Hacker News Reader

Comment by vdaniuk | Hacker News Reader

>I expect the remedy in that situation would be to recommend that the speaker and offended person not discuss religion any further. The horror.

Let's not simplify and make a more elaborate analysis.

Ok, so you propose that developers do not talk about:

* religion (scientology)

* gender relations (meta-discussion about CoC, dongle incident, gender pronouns, etc)

* politics (gay rights, abortion, etc )

* some health topics (anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, obesity epidemic etc)

* sexual topics (the ultimate transgression)

Do you not understand the possible chilling effects of such policy? Do you not feel that developers should be able to converse and disagree without fear of being labeled as a CoC offender and a non-decent person?

Aren't these reasonable questions? Please respond without straw-man arguments about sexual harassment, as that is only a subset of the CoC

View on HN

Did I already make a straw man argument about sexual harassment?

I don't think a CoC makes such conversations impossible, interested parties won't be offended. Sure, it could easily go too far, with mild transgressions being reported left and right (ya know, instead of the person just demurring or bowing out of the conversation), but I think it is fair to say that you've then discovered that those aren't reasonable, interesting people to be talking to.

What it does is make it impossible for party A to follow party B around, repeatedly calling their beliefs a sham (notice the follow around and repeatedly) and then defend their behavior as appropriate because their statements were truthful and couth (basically, being an ass and then standing on the ceremony of politeness).

If you don't think the other participants are going to mostly be reasonable and that staff are going to be reasonable about dealing with mild complaints, don't attend!

>If you don't think the other participants are going to mostly be reasonable and that staff are going to be reasonable about dealing with mild complaints, don't attend!

This should be a wake up call for you to reconsider your position.

"If you don't think the other participants are going to mostly be reasonable and that staff are going to be reasonable about dealing with mild complaints, don't attend!"

Can you guess HN reaction to your comment if you would offer same advice to a woman in the context of "sexist, racist, or exclusionary jokes"?

If there was a statement published by a group making it clear that the intent of the group was to make sexist, racist and exclusionary jokes, I would be perfectly comfortable suggesting that people uncomfortable with the topics should not attend the group.

I might separately be critical of the group for the exercise, but it would be highly contextual and depend on what their aim was.

> I don't think a CoC makes such conversations impossible, interested parties won't be offended.

My experience is that I feel unwelcome at such events. Instead of being able to speak to my peers honestly and openly, instead I make a point to do so as much as possible in a private setting, lest I break some protocol that I'm not even aware of and end up reprimanded as a result.

I mean no offense to anyone, and go out of my way to avoid offending. I'm not seeking permission to do something improper, nor am I ashamed of my words or actions - I'm saying that as a white male, my actions are held to a very different and seemingly arbitrary standard.

There's a reason I post this sort of topic using a separate account. Every conversation I've had with this part of the community has been antagonistic toward me as soon as it is discovered that I'm a member of the racial/gender group that is most heavily disfavored.

Do you think you have a clear reason why you find a rebuke from a convention organizer more worrisome than a rebuke from, say, a coworker or friend?

It seems just as easy for a statement made with no CoC in place to have consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com