[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and
>> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective
>> harm. The bill of rights is against harm.
> 
>  not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth,
> creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same
> underlying concept).  that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".
> 
>  to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth
> when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset?  can that
> be called "harm"? (it can).  thus, telling someone the truth may
> actually cause them "harm"!
> 

Well, yes. I oversimplified.

>> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real
>> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps
>> not.
> 
>  you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong
> with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.
> 

It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to
be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s
arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative
action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the
“Social Justice Warriors”.

> anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct",
> *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something
> that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of
> achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative.  if
> the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of
> -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.
> 
> however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism
> neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to
> not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and
> become bogged down in defining them.  in quantum mechanics tunneling
> terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum
> well.  only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can
> it escape the trap.
> 
> 

When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make
decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from
accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about
bad decisions.

Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be
to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more
experience, see [2].

As I said, I don’t think adopting a CoC is useful if there is a single
decision maker though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations