Fair. I read it as an individual extremely burnt out by politicization, which I relate to. Taking the various problems for granted, I definitely get a "here we go again" feeling when I see another identity-focused scandal show up on my feed.
On the one hand, it's depressing how common these issues are on a wide scale and I want to see them put to rest. On the other hand, I've done a lot of work to cultivate an intelligent, balanced social/professional group specifically so I wouldn't have to worry about these issues in my daily life.
I started out on board with using the internet as a medium for advocacy. Now, after a couple years of the scandal-shame-"apology" cycle, I'm cynical and frustrated. There's always some idiot treating people around them like garbage. There's always somebody with a story about their mistreatment. There's always some org making empty changes to appease public outrage. I've done what I can locally and virtually and (go figure) it did little to fix a society-wide issue. The constant barrage of victimization and victimhood wears us all out and it's no longer a purely social topic. Music, movies, industries, churches, countries, there's mildly-inappropriate-to-horrific stuff happening everywhere and the conversation never stops. At some point it does start feeling like you can't talk about anything online without having to pay lip-service to the crimes of strangers world wide. It's become harder and harder to connect and the threshold for "unforgivable mistake" has gotten lower and lower.
So it just doesn't feel worth the energy to engage anymore. The world isn't a better place because of this particular conversation we're forcibly engaged in all the time. People are generally incredibly bitter or entirely apathetic, either doing the right thing or committed to their crumminess. Rarely does the virtual mob even take anyone down and at least half the time when they do it's some nobody making a typical human mistake that could be easily addressed with normal 1-1 interaction. Meanwhile the companies that peddle this stuff get rich on our collective disgust and 99% of the jagoffs in the world keep doing their thing until the outrage lotto picks their number. That's our tactic for social improvement. It's a joke.
Anyway, I'm saying I get where this individual is coming from. I suspect the site is as much an angry rant as a serious idea (there's nothing groundbreaking about people behaving themselves: most of us do it most of the time, and I think that's the point). But a lot of these Codes of Conduct feel like a flimsy response to the toxic way we talk about these problems and not a response to the problems themselves. nCoC seems to be the flip-side of that coin, It says "we have problems, we don't know how to discuss them productively, so let's focus on the work we share and forge relationships that way."
In most settings, that's the one good approach we can all reliably execute. My two cents.
He is not angry, he is tired. He is tired of propaganda, misrepresentation, vicious attacks on social platforms, and the endless rage that is coming from that community.
Our virtual workplace (GitHub) is a social code sharing platform for people who want to make this world better by contributing their hard work to the community, that is humanity.
Imagine that after working free, doing your best to improve this society with your contribution, there is a vicious troll coming in and asking you to deny access to one of you contributors because he disagrees on his personal twitter account.
Would want to contribute code after that? You have to realized that if all of these people are intimidated to maintain online presence and contribute code we are not going to have this rich open source ecosystem.
Another angle for the problem:
When you are unhappy about something the productive successful people go and fix it. The less productive people are raging about it. In this context if you are unhappy about his tweet you go and message him on twitter and start a civil conversation. You don't go to his workplace and trying to discredit him with lies and false information. This is usually done by extremists (pretty common practice in my country, neonazis do that all the time).
Until now, I was part of the silent group that does not fight back, but that came to an end with the opal story. It is our (the political centre) responsibility to not let this society slide to extremism by any mean. If we don't do that, we gonna end up with a divided society that is less humane and open than it was before.
On the one hand, it's depressing how common these issues are on a wide scale and I want to see them put to rest. On the other hand, I've done a lot of work to cultivate an intelligent, balanced social/professional group specifically so I wouldn't have to worry about these issues in my daily life.
I started out on board with using the internet as a medium for advocacy. Now, after a couple years of the scandal-shame-"apology" cycle, I'm cynical and frustrated. There's always some idiot treating people around them like garbage. There's always somebody with a story about their mistreatment. There's always some org making empty changes to appease public outrage. I've done what I can locally and virtually and (go figure) it did little to fix a society-wide issue. The constant barrage of victimization and victimhood wears us all out and it's no longer a purely social topic. Music, movies, industries, churches, countries, there's mildly-inappropriate-to-horrific stuff happening everywhere and the conversation never stops. At some point it does start feeling like you can't talk about anything online without having to pay lip-service to the crimes of strangers world wide. It's become harder and harder to connect and the threshold for "unforgivable mistake" has gotten lower and lower.
So it just doesn't feel worth the energy to engage anymore. The world isn't a better place because of this particular conversation we're forcibly engaged in all the time. People are generally incredibly bitter or entirely apathetic, either doing the right thing or committed to their crumminess. Rarely does the virtual mob even take anyone down and at least half the time when they do it's some nobody making a typical human mistake that could be easily addressed with normal 1-1 interaction. Meanwhile the companies that peddle this stuff get rich on our collective disgust and 99% of the jagoffs in the world keep doing their thing until the outrage lotto picks their number. That's our tactic for social improvement. It's a joke.
Anyway, I'm saying I get where this individual is coming from. I suspect the site is as much an angry rant as a serious idea (there's nothing groundbreaking about people behaving themselves: most of us do it most of the time, and I think that's the point). But a lot of these Codes of Conduct feel like a flimsy response to the toxic way we talk about these problems and not a response to the problems themselves. nCoC seems to be the flip-side of that coin, It says "we have problems, we don't know how to discuss them productively, so let's focus on the work we share and forge relationships that way."
In most settings, that's the one good approach we can all reliably execute. My two cents.