No, displaying those passions or emotions does not belong in any work environment.
One should be able to hold whatever views they like, and even share them with others in other communities without it affecting their work life, or status in a community without a direct interest in the controversial topic in question.
You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software.
The problem is not that these are just controversial topics - They're beliefs and actions that directly infringe on others ability to lead their best and healthy life. Tolerating hatred by disguising it as 'diversity of thought' is just a way of masking and shielding people who need to be brought into reality. You cannot be an moral participant in our profession while believing that others lifestyles don't belong.
> You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software.
The problem with this philosophy is that it has a significant potential (and likelihood) for abuse. You feel very strongly that your view is the Correct View about the rights of gay people. Maybe you are! That specific example doesn’t matter here - what matters is that the passion you feel is not a valid heuristic.
Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
I posit that we should begin only with the axioms that 1. outright violence and advocation of violence should be impermissible, and 2. advocation of any controversial agenda does not belong in the workplace, violent or otherwise. Adding more to that has the insidious side effect of being used to suppress opinions which are actually diverse. Therefore, when an opposing perspective does not violate one of these axioms, we should consider it with a principle of symmetry: both parties feel very strongly about their views, and your personal feeling that you’re correct is not unique.
You can be effectively intolerant of violence, but I do not consider it plausible that you can construct a framework for tolerating diversity of opinion without tolerating some opinions you find personally abhorrent. That implies the person who implemented that framework has only Correct Views and no Incorrect Views, which seems extremely unrealistic.
I'm not comparing people who don't eat meat and people who are gay. I'm comparing the strength of nonviolent opposition towards both those groups, which can be absolutely equivalent. I stand by what I said - when we're talking about nonviolent personal beliefs, passionate investment in your own belief is not a sufficient reason to bar those with opposing views from participating in the community if they can do so peaceably.
There is no heuristic which will let a given party or organization accept only the Correct Views while disallowing all the Wrong Views; as a practical matter, for the sake of diversity, you should limit your shunning to those who espouse violence and those who discriminate in the workplace.
You absolutely are. You can't compare the nonviolent opposition towards both groups without considering the basis of those groups come from. Right here:
>Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to eat meat and participate in the community, because eating meat is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
Is your point in comparison. You're saying that there is no effective difference between someone saying 'People who eat meat shouldn't be allowed in our community' and 'People who are against gay marriage shouldn't be allowed in our community'. Your entire argument hinges on this false equivalence.
And again, I'm not drawing any comparison or equivalence between people who eat meat and people who are gay. As clearly shown in the portion of my comment you quoted, I am comparing the beliefs and suggestions about which beliefs are allowed in the workplace. The equivalence I'm drawing is that both sets of beliefs have the capacity to be deeply controversial and eminently nonviolent, not that the respective lifestyles are qualitatively equivalent. If you disagree with my actual comparison, attack that one, not the one you think I (or want me to have) made.
In point of fact, my entire argument relies on the axioms I explicitly and specifically outlined in the previous comment, which are:
1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and
2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct.
I'm happy to entertain an argument against those axioms or the actual comparison I made, but don't just keep replying insisting I've made a false equivalence about two things that I'm not even comparing.
And I will repeat myself. You comparing suggestions about which beliefs are allowed in the workplace is a false equivalence. They both have the ability to be controversial, but you're ignoring the context and assuming that they can both be the same level of controversial. To make a mockery of your statement:
>>Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to play League of Legends and participate in the community, because playing League is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
That statement is fundamentally equal to your previous statement. But the levels of controversial and how it actively affects people on a day-to-day basis vastly differs. Now to address your axioms:
>1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and
This depends on the collective community's beliefs. Note I am using the word community here, not just drawing a comparison to job-related activities. A company that advertises itself as being pro-LGBT hiring someone that espouses views like 'Transgender people don't exist', despite being a non-violent statement, goes against their overall goals. When a company hires someone like that, the end result is that people start leaving because people have a limit as to who they're willing to work with. Not all bigotry is violence and as an aside I have met people in tech who believe black people are inferior.
>2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct.
Often the two go hand-in-hand. We live in a world where what you do both outside and within the company represents them. The smarter people use multiple accounts and properly separate their work and personal lives. However when the two connect it becomes a matter of passive advocation in the workplace. A company allowing someone that believes black people are inferior to continue working at their company is not only a PR disaster in waiting (especially if they intend to promote him to higher positions) but it's also a tacit approval of his opinions. These views often subtly alter your perception too, and allowing said person to be a part of the recruiting process is, again, a PR disaster waiting to blow up.
> They both have the ability to be controversial, but you're ignoring the context and assuming that they can both be the same level of controversial.
No, I'm not ignoring any context. I'm asserting that they can both be the same level of nonviolent. Just as I haven't made a comparison about lifestyles, I also haven't made a comparison about how controversial the beliefs about those lifestyles are. At this point the discussion is just getting pedantic.
You drew up a bad point of comparison and you keep attempting to shift away from it. To assert they can be the same level of non-violent is also incorrect considering as I brought up, there can be various levels of non-violent opinions that can be highly damaging to a community. Believing that transgender people don't exist is one, or believing that being gay is something that someone can fix.
It's materially different because militant vegans don't try to infringe upon my rights. The difference is that if you were advocating for veganism as strongly, I can point to the fact that nobody is being hurt by that advocacy. If you're strongly advocating that gay people don't deserve equal rights (at best) or don't deserve to be alive (at worst), then it's very clear your position shouldn't be tolerated.
That's the problem with this whole argument chain - there are clear material differences between advocating strongly against gay people, versus advocating strongly against eating meat.
There is no diversity in opinion that includes bigotry - that's just a way racists, sexists, and other hate mongers hide in communities. Your axioms completely ignore the idea that there are opinions which cause harm without any introduction of violence - something anyone in a marginalized or oppressed group can and has experienced.
Diversity of opinion does not mean accepting opinions which directly and indirectly cause harm to others.
What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this? People say opposing gay marriage causes harm because it does. There have been multiple instances and examples of gay couples not being able to see their loved ones in the hospital because they're not recognized as a 'real' couple. They died alone as their partners were turned away for the sole crime of being gay.
Your attempt to justify your bigotry is disgusting.
Opposing gay marriage causes harm because it's active oppression, and because it's a argumentative shield for people who have direct opposition to gay people themselves. There are no strong arguments against gay marriage beyond bigotry.
You don't have to pretend that you're not a bigot - opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.
Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries.
It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about.
Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.
That's a false equivalency - members of a community hating each other is not the same as members of a community conspiring to oppress other members of a community.
The idea that two reasonable human beings will find something they don't have in common is not equivalent to finding out that the coworker next to you doesn't think you should have human rights.
Part of being a mature person is being able to realize that some members of a community hold positions that are fundamentally incompatible, even if they represent a net positive from a work standpoint.
It doesn't matter if your coworker has partially aligned interests with you if some of their other interests infringe on your human rights - that's when you choose not to interact with them, and to exclude them from the community until they change their ways.
How does excluding the coworker help you? It certainly won't make them suddenly realize that you do deserve human rights after all. Why not make the best of the situation and create something of value to both of you?
Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future.
Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you.
The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.
How does excluding that person ensure that they won't use the fruits of your labor for an effort that will you cause you harm? If you think that was the ultimate reason for them to work on the same thing as you, they can still make use of your work indirectly. If you think that they are not just a one-dimensional character, and just happen to enjoy some of the same things as you; then excluding them deprives them of that enjoyment, but it doesn't really help you, does it?
Your second paragraph seems to assume a fixed number of developers working on a project, and in that case there is no downside in replacing them. But what about an open-source project where they keep sending PRs for bug fixes and features that all have technical merit? Would you ignore that and redo the work? If I'm working on the same project, should I avoid merging their work to accommodate you?
While I agree that a community where everyone can feel comfortable is something to strive for, I think that does not require excluding some members for the views they hold. It is enough when they don't push those views onto the others.
You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse.
I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door.
If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.
One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.
> If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.
In contrast, I, and many other people, would evaluate it on its technical merits and merge it if it was good. It's just code; it inherits no sin from its writer.
But you discriminate against code--not even a person--based on your personal dislike of its writer. Isn't that bigoted?
Not at all - I don't read Orson Scott Card anymore, because he's a bigot. That is a decision that doesn't touch upon whether or not his books are any good. When it comes to code, there's no piece of code or software product that can't be replaced by someone who behaves morally.
Ultimately, you can't, and shouldn't decouple someone's work from the person themselves. We ought to feel ashamed when we support someone who's beliefs and actions are reprehensible.
> Ultimately, you can't, and shouldn't decouple someone's work from the person themselves.
This is a bizarre and grossly impractical idea. Do you interrogate everyone who sells you anything? Who prepares and serves your food at a restaurant? Who delivers your packages? If you don't, you are being a hypocrite. And if we all did that, society and economy would grind to a halt. You are truly an extremist and a totalitarian.
> We ought to feel ashamed when we support someone who's beliefs and actions are reprehensible.
By that logic, I would feel ashamed to support you. Nevertheless, I would accept your code if it were well-written, because I am tolerant of views differing from my own.
Of course not, because that's grossly impractical. There are easy ways of dealing with that - You can first work with the assumption that most people are fundamentally good human beings who don't carry hatred or bigotry around in their heart. This is not too much of a stretch. Additionally, you can try and have conversations with those who are wrong in their beliefs. This is not always successful, but it's a reasonable thing to do.
The thing is, to a large degree society and economy do already do this. If you're outed as a sexist, or a racist, you lose your job. We mostly operate under the assumption that people are not those things. We're just currently in the phase where we're defining additional boundaries to what is and is not acceptable in the workplace.
After all, everyone who starts a development job nowadays does several things that are akin to what you're describing: You voluntarily confirm that you will not harass or discriminate, and when you break those rules you get kicked out.
What is your basis for "rights"? The idea that there is a right to having a gay marriage recognized as a marriage by the state is very novel. How did that novel determination happen exactly? It can't be the will of the people because then rights are not recognized so much as commanded or agreed upon (in which case, it's possible that the will of the people can change and poof go your supposed rights).
P.S. My impression is that you believe that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, that it's not possible to have intelligent and powerful arguments against the idea.
> "Yikes my dude - a trip through your comment history shows me you're not going to be an enjoyable debate partner."
Please don't do this. If you think having a discussion with a particular individual is going to be problematic, choose not to have it, or engage as constructively without calling them out like this. You're already involved in a contentious discussion. If your goal is to actually move the needle in some meaningful way, doing this is counterproductive. Regardless of how wrong you may feel someone else is, you have an obligation to raise the bar yourself, even more so when discussing topics such as these.
> My belief is that opposition to gay marriage is indicative of an objection to the idea of gay people themselves, since nobody who has any issues with gay people being gay has issues with gay marriage. It's just a thin veneer of respectability bigots put on in order to appear more civil.
So what would you say to the gay people who oppose government recognition of gay marriage? Are they bigoted against themselves?
One should be able to hold whatever views they like, and even share them with others in other communities without it affecting their work life, or status in a community without a direct interest in the controversial topic in question.