Readit NewsInviting politics where it does not belong particularly harms vulnerable populations, because politics is about the use of power and force. We agree to leave our politics at home in many realms of life, and this allows us to band together regardless of our political differences to prevent greedy and powerful people from exploiting those realms.
The Trump administration had plans leaked this weekend that stated their intent to change the definition of "gender" so that trans people would not exist to the Federal Government. I'm sorry, but being able to keep politics separate is a privilege.
One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?
I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.
My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...
Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.
Many people feel uncomfortable with this as a concept, regardless of whether they agree with the ideas in question. They point out that this effect may well reduce the contributor pool in much the same way that a particularly harsh technical culture (eg LKML) might do, i.e. it ends up substituting one disincentive to participate with another for no net gain.
On the other side, some people argue that the speech they are concerned about is not "political" and that it is right that it should be punished beyond simple disagreement.
At first blush, this might seem rather tangential to the issue at hand. But there are some high profile examples of this actually having happened - see [1], or the example of Brendan Eich at Mozilla.
I'll not argue over why they came into existence as the idea seems good enough (and if you'd asked me a few years ago I'd even said it was a good idea), but now I'll ask:
Over the years I've heard a number of times where a CoC has been used to make a lot of trouble in projects that where originally more or less healthy.
I read my it and open source news from Ars Technica, HN and from time to time Slashdot though, so I might be heavily biased.
Can anyone point me to one ore more projects where CoCs have actually improved open source/free software projects or communities?
As I already mentioned I guess originally I would have thought it was a good idea, but over the last few years I've heard either nothing or problems from projects that adopted a CoC.
The problem is that it is often turned into a politics.
The logic of this kind of identitarian social critique, insofar as it becomes political, is decidedly illiberal.
It is authoritarian.
But all of this is nothing new! In fact it's about 30+ years old.
It originates in the aftermath of the failed revolution of the 1960s--in other words, it appeared as a phenomenon of the dissolution of the New Left in the 1970s-1980s.
Some see its origins in the Maoist practice of self-critique. I think it's better understood as the response to the realization that the New Left's politics was no longer viable--that its historical potential was completely exhausted.
Everything is politics. Politics is part of everyone's life, and affects everyone's life. Some more than others, and some have the good fortune to not have to face that fact every day.
Consider this example: Difference in pay between men and women is a small discomfort (single women can afford 5% smaller homes) while divorce and child custody courts ruin lives (of men in 90% of cases) and cause unbearable pain (due to loss of contact with children). Yet pay equality is talked about and politically pushed through much more than joint child custody. This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination.
This is all a bit OT, but I think it is understood that misjudging discrimination and taking disproportionate action can damage opensource projects.
I'm saying I'm not seeing evidence of any.
"This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination."
You're exhibiting just as much bias as you're accusing others of having. You're picking and choosing what you're considering important to worry about, and dismissing other items.