[striking]

It doesn't seem to me that the user you're replying to is "systematically angry." Furthermore, the independent contractors were truly independent, and the Twitter meltdown and smearing were real. Those are real, harmful actions which should not be ignored.

Furthermore, people are attempting to hold on to their ability to speak freely, to not have to monitor their own speech. There is no way to stop other people from being offended. No matter what you do, it will be offensive to someone. So should that person have the right to police you and to take down something that's yours? And what if you disagree with that person?

[Tenhundfeld]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion.

Honestly, saying that anything you do will be offensive is a weak evasion of personal responsibility. It's like saying that you might as well eat Big Macs for every meal since all food can be unhealthy, under certain circumstances. While the premise is technically true, the conclusion is flawed. It's a spectrum, with behavior on one end being better than behavior on the other end.

To your last point, of course some rando who's offended by my statement should haven't the right to police me or take down something I wrote. But they do have the right to respond to what I wrote, point it out to others, argue with me, criticize me for it, etc. And I have the right to argue back, ignore them, or even – as crazy as it sounds – consider if their feelings might be sincere and worth me reevaluating my statement.

Anyway, this became longer than I intended. I'm just trying to say that, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, as fellow creatures inhabiting this pale blue dot, we have an obligation to deal kindly with one another. The fact that some people are jerks doesn't obviate that.

[striking]

The repositories mentioned in the post three levels above yours were taken down. There was no arguing back or ignoring.

I am not advocating of getting rid of kindness, and I think that preventing racism is a noble idea. And I'm not obviating a responsibility to avoid offending people by commenters who want to be taken seriously. But in the end, it is nearly impossible to entirely rid yourself of offense. Freedom of speech is necessary for productive environments, and it's been proven that people behave differently and speak differently when they know they're being watched.

There's a difference between attempting to be taken seriously and being disingenuous about who you are and they way you think. I believe in freedom of speech above all.

[DanBC]

If I call you a retard it's probably not that insulting to you. But it does cause offence in a large group of other people. And those people were not my target. So the word retard is a suboptimal choice for those two reasons.

The other way to use retard as an insult is to use it against people with a learning disability. I don't think that's what you're defending -- verbal aggression by mostly rich programmers of mostly poor vulnerable people.

> I believe in freedom of speech above all.

Not right to life?

[Tenhundfeld]

Well said.

[Goronmon]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by people having to "monitor their own speech." You should think about what you're saying before you say it, right? You should consider if what you're saying is offensive to other people, right? That's just part of being a decent, responsible, adult human being – in my opinion.

My go-to example is generally something along the lines of, religious people might be offended by atheist philosophies. Does that mean atheists should refrain from speaking about their beliefs to avoid potentially offending someone? What about the reverse, should religious people refrain from speaking about religion to avoid offending people of a different (or no) religion?

Or for an example closer to the context of the discussion, is it rude or offensive to argue that a wage gap between men and women doesn't actually exist? Or that employers shouldn't hire women purely based on a need to balance out a gender disparity in their employees?

I'm sure there are plenty of people would be offended by those arguments. Does that mean people should refrain from using them?

[Lawtonfogle]

Or a simpler example: people who believe vaccines cause autism are extremely stupid and responsible for the death of extremely high numbers of children. To the extent that is legally possible, they should be shamed and ostracized for their dangerous behavior in an attempt to save the lives of vulnerable children.

Actually, the above is two examples. One where I stop after the first sentence, one where I include both. It is extremely offensive to some people, and the second (extended) version even includes a call to action that can be considered outright harmful (but done to reduce what is viewed by those who take the call as a greater harm).

Now in some cases, such as talking to someone who holds an anti-vaxxer view point, being offensive is counter productive. But when calling those already on your side to action, using such wording can motivate and mobilize others in ways that more sanitized language cannot.

[ultramancool]

> But when calling those already on your side to action, using such wording can motivate and mobilize others in ways that more sanitized language cannot.

Well said, it's hard to convey severity without using severe language.

[zajd]

No, I can assure you "then they added a CoC endorsing anti-white racism and anti-male sexism" is a phrase that betrays his political bent.

[ultramancool]

Well, it does say they "won't act on reverse-racism or reverse-sexism", so, depending on how you interpret that I can see what he's trying to say at least. "Endorses" is strong, but "ignores" would be correct. And one could imply something about the authors of this CoC from that.

[Lawtonfogle]

If you take action to ban all things in some group A, and then make an explicit exception to not ban some subgroup B, it seems pretty close to endorsing subgroup B. If they had not called the exception, but instead just ignored reports about it, that would seem more like ignoring.

For a comparison, say you have a party at your house that gets out of hand. Too many strangers show up. So you explicitly state that all guests are required to leave. There is a difference between telling some people they can stay (or saying I won't call the cops if you stay, but I'll call the cops on anyone else who stays) and just ignoring the few people who don't leave.

[striking]

Political opinions != anger, no?

[Lawtonfogle]

That is generally what reverse racism and reverse sexism is understood to mean. People on either side of the argument, when asked to define those two terms, would give similar definitions.

If anything betrays their political bent, it is that they view this as a negative thing. But the same could be said of those who do not view this as a negative thing.

[okasaki]

Which is?

Also, why are you assuming they are a man?

[zajd]

Bahahaha I love comments like this.

Honestly I assumed it because his comments just read like a bitter MRA. But if you want, you can click his profile and confirm it for yourself like I did.

"Why do you assume a member who spouts KKK rhetoric is a white person?!?" -okasaki