It's continued assertions that bludgeoning people is the sole reason CoCs exist that make those people feel like they are being completely ignored.

> or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it

That is literally what I said. "And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments."

A very large group of people have stated many times that that is not the case. They do not feel safe

But what does that even mean in the context of an open source project? How is anyone actually “unsafe” from someone who may be on another continent and have no idea where they live? The word “unsafe” doesn’t mean anything any more, it’s just used to silence debate. “I feel unsafe so you should merge my PR without doing any code review” is what they mean.

> The word “unsafe” doesn’t mean anything any more

An alternate possibility is that you don't understand what people mean when they say they feel unsafe. Do you feel you have invested effort into empathizing with these concerns, or would you say your are more dismissive?

An alternate possibility is that you don't understand what people mean when they say they feel unsafe.

That is a possibility, but it’s unreasonable to expect that a person can redefine a common word in their own mind and expect everyone else to telepathically know what they “mean”. Especially in a primarily text based medium.

> it’s unreasonable to expect that a person can redefine a common word in their own mind

I mean, the word is used a lot. You even referenced it being commonly used. Have you tried to understand it?

I for one refuse to play this game anymore. I don't want to be part of a game where words can be arbitrarily redefined by one party to mean exactly what they want it to mean now.

It is enough now.

And this is coming from someone who wasn't allowed to play in the schoolyard as a child, someone who was knocked in the head by an older classmate, got beaten etc while teachers looked the other way. This went on until I learned to fight back and I got a teacher who didn't care that I was outgroup and stood up for me.

My mind and body knows a bit about this and I'm confident that what we are seing here isn't a solution rather than extremists making things worse.

It's clear you've had experiences that have caused you to feel unsafe at times in your life. What's stopping you from having empathy for people that feel that way currently?

One aspect of this newfangled definition of safe is that women can feel confident existing in a space without fear of being sexually harassed. Is that worth considering? Is that a political game?

> It's clear you've had experiences that have caused you to feel unsafe at times in your life. What's stopping you from having empathy for people that feel that way currently?

That the current approach is playing right into the hands of the bullies.

Or do you think it is the awkward ones who are sitting on the CoC tribunal?

As far as I can see this is yet another place for the socially and politically strong ones to get their way.

> One aspect of this newfangled definition of safe is that women can feel confident existing in a space without fear of being sexually harassed. Is that worth considering? Is that a political game?

I'm absolutely fine with women feeling safe. In fact there are at least a couple of women around who are thankful because I have fixed them a job or something. (To be clear, I help everyone, not only women.)

It is absolutely worth considering such things, which is why we (at least were I live) have laws against such things, and also why I am in favour of those laws.

What I am not in favour of is independent kangaroo courts popping up everywhere, making up rules as they go, combining the role of judge, jury and executioner etc.

Kangaroo courts are for war, and even then only when there's no other option.

> Or do you think it is the awkward ones who are sitting on the CoC tribunal?

Would it be fair to say that you believe the majority of CoC reports are due to a misunderstanding of a well-intentioned behavior on the part of an awkward individual? If so, where does this idea come from?

> It is absolutely worth considering such things, which is why we (at least were I live) have laws against such things, and also why I am in favour of those laws.

To pursue something legally requires a formal legal process, evidence, lawyers, etc., and has strict penal consequences. Would you consider there is a need for a more informal process where the consequences is being kicked out of an event?

> I'm absolutely fine with women feeling safe.

But you aren't fine with an organization creating rules to help women feel safe. Why is it an abuse of power, acting as "judge, jury and executioner," to remove someone from an event or organization who causes women to feel uncomfortable?

Really, finding out where someone lives is not that hard, especially if they have a professional or social life. And you can do significant damage to someone's career without knowing where they live.

CoCs has made life scarier.

It wasn't until PyCon that I considered anyone could be for for a joke(?) told to a friend next to you, overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate!.

The PyCon incident had nothing to do with the code of conduct. They even added a rule against publicizing incidents before staff can investigate.

overheard by someone who was supposed to be a developer advocate

But not a developer themselves. The industry is overrun with these “tech-adjacent” roles that add only marginal value, if any. Members of this group seem to be the driving force behind CoCs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com