Your scenario would imply that someone on the TAB is the asshole. In which case, Code of Conflict/Code of Conduct is the same (it's handed off to another member of the TAB to render judgement).
If a maintainer isn't doing their job then someone on TAB would deal with the situation.
If this is the case:
a) Why would anyone bother to argue for implementing a new code, and
b) Why would anyone vote for it?
And, well, is it such a fundamental impossibility for someone on the TAB to be an asshole/not understand how one goes about giving constructive feedback that creating rules for such an eventuality is actually
bad? 'Cause that's what you're arguing. I'm not given the impression (other than by the "ZOMG A DEVELOPER PURGE IS COMING" tone of the initial news piece here, which ... well, didn't quite come off as believable) that these rules will be used unless, you know, there's a reason for them to be used. Which is how rules work, incidentally.
The "fairness" component is opinion derived from the action the TAB member took and highly contextual.
Well, of course it is. Have I been saying otherwise? And, regardless of that, how is this in any way an argument against clarifying rules in case situations like this
should arise?
The meritocracy isn't going away. How the best code gets determined isn't changing.
Again: is anyone arguing for this? Guess I should start a straw man argument count. So far: 2.
Freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with the right to be heard. Why the sudden surge of extreme right activists? Because of the surge in the extreme left activists. One rises in anger to counter the arguments of the other. Listening is the first step to addressing the problem.
No. Nobody has a
right to be heard. That's ludicrous. "A right to be heard" means you're effectively arguing for forcing people to listen to those they don't want to. While this would indeed be sensible in quite a few situations (as a theoretical means of avoiding polarization), it would be an entirely unenforceable rule, not to mention likely unconstitutional in the US as well as quite a few other countries. And if the ideology you're promoting says that some people are worth less than others, you don't deserve to be heard by anyone. Period. Or do you believe that public discourse
shouldn't be a meritocracy?
And actually, you're wrong in the chronology here. Right-wing activists have been on the rise, particularly in the US, for several decades. It's only in recent years that the US has had a political left at all, ideologically speaking, which is mostly due to the government persecution of radical leftists in the 1950s, -60s and 70s (and the immense effect of "anti-communist" propaganda on US culture and society). The Democratic party is still, and has traditionally been on the right or centre-right.
Watch the video. They address this very point. TL;DW: you're wrong. The meteoric shift is on the left (especially in schools and campuses). Movement on the right is retaliatory (Trump getting elected is the most visible example). The fanatical population on the right are likely in the 10s of thousands (talking the people brandishing swastikas, KKK, etc.). Fanatical population on the left is in the 100s of thousands or millions (talking SJW, ELF, BLE, Anti-Fa, etc.).
One problem here: the organizations you list mostly aren't left-wing organisations. Let's go point by point.
- SJW is a poorly defined slur used to ridicule anyone and everyone fighting for social justice, particularly online or in tech-related fields, and encompasses people across most of the political spectrum. The only common ideology here is disliking social injustice.
- ELF - I assume you mean the Earth Liberation Front? Had to google that. At least according to Wikipedia, they don't have an overarching ideology beyond action-based "eco-resitsance". Even if their members' ideologies hew to the left, that doesn't mean that the organization is itself left-wing. Also kind of weird to bring up a tiny fringe group like this.
- BLE - you mean BLM? I'll assume that, as I doubt you're referencing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. As Wikipedia tells us: "The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice." In other words, it's not a cohesive movement, but an ideologically diverse one, with the fight for racial justice as a common point of reference. Makes it difficult to classify it as "left-wing".
- Antifa is ... well, first off (as most of the movements listed here) a decentralized and leaderless movement without a fixed ideology, though they seem more cohesive than the others in their beliefs and tactics. While one can argue that anarchism isn't a left-wing ideology (mainly due to the left-right axis being a gross oversimplification which entirely fails to encompass that politics encompasses more than a single variable), calling them that still fits reasonably well. However, as the name itself tells us, this is not an organization that would - or could - have appeared if there weren't actual fascists for them to fight. That's kind of a given, no? Saying "the far right has surged due to the appearance of organizations such as Antifa" is rather absurd. It's like saying messy food was invented because we had too many napkins.
Bold go to the police. Underline depends on context but it may be covered under freedom of speech. If you don't feel safe going to the police then that's an institutional problem that need to be addressed (a lot of districts are actively working on it). Underlined could be covered under Department of Labor or consultation with a lawyer. Generally though, it's just humans being humans.
To the last point: sure. The thing is, human behaviour is immensely flexible, changeable, and to a large degree under our conscious control. In other words: "humans being humans" is a cheap, lazy, fatalist excuse for not wanting to bother with trying to make the world a better place. If you don't want to do that, that's fine too - just please stop actively standing in the way of people who do want to do that, and are willing to put in the effort.
An example: in most of the Western world, society is
far less violent today than it was only a few decades ago. Is this random? Is this due to chance, or because of some fundamental change to human nature? Is this evolution? No. It's due to
society evolving, our culture evolving, towards viewing violence in a much more negative light, and at least as importantly, towards not glorifying violence. Has this change happened by chance? No. It has come to pass due to political activism, anti-violence and anti-war campaigns, as well as a more general focus on dialogue, understanding and respect as more effective and productive means of problem-solving. One thing it
can't be attributed to is the growth of the US prison system and mass incarceration, as the development is shared across other countries as well. But the low-level public shift in the view of violence as "a fact of life" to "unacceptable in the vast majority of situations" is both indisputable fact as well as a result of political activism. What "humans being humans" means is very, very, very much subject to change.
But to get back to the point here: if it was as simple as "the police can fix most of this, and the rest has other mechanisms already in place", this wouldn't be an issue up for discussion still. What is being said here is that the current means of enforcement and regulation
are insufficient and ineffective. You argue vehemently against this, without any evidence to support this claim, and against mountains of evidence showing us that, for example, making workplace harassment illegal or grounds for dismissal alone
in no way whatsoever removes the problem or causes people's behaviour to change. And it's quite logical that when your first attempt at fixing a problem doesn't work, you try something new, no? Or is your stance really that "we tried to fix it once, and it didn't work, so we should just give up"? When have humans
ever made the best solution to a problem on the first attempt?
If you really have need of a "safe space," that's what they call a "restraining order." It travels with you. Much better.
Good luck getting a restraining order over workplace harassment ...
You argue that the important thing (in this case) is producing good code. Producing good code in an organization necessitates that that organization functions smoothly, including providing useful and relevant feedback and constructive criticism. Group psychology and management research has demonstrated through extensive research that while a certain level of "conflict" is useful and productive, particularly in creative fields, this is limited to very specific forms of conflict, and requires said conflict to be effectively managed and moderated within a commonly understood framework with clearly defined means of resolving conflict, and in particular requires the conflict to never, ever become personal. If those prerequisites are not in place, conflict is
immensely counterproductive.
I don't accept PRs if I don't feel that it's a good idea and I'm increasingly harsh if brain-dead decisions are made. I have to agree with
@FordGT90Concept on this one. If you do something really stupid (like branching off a branch that I actively didn't merge because of the issues, then making a PR for your code off that branch,) then yeah, I'm going to call the dev out on it. Either the dev didn't know what they were doing which is a problem or the dev actively knew what he was doing which is also a problem. Torvalds' is an asshole but, the things he complains about and rants about tend to have merit.
If you do something stupid that's going to impact every user and every contributor, I have no problem saying "what the f**k were you thinking?" In fact, I saw one like that yesterday where if I accepted it, it would have broke the build because the moron merged the wrong branch into their own with a bunch of stuff that's unrelated to their work and is also half broken. Something like that deserves scrutiny and I'm not going to sugarcoat it because, the gravity of the problem needs to be recognized.
Sounds reasonable, but I assume the calling out or the "What the f**k were you thinking" is then accompanied by some actually relevant specification as to what the problem is? Otherwise, I wouldn't expect people to be able to fix it, at least. I don't have a problem with harsh language if it's justified and accompanied by actual on-topic constructive criticism, and kept to a reasonable amount. Anything beyond that, and it starts being counterproductive - which anyone who has ever had an asshole boss can attest to.
Which wraps right back into that video: lack of psychological/sociological resistance training, especially on campuses.
Normal response: Oh, sorry! I didn't realize I messed up that bad. I'll try to fix it.
SJW response: YOU HATE MY CODE BECAUSE I'M A THEY! (identity-based retaliation because of insecurity)
Kind of defines the type: always quick to throw the minority card especially when it is irrelevant.
Has this ever been the case? Or have people simply complained due to excessively harsh criticism or verbal abuse? Unless you can actually demonstrate this: straw man argument count: 3.
Also, unless you can explain what "psychological resistance training" means, I'm tempted to read it as "teaching people to toughen up", which ... well, doesn't work. Subjecting people to bad situations on average doesn't teach them to deal with bad situations - it either teaches them to avoid similar situations, or to suppress their emotions and reactions to such situations if they're unavoidable.
Even if people lash out inappropriately, it is appropriate to state that they did and ask why. This is the first step to reaching an understanding.
In that, you're entirely right. I don't think anyone would dispute this, nor do I have the impression that the CoC is meant for situations where reaching an understanding
hasn't been tried already.
edit: Free Healthcare is something I'd get behind though if Americans were as healthy as Europeans.
Which isn't happening, of course.
Free healthcare (and, to a lesser extent, stricter regulations on the food and restaurant industry) is the reason why Europeans are healthier in the first place. We get treated early, get healthy, and stay healthy. Americans put off going to the doctor until the problem gets so bad they suddenly have health issues for life. It's well proven that "early intervention" healthcare saves society massive sums of money.
I have to disagree on this. A strong US and a strong Russia are 'good' for both countries 'politically' as it drives spending (mostly defense). Neither Russia or the US want to go to war with each other. Most likely, each (US and Russia) are actively working on preventing their allies from fucking things up and starting WW3.
Increased spending on "defense" (itself an euphemism for military spending, which, god forbid, might be interpreted as being offensive and not defensive, which might make people less inclined to support it) is in no way a boon to society. Mainly, it enriches already rich people working for (or owning/running) defense contractors and munitions/equipment suppliers. The same money spent in pretty much any other field would likely create
more jobs (as military equipment is ridiculously expensive) while at the same time avoiding glorification of violence and war. I'd call that a win-win. Not to mention that the argument for increased (or even sustained) military spending is always "we have to protect ourselves from all the scary people", which is in and of itself problematic, promoting a worldview defined by animosity and conflict.
EDIT: FWIW, there is a lot of diversity in this country. Probably people from every country on Earth. Everyone can't be happy at the same as it is simply impossible to have diametrically opposed view points to both be happy. In any case, the best we can do is be respectful to each other about each other's views and opinions. The level of salt in this country is unacceptable no matter 'which side' you are on. Just because you do not agree with socialized medicine and education, open boarders, and treating people with more money than you with respect does not make one a racist, nazi, or anything else. Conversely, people being empathetic to immigrants (albeit, illegal) or anything else on the 'socialism' scale does not mean they deserve the vitriol they receive either.
If people on each aisle could take a second and calm down and approach issues like in this thread with a drop of maturity, we would be ok.
I entirely agree with this.
As for this:
That is what separates the US from many other nations. The US was designed that the government would protect you from foreign states and provide you an equal opportunity - not necessarily an equal outcome.
The fact of the matter is, our country rewards those who take initiative, have desire, and perseverance. If you do not want to make an effort and live off the backs of others, it won't be that pleasant.
There's a basic contradiction in what you're saying here. Providing an actually equal opportunity for people would require measures to be implemented to ensure a semblance of an equal starting point, as unequal starting points preclude equal opportunities. If a group of people lives in poverty, they do, by default, not have equal opportunities to a group living in wealth, so as such, equal opportunity requires a government actively seeking to
equalize opportunity. This
used to be fundamental even in US policy and ideology (given the existence of Social Security and rather generous welfare programs historically), though ever since the Cold war and the ideological war against communism and anything left-of-center, this has been slowly but surely erased from the American consciousness, replaced by the paradox you just presented.
