[joannanewsom]

"And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, “We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,” I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective."

- President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot.

https://www.thefire.org/obamas-abc-news-interview-transcript...

[rebeccaskinner]

> - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot.

If you a actually read the article you quoted, the main argument he’s making is essentially “well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”. That may or may not be true on a college campus (and at a public college the argument is likely immaterial because a government run institution is, and should be, bound by free speech in ways that private forums are not and should not be).

Open source projects and technical communities are different- they have different goals, needs to operate under different constraints, and so should behave differently.

[joannanewsom]

I have read it many times. I really like it, which is why I quoted it. I also think moderating communities is a hard problem and I don't think private forums should be open to all forms of speech. In fact I only read forums which are heavily moderated. What I disagree with is your statement that

"...when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot."

Supporting diversity of opinions and being a bigot are very different things. As can be seen with Obama. Labeling any one who disagrees with you on the topic of free speech as a bigot is A) rude, dismissive and B) not an effective argument. Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist.

[rebeccaskinner]

> Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist.

The crux of my experience is that when the thing people disagree with you on _isn’t_ racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc. then they tend to directly name and openly discuss the subject of their disagreement. The general and innocuous sounding term “diversity of thought” tends to get brought out when the opinions themselves are one of those opinions that people don’t want to admit to so openly.

If people are going to disagree about a choice of software license, or technical architecture, or copyright assignment, or even about moderation standards and free speech, they tend to just directly name the thing they are disagreeing about (as we are now).

I’ll give some ground here and say that in some cases “diversity of thought” isn’t raised because the particular person raising the thought wants to say bigoted things, but at the very least it tends to get trotted out to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles.

[logifail]

> to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles

Q: Who gets to determine if something counts as a "dog whistle" or a "trope"?

I don't find the typical usage of either of those terms ever contributes much to honest debate.

[rebeccaskinner]

You know it when you see it, and ultimately it’s going to be a call left up to whoever is moderating the community. Any attempt at a narrow or precise definition leads to disingenuous people exhausting the moderators with endless rules lawyering.

[prirun]

“well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”

In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.

[account42]

> In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.

The implication here is of course that it is only worth talking to those that you can convert to your side, which is of course admitting that you are in fact opposed to diverse thoughts. Are you open to change your opinions or do you only expect others to adjust to your standards?

Of course those calling others bigots and using unionically using dog whistles like "dog whistle" is a very opiniated thing to do. Should we also take those things as a sign of irrationality and not engage with their ideas? Perhaps.