[duxup]

It seems like there does need to be some sort of method for RESOLVING these situations.

I'd hate to make more of a process for parsing a one sentence joke but ... how else do you do it?

So you throw it to a committee who comes back with "We told the user their statement could be seen as sexist and not to make that joke anymore."

There you go. Done. Issue is no longer relevant, time to move on with life. If it comes up again with the same user, then you can worry about bigger things.

I'm sure there would be some bickering after that but at some point you can't have the argument going on forever on every rando social media site and ... version control site...

[angelzen]

What you said is exactly right in a world of ephemeral speech, but difficult to employ in a world of permanent records. Anybody can simply link to the joke and stir outrage, over and over, out of the context of the larger learning process.

The Internet never forgets. It is genuinely unclear how to adapt pre-Internet norms. I would prefer presumption of innocence and of a learning process, that is summary dismissal of one-off out of context situations. But viral content (such a fitting expression!) begs to differ.

[fitzie]

,if you look at the updated to the code of conduct it is clear what solution they are putting forward. the removed the sentence to honor the principle of charity(removed assume good intent), and gave permission to be public scolds ( added speak with good intent). it's a facisnating attribute of American politics that insist generally upbeat people become public scolds, as if them making a fuss is a convincing learning moment.