
Why the Open Code of Conduct Isn't for Me - hunterloftis
http://dancerscode.com/blog/why-the-open-code-of-conduct-isnt-for-me/
======
andrewmcwatters
I tried explaining this to my friends who work for GitHub and Facebook just
shortly after they offended me by bashing and making fun of Christianity
without cause (no one brought it up, or anything remotely related to
religion). I don't need to name them. They read HN and know who they are.

I chose to be offended because we're amongst other friends in a Skype chat who
promote this sort of thing: environments where discussions and comments that
would offend people should be avoided. I'm fine with that. Who wouldn't be?
The the degree they promote this to is equivalent to what's in that CoC. It's
well-intentioned, as mentioned in this article.

What I'm not fine with is them being hypocrites about it. That's when I choose
to be offended. I don't speak ill of anyone in that chat, but to have such
"progressive" individuals claim this is the environment they want, and to
selectively choose what they want to apply it to is reasonable grounds to get
mad.

My problem with these codes of conduct are that the people who promote them
have repeatedly persecuted me, and even went as far as to try and deface me in
front of my employers.

I think the concept of it alone is fine, but the people advocating for them
have been nothing but offensive to me, ironically enough. The people
advocating for this haven't been peaceful, respectful individuals. They've
made _personal attacks_ on me.

~~~
jqm
There is a slight difference. One doesn't chose to be black or be gay or chose
what age they are. These are givens. One does however chose to believe in a
religion. Also, blacks and gays and senior citizens don't generally have a
habit of proselytizing and judging others morally inferior based on
differences. Being blacks or gay or a senior citizens also doesn't require a
world view totally at odds with manifest reality nor require financial support
or political or even violent action. Some religions do.

~~~
xyzzy123
One chooses to be a feminist. Fair game in your opinion?

~~~
jqm
Yep, fair game. Feminism, racism, whatever "ism" are beliefs. Not intrinsic
characteristics. When people believe things someone else finds silly or
repugnant and they are mocked... suck it up. Rough luck and too bad. Defend or
ignore. Ideology and belief systems shouldn't be protected against mockery and
there shouldn't be a free pass to not be offended on this. Unlike intrinsic
characteristics.

I say this because it's part of my religion of free will. I really wish people
would stop mocking my religion and oppressing me:)

~~~
xyzzy123
I rather like your "religion" (at first glance it seems logically consistent),
but I wouldn't personally espouse it except in the kind of company that might
tolerate modest proposals :)

There is the "bootstrap problem", which is that what you're describing is more
or less a truncated form of humanism - and that in itself is of course a
belief system much in the manner of a religion (I guess, as you observe
above).

Practically speaking, religion and belief are enshrined as "protected
characteristics" for discriminatory purposes in most human rights laws. Right
up there with age, disability status, sex, sexual orientation and so on.

~~~
jqm
Sure, "enshrined"... i.e, useful to the state. When not useful or maybe
harmful, enshrining doesn't take place. Instead they send federal agents to
burn your compound down. And thus it has always been.

I personally don't care for organized religion (nor organized much of anything
for that matter). But this bias is irrelevant to the point. That is... belief
systems are not the same as intrinsic characteristics of a person and don't in
any way deserve the same respect. The comment about "my religion" was to
illustrate a simple point. That is, it is practically impossible to respect
and refuse to counter all belief systems. Which why would we?

Now, for a workplace where people need to get along, yes, there should be
rules about not being rude. But that might include not mocking the kind of
shoes someone wears or their preference in movies. Or their religion. But
that's as far as I would take belief protections. Religion has gotten a
special pass for far too long, probably because it has been useful to the
state.

------
AnimalMuppet
Sudden thought on reading this: If you have a code of conduct that says that
causing offense is the criterion, and someone wants to remove you from the
community for whatever reason (malice, jealousy, whatever), all they have to
do is repeatedly claim offense at what you say. There is _nothing_ you can do
except withdraw from the community. No defense is possible to this attack.

Note well: I am not advocating this attack. I am merely noting the way that
offense-based codes of conduct can be used to ruin people.

~~~
dudul
That is exactly right. And it will even go further. Someone will see your
twitter feed/blog/facebook/whatever kids are into these days, find something
"offensive" about it and complain about you on the Github project you're part
of (and probably to your current employer and your mom).

Maybe the project owner will try to say that the CoC only covers what happens
in the repo/chat, but the "victim" will explain how she doesn't feel "safe"
anymore working with you and you will be kicked out.

~~~
hunterloftis
Ah, like
[https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941](https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Did any body else notice that r/programming seems to have taken down the link
to the discussion from their page. The link to the discussion is here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3e5c6f/why_the...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3e5c6f/why_the_open_code_of_conduct_isnt_for_me/)

It seems to have over 700 points and is around 16 hours old, but I am unable
to find it on the r/programming hot tab.

If administrators of r/programming or reddit took it down, I would be
interested in why.

------
astrodust
To those that are up in arms about "political correctness", what is your
counter proposal?

I'm a firm believer in your _Right to be Offended_ , but you know what? Maybe
GitHub isn't the place where you should expect to be offended. Maybe this Code
of Conduct is an attempt to set the conversational tone.

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to spray your thoughts and
opinions on all platforms, public and private. You have a problem with GitHub?
Get your own site and go nuts.

It's _that_ aspect of the internet worth defending tooth and nail. GitHub is
not the internet.

~~~
okasaki
This doesn't apply to all projects on github, just projects managed by github.

~~~
astrodust
Yeah, that's why I'm baffled that people are losing their shit over this.

~~~
malandrew
Because it's setting a bad precedent that others are likely to follow/adopt.
"Let's do that. Github did it". Beware cargo cult political correctness.

------
flippinburgers
I really wonder about people who believe that they have the right to not be
offended. It is a disturbing trend. Religion offends me, but I seldom bring it
up. The biggest issue I have, though, is that the people who are "invading"
these public repos are in no way contributing to the project. They throw a fit
and then vanish into thin air. It is some of the most vapid bs I have read
about in recent weeks.

------
serge2k
> race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status,
> social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation,
> gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief,
> religion, and mental and physical ability

I think they missed "chosen brand of kitchen sink".

~~~
slickwilli
KOHLER for life

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
I have yet to read an article complaining about a code of conduct that isn't
actually complaining about not being able to be an ass without consequence.

