”Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’”
I'm really afraid and disgusted of this ignorant and provincial view of the world spreading over people I tought were rational.
Reverse racism does not exists. It is just racism.
You're half right: reverse racism doesn't exist. But it's also not racism because racism (or sexism) requires both power and privilege.
I think including this in the CoC is great because it means, for example, that women using GitHub to build a website for women won't be subject to sanctions if a man complains of reverse sexism because a pull request they made wasn't merged.
For more information on why reverse racism doesn't exist try this:
> But it's also not racism because racism (or sexism) requires both power and privilege
There are plenty of people who are not black but lack power and/or privilege. Are you saying it is not racism if one of those people hates black people?
Heck...by your definition, half the losers that post in /r/coontown are not racist!
Did you read the post I linked to? In the U.S. power and privilege are institutionalized, meaning that White people don't have to be well-off to enjoy some privilege (though sure, being both well-off and White provides more privilege).
Yes, I read it. He's misusing the word racism as defined in several dictionaries. See the Wikipedia article on "racism" for examples. (Yes, I saw your comment in Wikipedia elsewhere, where you quoted a definition from it...read farther in the Wikipedia article, as there are several other in that same article that disagree with the one you cite, including ones from three dictionaries).
The article in the post you linked seems to be wanting to use "racism" where he means "institutional racism".
I also saw your other comment where you suggested "discrimination" is the word another poster meant when they said "racism". That doesn't work because according to the article you linked, discrimination requires action. Someone just offering race based theories of superiority and inferiority or raced based theories of behavior is not discriminating if they are not putting those theories into practice to do things like make hiring decisions.
In the context of codes of conduct, individual racism is what's relevant.
Here's a good example of a black person writing racist material, according to most definitions:
That in the evolution of the species, in what some
people call the Ontogenetic evolution of humankind,
that in the evolution of the species the human
family separated in a sense that one branch of the
family stopped its evolutionary path and simply
depended upon the central nervous system as the
total machinery for understanding reality. Whereas,
the root of the family continued its path and not
only evolved a central nervous system but developed
what I called at that time an essential melanic
system. And that I even went so far as to try to
develop a little formula and suggested that CNS +
EMS = HB. CNS (Central Nervous System) + EMS
(Essential Melanic System) = HB (Human Being). That
the central nervous system combined with the
essential melanic system is what makes you human.
That, in fact, to be human is to be Black.
That's from Dr. Wade Nobles, Professor Emeritus of African American studies at San Francisco State University, in his book "Seeking the Sakhu: Foundational Writings for an African Psychology". He was a leader in the melanin movement, a group of people who believe a pseudoscientific thing often called "Melanin Theory" that attributes various amazing, sometimes magical, properties to melanin. It's big in Black Supremacist circles. Here's a good look at it from the Skeptical Inquirer [1].
Some of the awesomeness of melanin can be seen in this quote from Carol Barnes' "Melanin: The Chemical Key to Black Greatness":
Melanin is responsible for the existence of
civilization, philosophy, religion, truth, justice,
and righteousness. Individuals (whites) containing
low levels of Melanin will behave in a barbaric
manner. Melanin gives humans the ability to FEEL
because it is the absorber of all frequencies of
energy. Since whites have the least amount of
Melanin, this is why they are perceived by People of
Color as generally being rigid, unfeeling
(heartless), cold, calculating, mental, and
"unspiritual."
"But it's also not racism because racism (or sexism) requires both power and privilege."
a) Not according to the dictionary or Wikipedia or common usage, it doesn't.
b) Even if you don't use the word "racism" to describe it, it's still creating a hostile and unwelcoming environment, which one would have thought was opposed to the goal of this Code of Conduct.
> "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon."
The word you're looking for is discrimination, which is also what the link I added for more information calls it.
The point of that part of the CoC is that all environments do not have to be welcome to all, specifically that environments that are safe spaces for a marginalized group do not have to also be a safe space for the dominant group.
"The point of that part of the CoC is that all environments do not have to be welcome to all, specifically that environments that are safe spaces for a marginalized group do not have to also be a safe space for the dominant group."
Now we're getting somewhere. So you've explicitly stated that Github should not be a "safe space" for the "dominant group," presumably white, male, et cetera. At least we've got that out in the open for the next time someone insists that these codes of conduct are simply about having a friendly and welcoming environment and aren't going to enable discrimination or harassment.
I don't think that part of the CoC makes harassment OK.
Furthermore, there's this part:
> "We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above [which includes race], including participants with disabilities."
I don't know how that maps to participation on GitHub. I will say that as a cis white man I am absolutely OK if a marginalized group wants to exclude me for their own comfort or safety. This can already be done just by using private repositories, for example, and I don't think it's controversial.
For public repositories I'm not sure what discrimination looks like. Certainly before this CoC no one had the right to force someone else to accept a pull request, right? The CoC makes it explicit that if you complain that you're excluded because of reverse racism your complaint will not be acted upon, though, which I don't see an issue with. It's a way to protect marginalized groups from spurious complaints by a dominant group.
If anyone who feels unsafe if they can't exclude some group is able to make a private repository, today, and you can't even picture what discrimination looks like on Github other than that... then what specific problem is it that we're actually solving here with this CoC? Sounds like an incredibly safe space for everyone already.
> The point of that part of the CoC is that all environments do not have to be welcome to all
So if I have a store that says "Whites only", that's OK now then? How progressive.
I don't care if someone labels it as a safe space or pull out the "but minorities" card, if you deny someone because of the color of their skin, it's racist; if you deny someone because of their gender, it's sexist. And I don't even care that that happens either - it's the double standards and avoidance and doublespeak and whatnot that bugs me. At least admit that you're racist/sexist and stick with it. Say you're in favor of equality, or that you want to give minorities a leg-up - not the wishy-washy safe spaces thing that is basically a politically correct way to say 'no whites/men'.
I can't think of a public space like GitHub where trans people have more power/privilege than cis people, where women have more power/privilege than men, or where Black people have more power/privilege than White people.
I don't see a problem if complaint responses take into account the geographical context of the complainant if there are different power structures at work there (though you may be hard-pressed to find such a place).
"Your pull request has been denied / your opinion is invalid because you are white / male / cis / straight"
The CoC's part on "We will not act on complaints regarding" is basically stating that complaints about a statement like that - which is blatantly racist/sexist/etcist - will not be acted upon. Which is wrong.
Just to clarify, I didn't say that I couldn't think of examples of specific people with power/privilege, I said that I couldn't think of examples of public spaces similar to GitHub where current power structures are inverted.
I'm not assuming that it's impossible for women to have power. I am listening to women who say that they feel unsafe when contributing to open source because of the power imbalance that exists (which this CoC seeks to help rectify).
Deadnaming (that is: referring to someone by an old name, often used to describe referring to a trans person by a pre-transition name) is used as harassment and you can imagine how unpleasant it might be, especially if the people in a community you're in don't know that you're trans. I am a very heavy GitHub user and I am very glad that the CoC includes language for this.
I think that on the internet, it's not actually that relevant - especially if you put up the old internet anonymity.
There was another thread that said a thing or two about the "meritocracy" rug that was removed, but IMHO that's what Github is about - not gender, preferred pronouns, sexuality, skin color, etc, but code and contribution (in any form).
The code of conduct seems to agree with the stance that all gender is self-perceived. The idea can easily be reduced to: respect people enough to address them the way they want to be addressed.
> The code of conduct seems to agree with the stance that all gender is self-perceived.
A man who thinks he's a woman…is still a man; a woman who thinks she's a man…is still a woman. One's gender is a fact of nature; it's an issue of objective reality, not of subjective experience.
Why, just a bit ago there was an article here on HN noting that teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria have hormone levels appropriate to their actual, not perceived, sexes.
> The idea can easily be reduced to: respect people enough to address them the way they want to be addressed.
Oh sure, I'll address anyone as he wishes to be addressed. But the English, German and French first-person pronouns are all ungendered, and it's simply wrong to talk about someone with the incorrect pronouns.
I'd probably address the man who thinks he's Napoleon 'your Imperial and Royal Majesty,' in order to avoid causing further mental distress, but when speaking to others about him I'd refer simply use 'him.' Words mean things, and if one's neither Charles Marie Jérôme Victor Napoléon nor Jean Christophe Louis Ferdinand Albéric Napoléon, one doesn't fulfil the requirements of the title of the Bonapartist emperor.
I suppose one could argue that since online communication tends to be public, and thus the subject of a conversation could happen upon it, it's better to avoid further disturbing someone by continuing to humour him even in the third person, but it seems pretty extreme to require that.
Honest question, what is reverse racism? If I act racist against the dominate race? That's racism again, no? I'm minority myself so I could potentially do that and in my own internal moral system it feels wrong.
Of course, there is an argument that, accepting the "prejudice plus power" definition, operating in a context in which preference is given to the concerns of a class that is less powerful in other contexts creates a context in which that group is empowered over the group that is more powerful in other context, converting -- by the "prejudice plus power" definition -- what would be "reverse racism" in other context to simply "racism" in that context (and, of course, vice versa.)
This reads as a SJW document, so they probably don't subscribe to that belief.
Also, they already have "Offensive comments related to ... gender, ..., race" on there, so it might be a non-issue.
Unless a minority rejects a commit or contribution from a non-minority on the basis of gender or race, then I'm not sure how this CoC resolves that (admittedly absurd hypothetical.)
The argument against "reverse racism" is that racism is "prejudice plus power" so while many minorities may be prejudice they don't have power to act on it.
Power always exists within a particular context. If you have the power in a context to get a code of conduct defined which licenses prejudice in your group's favor, and punishes it when it is against your group, it is a pretty strained claim to argue that its only those prejudiced against you in that context that are acting with a combination of prejudice and power.
I've heard it used often in conjunction with benefits given to minorities. For example, a university offering a scholarship for African Americans is sometimes criticized for being reverse racist.
Usually certain types of people consider it difficult to be discriminatory against other people of "privilege".
Now "privilege" used to mean from wealth but I it saw move towards caucasian in the past and I didn't really gave it a second thought since I wasn't caucasian and I just blew it of as antics of raving radical lunatics.
Now it's essentially anyone who doesn't agree with the person shouting racist and/or misogynist.
It's masquerading under "social justice" so it looks nice. Sorta when the communists sent people to the Gulag by calling them "fascists". Obviously no one wants to stand up for a "fascist", forget innocent until guilty here.
Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, gender, [...] and technical ability. We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with disabilities.
What does not discriminating based upon technical ability look like? Random assignment of tasks without regard to whether or not someone can do them or do them well?
GitHub is trying really hard to get SJWs on their side (this CoC, the "retard" case, etc). They have a terrible reputation in regards to sexism and lack of diversity (see the Horvath scandal).
What's funny is that, this kind of PR never works. SJWs are very pissed off by the Open Code of Conduct move, they've been working for years on designing CoC (instead of, you know, writing actual code) and they see that as "culture appropriation" or whatever buzzy word. So in the end, they're just gonna alienate the ones that are fed up with this PC trend, while not convincing anyone to come back.
What is 'reverse' sexism or racism? Isn't that just sexism and racism? Whether you're oppressed or not has nothing to do with how the culture generally treats you. If you're being oppressed you're being oppressed in a single scenario/instance. There do exist general trends on who is oppressed and who is oppressing, and those are worth talking about and being aware of, but I wouldn't ever go as far to say that the existence of trends justifies marking any complaint that doesn't follow those trends as invalid.
"Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop"
Hahaha. I mean, this is the world we live in now?
I've always been puzzled by the concept of "reverse racism". As far as I can remember I've only heard this term in America (I've lived in 4 different countries before). I've always found that it was a perfect illustration of doublethink. I mean, people realize that "reverse racism" is actually racism right?
There have been quite a few instances where that kind of behaviour has occurred - although mostly in chat and such. There's instances it on Reddit's /r/cringe and the like. It probably doesn't happen much on Github since that's more business-like than a more colloquial environment like chat or dating sites or comment threads, but still.
Also apparently not; if you see above, racism is explained not as 'judging by race', but something involving privilege and whatnot. Which is... very hard to judge.
I'm not sure exactly what they mean by "reverse racism". The obvious opposite of discriminating based on race is treating people equally without regard for their race.
If by "reverse racism" they mean "discriminating against members of racial groups which are usually not the victims of racism"... well, I really hope they've talked to their lawyers about that. In Canada a company which announced that they would protect or not protect their customers from racism based on their race would be up against the human rights commission in an instant.
The policies on "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" are mostly to stop arguments that many consider to be trolling. Some people make the argument that initiatives like http://www.blackgirlscode.com and http://www.pyladies.com are racist and sexist because they exclude whites/men. GitHub is not interested in having that debate.
Thanks for the background. In Canada the laws against discrimination exempt "programs designed to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups", so initiatives like those you mention would be perfectly acceptable; but discrimination in other contexts (say, out of simple bigotry, without having an ameliorative intent) is still covered.
I have doubts about that explanation. If someone tried to argue that blackgirlscode was practicing reverse racism and reverse sexism, they would not be bringing it up as a code of conduct violation. The code of conduct covers how members of the community behave, not how the organization behaves.
BTW, pyladies' code of conduct does not have language like that in it, and I cannot find a blackgirlscode code of conduct at all.
Of the six sources they cite as inspiration, the only one that has that kind of language in its code of conduct is Geek Feminism, which states that the reason for the policy is that "these things don’t exist". It's pretty clear it was from Geek Feminism that they have identical language, including the lead in, except that they omitted the "don't exist" language.
Of the five entities listed in their FAQ as having adopted this, only GitHub left that in. The others all took it out.
Also...why is that under "Definitions"? It should be under "Reporting Issues".
Racism is the practice of including race in the construction and maintenance of social hierarchies defined by legally and culturally enforced norms of dominance and submission.
In other words, racism isn't simply about race, per se. It's about power, and specifically power with long-standing support in the customs, laws, and economies of the racist society.
Taking steps to reject that power and the systems that maintain it inevitably means treating people of one race in a way that's different from the way they've been treated to date. A policy that says "we're not going to respect your privilege" is obviously not going to treat everybody equally since not everybody had privilege to begin with. However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge.
If you're a decent human being who has privilege but doesn't rely on it, that's a positive development. But if you do count on it - or worse, take enjoyment from abusing it - then this shift will not be as welcome.
I respectfully disagree. Racism is taking race into account in making decisions. If I get turned down for a job because I'm X race, that's racist. Full Stop.
> Racism is taking race into account in making decisions.
That's an unusual definition, and most certainly much broader what most people complaining about racism in any context are complaining about. By that definition, taking the patient's race and information about race-based propensities for different conditions into account in making medical decisions when faced with diagnostic results that were not on their own definitive would be "racism".
Sure, your example in making medical decisions is racism, too.
Racism isn't just a collection of things that you, or people generally, feel is distasteful. When there are actual differences between races, racist policies are the way to go.
Sorry, but there are millions of people who strongly disagree with your perspective, and the points they have to make are very fair ones indeed. You may not like them, and you may not agree with them. But saying the matter isn't even open for discussion? In a free country, censoring speech and debate in that fashion simply isn't you prerogative.
You say race signifies nothing meaningful and that all races should be treated the equally? Fine. Others say race is deeply connected to power, and because power has been distributed so unequally - and so unjustly - then any position that carefully (or furiously) evades this basic truth is a part of the problem, not the solution. That seems - at the very least - like a reasonable topic for discussion.
Of course, if we were working from a place where race was as irrelevant as eye color, and we were talking about introducing a class system based on race, then your "base no judgements on race" position would be an admirable defense of egalitarian values. But applied to a society where huge racial inequalities are the norm, the opposite is true. Given this reality, there's nothing admirable about policies that act as if those inequalities don't exist. Indeed, suddenly becoming "color blind" is one of the surest ways to ensure that injustice remains firmly entrenched.
To give you an ides of how ridiculous it sounds when people ignore such obvious inequalities, consider the absurdity and cruelty encapsulated in the remark that "The law, in all its majesty, prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
your narrative of what defines racism is, whilst sort of poetic, entirely without merit. wether someone discriminates on race/sex, no matter what way for (e.g anti-white/male, etc.), you are being racist. that is all racism is. to incorporate the term racist with something like "anti-black", is to incorporate black racism into the word racism, and, by extension, almost deny that other sorts of racism exist.
co-incidentally (and perhaps unsurprisingly), your justifications sound alarmingly similar to new-wave feminism movements, that, in general, seem to be themselves horrendously sexist.
i didn't invent the last 10,000 years of human culture, and there are plenty of things that i dislike about it. i believe someone's racial/sexual identity should not be a discriminating factor in their lives. for someone else to deny me of input on either side of the discussion about how to implement those ideals, because of my "privilege" is idiocy.
Yes, full stop. The moment you take race, culture, or anything into consideration when you make a judgment on anything, positive or negative, you're racist.
Oddly enough, the people who define racism in that way tend to be operating from positions of power. It is rare for people who have historically been in positions of weakness to define racism as you do here.
I decided to look up proposition 209 exit polls [1]. (Proposition 209 ended affirmative action in California university admissions.)
Support for Prop. 209 was: white 63%, black 26%, latino 24%, asian 39%.
Another article [2] says that exit polling showed 27% of people that voted for 209 "also voiced support for 'affirmative-action programs designed to help women and minorities.'" (The question was in fact, "Are you in favor of both private and public affirmative action programs designed to help women and minorities get better jobs and education, or are you opposed to them?" It's from the L.A. Times exit poll [1])
Note that the overall proportion on that question was 54% in favor, 46% opposed.
I now invite you to divine what proportion of each minority group was in fact confused voters.
Now, this is affirmative action, not the definition of racism, personally I'd expect exit polls asking "Is it racist for a black store owner to ban whites from his store?" to get "Yes" with quite a higher proportion across all the population than what you see here. (And "Is it racist for a white store owner to ban whites from his store?" would get a ton of yesses too.)
This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to
justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges,
rights or goods among different racial groups.
If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour", great.
If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour" with the caveat that race is taken into account when considering a complaint, not so great.
Why the caveat about disregarding historical status? Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate reason can there be for ignoring its source?
Why the caveat about disregarding historical status?
Let me rephrase that: My dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races". It does not say anything about historical social status in its definition of "racism".
Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate can there be for ignoring its source?
Trying to correct the continuing effects of past racism can be a justification for discriminating on the basis of race. But the fact that it is a justifiable form of racism doesn't mean that it is not a form of racism.
Sorry, actual racism is rooted in the belief that one race is morally and intrinsically superior to another, and that this supposed difference should be reflected in law, the economy, and pretty much every other imaginable facet of society society. Obviously it's possible to take race into account when making efforts to reverse the ill effects of they historically racist nation without subscribing to the anti-egalitarian beliefs that originally defined it
You're certainly welcome to believe that, but as several people here have repeatedly pointed out, that's not how the dictionary or common usage of the term understands it. If you insist on using nonstandard definitions of terms you shouldn't be surprised when you have a hard time getting your point across.
And my point is "common among whom?" If the same percentage of black people and white people define a word in the same way then it safe to say that definition does not carry racist connotations. But if "common sense" actually means "common sense among white people only" then I'm sure you can see how inherently racist the concept (and the definition you cite) may be, and why it's time for more up-to-date understanding.
Right now there's a lot of contention surrounding the definition of racism because the definitions in contemporary dictionaries does not reflect the understanding that racism is a structural problem. Focusing exclusively on behaviors and not on deeply rooted systems strikes victims of those unjust systems as a form of moral evasion. If you're not a committed to preserving and propagating racist systems, then you shouldn't have any problem changing the definition to one that everybody can agree on . And if you do have a problem with an insufficient definition…well, then maybe you're a part of the larger problem the people are now addressing.
One more thought on definitions; remember that the US Constitution used to define black people as 3/5th of a human being for purposes of calculating the size of congressional delegations and 0/5th for everything else. The point here is prevailing definitions encapsulate broader social conventions. When dealing with words that have become bones of contention, it's advisable to make sure you're aware of the conventions the are being included in the definitions you choose to defend.
Then lets just ignore all words and communicate with newly-made hand signals that have no possibility of racial influence.
So you say 'racism' has been co-opted by those in power? And then get angry that everyone uses this white-centric words to define the concept of racism without all the baggage of history?
Its clear you are having communication problems. You already stated the word 'racism' has been redefined by those races in power - why do you keep using it then?
If every rant about racism has to be accompanied by a long winded explanation of how the word 'racism' should really be defined you are only hurting your cause.
Why does paying attention to the source offer any benefit in creating a friendly, welcoming, and open environment, which is the alleged goal of this CoC? If someone is being harassed or discriminated against based on their race, they are being harassed or discriminated against based on their race. The fact that their great-grandfather was not discriminated against doesn't change their situation now.
Their reasoning seems pretty clear "Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort."
It's worth noting that "privilege" comes from the Latin for "private law", which is to say a law that established a code of conduct for one class that was not applied to another. Typically, this took the form of exempting some people from the laws that bound everyone else.
In other words, the life under conditions of privilege was far freer and and more forgiving than it was for everyone else. The result was a set of advantages that made it easy for those with privilege to maintain it, and difficult for those without privilege to acquire it.
What's remarkable about this document is the way it illuminates the extraordinary number and range of ways in which privilege - and its attendant social ordering functions - can express itself. In other words, simply countering it, to say nothing of dismantling it, is a non-trivial task.
Understanding privilege in this way also makes it easy to see why the very concept of "reverse racism" is so ridiculous. In essence, it's based on a profound misunderstanding of what racism is in the first place. It is not simply a matter of treating different people differently. It is about embedding race in a system of privilege, which is something you cannot do unless you have privilege in the first place (obviously, allowing those without privilege to define its benefits would defeat the whole purpose). In other words, racism is about propagating a deeply established social hierarchy of dominance and submission that is based on race. To the extent that "reverse racism" seeks to limit the power of these structures, it's a good thing. In any case, the problem is the continued existence of the unjust power structure, and not the fact that people pay attention to who does and does not receive its protection.
In Western countries, privilege has generally meant straight, white, men, from well-off backgrounds making life much easier for each other while making it much more difficult for everyone else. Sure, there are exceptions. But they're few and far between, with their scarcity only serving to underscore the general rule. And while plenty of individuals who are a part of this class may find the structure distasteful, that's had limited effect on the structure itself, which remains largely dominant to this day.
In any case, it's not going to dismantle itself, so it's up to the people who do want to do something about it to actually do something about it. Saying "we're not going to defend it, and given a choice, we're going to rule against it" is a good example.
That may be very unsettling for some people, but understand this: if you're getting grief the problem is probably not that you're a straight, white guy. More likely, the problem is that you're treating other people like garbage in more ways than you can even imagine, and doing so habitually because your privilege allows you to get away with it.
And yes, a place that explicitly says "your privilege is not respected here" can be a tricky one for some people to navigate. If you're not much of a jerk to begin with, it isn't a big deal. But if you're a deep-fried, hard-boiled asshole who cannot even imagine how to treat others with a suitable measure of civility and respect, yes, you're going to suffer.
It's worth noting that "privilege" comes from the Latin for "private law", which is to say a law that established a code of conduct for one class that was not applied to another. Typically, this took the form of exempting some people from the laws that bound everyone else.
Sounds to me like "it's wrong for you to discriminate on the basis of race, but it's fine when I do it" fits perfectly into the definition of privilege here.
It's only wrong if you strip it of all context. In the real world, which is defined by deep and ancient legacies, things are very different.
In in America circa 2015, where the status quo is inherently wrong and racist, it's wrong to consider race when doing so propagates the status quo. At the same time, it is right to consider race when seeking to frustrate or dismantle the status quo. Both judgements rest on the same principle, which is that the status quo is inherently wrong and racist.
So you see? There's no double standard. Of course, if you can't already see the injustice built into the status quo, then efforts to counter it are going to appear baseless and suspect. But given all the evidence to the contrary, that would take a pretty extraordinary act of willful blindness.
"That may be very unsettling for some people, but understand this: the problem is not that you're a straight, white guy. The problem is that you're a horrible fucking asshole who treats other people like garbage in more ways than you can even imagine."
This sounds a lot like the doctrine of original sin.
"If you're not much of a jerk to begin with, this isn't a big deal."
And this sounds an awful lot like "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."
I don't know why you would say that. This isn't some faceless and inhumane government bureaucracy. It's just other people trying to live their lives in the world without having the more unpleasant members of the privileged class shit on them reflexively.
This is news because there have been recent changes to this document since Github adopted it. Here's the commit that included them: https://archive.is/WndkY
I find this introduces needless politics where they don't belong. I also don't subscribe to the idea that sexism and racism can only happen if the victim is of the correct gender or race. For those reasons, I've closed my private repos and no longer financially support Github.
Have you ever been a part of a group and said "hey lets lay down some ground rules" for people's conduct? Maybe you would want to even go further then the law to help enable a friendly environment.
Also it's not just "friendly". If you made some rules, now people can bring those rules to bear upon other people and get them ridiculed and shunned for not following them in addition to any steps the provider might actually take. It's just more bullshit to worry about for no reason.
Ridiculed and shunned for not doing things like "Be considerate" and stopping "Unwelcome sexual attention, including gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour".
The only thing you have to worry about is not being a jerk though. Are you angry you can't do those things anymore?
I feel that you're harassing me and I think I should report you to the mods as well as write a post calling you out for your baseless ad-hominem attacks and libel. You should immediately be banned from this site!
You're free to not participate or start your own organization though, there is no pushing. Github also isn't applying this to every repo you have on the site, just their own - which they have ever right to do.
This line of argument stems from the totalitarian hierarchical nature of a corporation which is a dictatorship. The argument boils down to excommunicating yourself for not following the Kings rules.
Just like "don't buy the product" line, it does not work on an individual level.
They may not be pushing but Github as a technical tool amassed a community of millions of users based on its functionality.
Now it's espousing radical politics as a company. Politics many users most likely don't support (based on my personal opinion and discussion about this around the web).
They are free to do as they like but trying to introduce their politics into a non-political community/userbase is a bad idea. I predict this will not work out well for them.
All have radical politics for adopting similar CoCs? They're also not applying it to all of github, just projects they maintain. And every community is political, that line just gets used anytime someone raises a concern about something to shut it down.
Yes, any project that introduces these sexist/racist changes is pushing radical politics.
That's why so many people are up in arms! The tech community has been invaded top down by radicals. Seemingly around 50% or us aren't happy with this situation.
Agreed, but it was really confusing as to why this was posted on HN at all with the renamed title. The submission link probably should have been to the commit diff instead, but I don't think the HN mods ever change the actual target of a submission.
I'm really afraid and disgusted of this ignorant and provincial view of the world spreading over people I tought were rational.
Reverse racism does not exists. It is just racism.