

On GNU and on hackers - p4bl0
http://wingolog.org/archives/2014/08/18/on-gnu-and-on-hackers

======
jgon
Andy Wingo is a mensch and he does yeoman's work on a number of great open
source projects, such as Guile and V8. I look forward to every one of his
posts because I know they will be thought provoking, well written and aimed at
making the world a better place in some way. He is a person who has looked at
the world and his own personal moral compass and found a way to be true to it,
working at Igalia, a software cooperative.

This post is no different. GNU and the FSF behind it are social projects
before they are coding projects. Attempts to avoid thinking in terms of
society and instead myopically focusing on "the code" are wrong headed from
the start, especially in the context of GNU.

I think though, that for everything that I agree with in this post, it is
focused too much outwards, without having a sufficient amount of
introspection. The post opens with an example of a person withdrawing their
talk as they feel it will conflict with the code of conduct. Later in the
post, Andy writes that it turns out that the author withdrew their talk
because they were worried that it would be considered offensive probably
because of its content (I am inferring from the post that he intended to use
curses in the talk) and not because it was misogynist. Even when it is
revealed that the author misunderstood the meaning of the code of conduct, the
post is still written almost as though this is on the author. I think this is
the first place that people working to make a community more inclusive should
take a step back and do some reflecting.

If a code of conduct is simply put out there, without sufficient explanation
of it, or sensitivity to the fact that it probably written in English with
numerous assumptions based on your culture built in, then a certain amount of
responsibility must be taken if someone misunderstands it. Obviously, attempts
to exhaustively enumerate what a code of conduct covers would be futile, so
I'll head off attempts to claim that is what I am saying here. No I am not
calling for some strawman case statement, which will obviously immediately be
found to have loopholes. But if you can't put in the work to list examples,
help explain things that may rely on your own cultural assumptions and biases,
and in general work to make understanding the code of conduct inclusive to
everyone it will cover (obviously helping only those extending a good faith
effort), well then how much better are you at being inclusive that the
community with which you are finding fault?

Another thing that I think needs to be established is that the code of conduct
will be applied equally to everyone. I recently read a twitter message from an
author expressing disdain for people complaining about their talk "Learn
Functional Programming Without Growing a Neckbeard". This is an obviously
gendered title, with negative connotations. In the same way that I would
expect a conference to reject a talk entitled "Learn about Feminism Without
Getting Hairy Armpits" I obviously expect the same standards to applied to the
former talk. If you want people to buy into inclusivity (and yes everyone
should just buy into it, but we do not live in a perfect world), then you need
to include them. If people feel that the code of conduct will only apply to
them in the "negative" sense, instead of also in the positive sense where they
too can feel safe from mockery, offense, and bad conduct then it will be
pretty hard to get buy in.

I'll finish here by saying that I agree with most of the other things that
Andy has written. I honestly never really understood the whole freedom of
speech argument, especially in the context of a conference. If you can't give
a talk without referring to rape, you should honestly rethink your approach.
If you can't describe a system without comparing it in some gendered way with
sexual overtones, again you should take a step back. I can't even fathom how
this could be a problem but maybe I just haven't given enough talks to large
groups of people. Maybe the urge to make a sexual reference in an explicitly
technological conference is overwhelming. But I am guessing that is probably
not the case. So I have little sympathy there. But for the sake of progressing
to the better world that Andy is working towards I think a little
introspection on the two points above from those working for it is in order as
well.

~~~
mattl
Yeah, Wingo is a great GNU contributor. I am genuinely sad to hear that any of
my fellow GNU hackers would be like this, and it makes me think twice about
going to a GNU Hackers Meeting outside of the US, as it might just not be
worth the time and trouble to go and deal with something like this.

At least in the US there'd be a reasonable chance the FSF would be involved.
When I was at the FSF I organized a GHM at one of the FSF annual conferences
and it was pretty decent. RMS came of course, which helped.

~~~
jgon
For what it's worth I was hoping that my post would give substance to my
following two feelings, but based on your response I am not sure if I
succeeded.

1\. Working to be more inclusive is a worthy goal that should be pursued.

2\. Looking exclusively outwards from failures to make progress on this goal
is tempting because it can allow for the seductive feeling of moral
superiority, but throwing one's hands up and saying that you don't want to
bother is not a good thing, and neither is blaming everyone else while not
thinking about your own actions.

That said, you have obviously put your money where your mouth is when it comes
to contributing to the community, so maybe I am misreading you. I was more
reacting to a trend I see that upsets me, wherein those working for
inclusivity use the worthiness of their goal to avoid criticism of the way
they work towards this goal while placing all blame for failures on external
groups. I think that this will ultimately cultivate much greater pushback and
much slower progress than could be achieved otherwise. And that would be a
tragedy.

~~~
mattl
We cannot continue without being inclusive.

This feels like rebellion against the perceived 'political correctness' of the
FSF from where I am. People were also uncomfortable with the graphic produced
for the meeting -- [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/ghm-
discuss/2014-07/jpgtp1...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/ghm-
discuss/2014-07/jpgtp1uIyYImG.jpg)

I'm unwilling to associate with that pushback against having an anti-
harassment policy.

------
stonogo
I see in this thread, already, the blog author has succeeded in clouding the
discussion by conflating "jokes about rape" with "topical references to a
recent discussion of rape culture."

The problem with stifling free speech is that the most effective tactics also
involve stifling free thought. The proper course is a persuasive discussion,
rather than browbeating everyone around you into submission.

His goals are correct; his methods suck.

------
ekianjo
The problem with anti-discrimination policies is that they discriminate
against your own freedom to say what you want to say, the way you want to say
it. Where I come from I could clearly the line forming against Free Speech
because of anti-discrimination Laws being "the right thing to do" around the
late 90s. Looking back, most of what was said on TV programs in the mid 90s
would now be labeled as sexist, discriminative, and most people of the time
would now be jailed for making the same very same comments in 2014.

Is that progress? In my mind the society was better as a whole when there were
less restrictions everywhere. Now you have to think twice about what you can
or cannot say, you have to tone down any joke you'd like to tell for fear of
it being discriminative in any way... it's just plain boring, and fake,
because people anyway still think what they think but they are simply not
allowed to say it in public anymore.

At least before people felt some responsibility for what they were saying -
instead of having to keep their mouths shut.

~~~
cpach
Jailed? Really?

~~~
streptomycin
[http://www.cnet.com/news/british-man-jailed-for-racist-
tweet...](http://www.cnet.com/news/british-man-jailed-for-racist-tweet/)

------
vezzy-fnord
From one of the author's linked tweets:

    
    
         i'm all about stifling the kind of free speech that
         makes people feel comfortable joking about rape.
    

The author appears to be one of the many contemporaries enamored with
postmodern factions dedicated to a simplistic and reductionist theory of
social justice. But that's not even my main concern, but rather his
misunderstanding of the use of comedy.

Laughter is not necessarily a positive emotion. It can also originate from
discomfort, anxiety, sadness, etc. The purpose of comedy is not just to be
ephemerally funny. It's often used as a tool, by those skilled enough to pull
it off, to shed light on the darker aspects of human existence and present
them in such a fashion that it elicits a humored response. It is a coping
mechanism, a way to come to terms with troubling things. Indeed, this is the
point of black comedy.

We joke about death and torture all the time. There is no reason why rape
couldn't be joked about. In the hands of an excellent comedian, comedy has no
boundaries. It starts to border on philosophy, musings of the human condition.
Anyone who objects to this either misunderstands comedy, or has very
unfortunate beliefs that free expression must be hindered.

Otherwise, I read this article not so much as a reliable telling of internal
issues in GNU (though they no doubt exist, as with any community), but as one
man's personal frustrations with the community somehow being inadequate to his
expectations.

~~~
kvb
Do you feel that rape jokes are appropriate in every forum? Even if rape could
be a fruitful topic "in the hands of an excellent comedian", that's hardly the
situation being discussed is it?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Well, the article is rather haphazardly written, but from what I gathered
there was no rape joke. Rather, the statement was, quoting the author's
context:

 _One of the presentations after lunch is by a GNU hacker. He starts his talk
by stating his hope that he won 't be seen as "offensive or part of rape
culture or something"._

Which he deemed to be a trivialization of rape culture, but it was certainly
not a "rape joke" by any conventional means.

~~~
4bpp
He deemed it a trivialisation of rape culture and a "misogynist action". I
find it worrying how nonchalantly the range of what is considered a
transgression is being expanded in feminist circles from fairly universally
agreed upon beginnings (rape) to ever higher meta-levels. First, jokes about
rape and presumably any discussion that suggests nuances within the range of
what has come to be included under the umbrella of "rape", both of which are
at least a significant component of what they refer to as "rape culture", were
included in it - and now, apparently, so have been jokes about this concept of
"rape culture" and presumably any discussion that would involve statements to
the effect of "A is a not particularly serious instance of rape culture in
comparison to B" . It doesn't take many steps of this sort of generalisation
to arrive at a closure of the form "you must not question X, and you must not
question the prohibition of questioning X, etc.", which basically amounts to
the punchline of those "the worst thing about censorship is [CENSORED]" bumper
stickers.

One of the reasons the fairly commonplace legal prohibitions against hate
speech are not perceived as censorship is that it is perfectly legal to
discuss those prohibitions in most countries that have them. This arrangement
has been very serviceable as a compromise so far; I can't help but be very
unsettled if large traditionally liberal segments of society are cannibalised
by a prohibitory movement that deems it insufficient.

~~~
dmkolobov
The authors opinion about the misogyny of the speaker's trivialization does
not carry nearly the amount of weight as legal prohibitions on hate speech. I
do not think it's valid to dismiss a community's right to enforce a code of
conduct to protect its members within its bounds. Maybe it's my own opinions,
but ideally that is how positive social change is implemented. I do not think
trivialization of concerns about hate speech would fly in most liberally
minded circles either. If you are defending nuanced discussion about the value
of rape culture, then I think there are better examples of nuance than this
joke.

I think a lot of good would come if we stopped using the word "censorship",
and just responded to what people actually had concerns with. Censorship is
distinct from a dude stating his opinions, and encouraging others to agree
with him.

(Edit): * defending nuanced discussion about the value of rape culture as a
concept

~~~
4bpp
Eh, if that wasn't clear, I am not claiming that the author's statement
constitutes censorship - rather, that statement, in conjunction with the other
statements the author makes or very likely would agree with, constitutes an
advocacy of it. (Certainly, the author does not merely advocate dudes stating
opinions that agree with his.) If we collate them, I believe we obtain
something like

* Women are underrepresented in organisations which matter, such as in particular open source software development conferences.

* This underrepresentation is [at least to a significant extent] due to these organisations maintaining a climate that is hostile or unpleasant to female contributors.

* One instance of such hostility are misogynistic statements being made freely [without punitive measures being taken by the organisers in response].

* The trivialisation of the concept of "rape culture" is one such misogynistic statement.

Since the leap from the first point being merely about a small free software
conference to applying to every forum in which anything resembling a binding
political decision is made is natural (if anything, most would argue that
proportional representation of each gender in any such forum is much more
significant than proportional representation in the free software movement),
the complete argument does seem to imply that concept X should not be
trivialised in any forum of nontrivial influence - and, as I stated in my
original post, concept X is sufficiently recursive already that the upgrade to
"concept X, and if F(Y)='trivialisation of concept Y is to be prohibited',
F(X), F(F(X)), etc." seems fairly near. (I have used the implication that
"misogynistic => to be prohibited in any influential forum" which I would like
to believe I derived above in the definition of F.)

You are right in that the referenced "joke" is not a good example of a nuanced
discussion of rape culture, but it at least feels to me like accepting the
proposition that "jokes about (the concept that jokes and nitpicks about
$concept are bad) are bad" here is like giving 0.9 miles and expecting the
whole mile to not be taken. ("are bad" is to be understood as shorthand for
"are misogynistic" and hence "to be prohibited(...)" as above.)

(Apologies for what you might perhaps perceive as an unnecessarily tedious
writing style; given that this is a very politically and emotionally charged
topic, I felt the need to tread more carefully to avoid being erroneously
assumed to hold some wildly unpopular opinion.)

~~~
dmkolobov
I think generalized induction about "contept X" is the wrong tactic here, even
though the formalization is for the sake of clarity. The specifics of this
case matter. The thing is that "context X", in this case, refers to "rape
culture", which at its core is a name for institutionalized systems which
support and allow rape to occur. Allowing trivializations of such a term is
completely out of line for a community that claims to support inclusivity and
diverrsity. I understand that in this way many trivializations of many
different "concepts x" could be argued to be not ok. When "concept x" refers
to oppressed groups speaking abut the issues that affect them, especially if
the issues are ones so violent and brutal as rape, I think this is good. Such
things should not be trivialized.

Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good
thing, and again, specifics matter. The statement, at its heart, stifles the
speech of these groups by trivializing the concerns of those people who are
affected by the systems termed "rape culture"( systems supporting violence
against certain groups ). The fact that the transition to a more inclusive
community involves prohibiting this type of speech is a given IMO, since that
speech is precisely what makes for a hostile climate to non-white-guy
contributors. Such statements are problematic if the community in question
claims to be based on freedom and inclusivity.

[Edit]: In general, I think "freedom of speech"( and the implied "freedom to
be offended" ), are less important than maintaining a community climate that
feels safe for its members.

~~~
4bpp
The problem I see with your argument is that it presupposes that "rape
culture" exists (and, at one point, that women are an "oppressed group").
Although especially the bracketed statement really does not square with my gut
feeling regarding the definition and the intensity of the word "oppression",
the problem here is more fundamentally that it appears to willfully ignore the
question of who gets to decide which concepts are legitimate and which aren't
and on what basis that decision should be made. If we simply say that all
claims about oppressive systems are not to be questioned and to be accorded
the same treatment you argue to be justified for the claim about "rape
culture", we will also have to accept the reasoning that jokes at the expense
of "Zionist-occupied government" theory are anti-Gentile (something which a
good portion of Gentiles would be very bewildered by) and those at the expense
of 9/11 truthers are anti-American; at the same time, simply saying that these
are different because feminists are right and conspiracy theorists are wrong
is about as convincing as the "nothing is wrong with executing murderers"
argument for death penalty, which leaves the possibility of actually making a
convincing argument for how we can know that feminists are right to the
exclusion of everyone them being right would make it an imperative to silence
(parallelling the presumable possibility of justifying the death penalty in
appropriate cases by presenting an overwhelmingly reliable method for
determining guilt of murder) - something which a great many people would be
itching to see, if you have it.

If "post-liberal" feminists think the patriarchy so powerful, I find it hard
to understand why they are not more worried about the possibility of the
machinery they happily advocate to be set up for their own protection being
co-opted by the same and turned against them. The persecution complex of
midwestern American Evangelicals demonstrates that even a group completely
outgunning everyone else in terms of both numbers and sheer influence can
successfully delude itself into believing that it is oppressed and in dire
need of protection, and the damage they could do to the feminist cause if they
got to seize the "safe space" policies in place at many university campuses
and rewrite them to sanction statements that "make Christians feel unsafe" in
the same way in which they currently sanction statements that "make women feel
unsafe" is palpable.

> Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good
> thing

In general? Now that's a statement I would really be inclined to apply the
adjective "problematic" to...

Regarding your position following "[Edit]:", accepting it as true still allows
for two possible consequences apart from "restrict freedom of speech until
everyone feels safe", namely:

* trivially, to exclude the members who feel unsafe until everyone feels safe;

* less trivially, to educate/ease/pressure/brainwash (whichever verb you prefer) members who feel unsafe into feeling safe.

If neither of the two options is considered legitimate under any circumstance,
any individual with a psychiatric disorder making them feel a constant feeling
of dread would be sufficient to shut down any forum to which they manage to
gain admission. Conversely, I have yet to see a comprehensive argument against
even a stubborn approach along the lines of "People still feel unsafe? More
brainwashing starting at an earlier age it is, then!" \- something we would
probably do without batting an eye if a different feeling of unsafety
interfered with the social participation of a large portion of the
demographic, like the hikikomori phenomenon.

