[lolinder]

Well, thanks for being up front about it I guess!

It's not just the far right that's uncomfortable with this kind of policy and rhetoric—I'm glad that the relatively small subset of the population that you're interested in supporting has enjoyed the environment you've created, but know that you're severely limiting the growth of your community and excluding people who could really contribute.

There are a lot of people from every part of political manifold that are uncomfortable with the growing tendency towards sheltering oneself and others from all emotional discomfort, and those people aren't interested in participating in a community where everything has to have "good vibes".

For myself, I love the quote in dang's profile:

> "Conflict is essential to human life, whether between different aspects of oneself, between oneself and the environment, between different individuals or between different groups. It follows that the aim of healthy living is not the direct elimination of conflict, which is possible only by forcible suppression of one or other of its antagonistic components, but the toleration of it—the capacity to bear the tensions of doubt and of unsatisfied need and the willingness to hold judgement in suspense until finer and finer solutions can be discovered which integrate more and more the claims of both sides. It is the psychologist's job to make possible the acceptance of such an idea so that the richness of the varieties of experience, whether within the unit of the single personality or in the wider unit of the group, can come to expression."

— Marion Milner, 'The Toleration of Conflict', Occupational Psychology, 17, 1, January 1943

[lpil]

> but know that you're severely limiting the growth of your community and excluding people who could really contribute.

Quite the opposite. By not having the usual sources of annoyance and tedium Gleam's community has grown much faster and larger than similar technologies in the same space.

Being tolerant of abrasive behaviour has a cost to the technology project, and I'm not interested in paying it, especially not for ideological "everyone is welcome" reasons.

[clarkmcc]

> Gleam's community has grown much faster and larger

I hope I’m the anecdotal exception then! I personally watched this exchange happen and left the community within 24 hours. I respect your right to run your community how you’d like, but I unfortunately didn’t experience any “good vibes” from how you handled this situation.

To me a good moderator handles situations without patronization or condescending, is respectful but clear, and doesn’t care how people feel about them.

Keep up the excellent work on Gleam.

[lpil]

Thank you!

[lolinder]

You're occupying a very special niche (typed BEAM language), so if I were you I'd be wary of attributing your growth to your moderation practices. Correlation and causation and all that.

My prediction is that you grow rapidly because of natural interest in the niche you occupy. Your community will get larger and more diverse than you expect in spite of your efforts to keep people out. Then, when you run into your first major point of conflict about language development, the community will be divided on what to do and your efforts to moderate in this way will only fan the flames. Then Gleam will go the way of Elm—it will go back to being something that a very small niche group keeps using, but the bulk of the excitement will go back to Elixir as it slowly starts to occupy your technical niche.

A community with no mechanism for dealing with conflict cannot last long. If being an Elm sounds fine to you—it's not a bad fate after all—then that's fine! Just don't expect more unless you're willing to start developing conflict tolerance in the community.

[lpil]

I think you're misunderstanding here. We have very robust mechanisms for dealing with conflict and we have been successfully employing them for years. We have also consulted with moderators of much larger communities and very confident with how it is going.

Not sure what you mean about the Elm remark. They took the approach you're advocating for and have seen less success than we have financially and in terms of community growth metrics.

[lolinder]

You must have missed when Elm was you [0]. They had far more excitement than you currently do and it lasted a few years.

And they didn't take the approach I'm advocating for (though they didn't take yours either). Their conflict management approach was "we do what Evan says". I'm not saying you're making their mistakes, I'm offering them as a cautionary tale—language success can be fleeting.

> We have very robust mechanisms for dealing with conflict and we have been successfully employing them for years.

If I'm understanding the approach correctly it's basically "we delete it". Feel free to elaborate if that's not what you meant.

[0] https://tjpalmer.github.io/languish/#y=mean&weights=issues%3...

[lpil]

I've been an Elm user since 2016, wrote my start up in Elm, and frequently collaborate with notable members of the Elm community.

Gleam's approach to community and maintainership has almost nothing in common with Elm's, and deliberately so.

[lolinder]

Then you know that this is nonsense:

> have seen less success than we have financially and in terms of community growth metrics.

You're barely starting to pick up speed, and there are so many ways left for you to fail. Much of your recent growth is due to Elixir starting to implement types but not having really arrived yet—sparking interest in the competitor who already has them. How long do you think you can ride that wave?

You've come off in this thread as rather arrogant and self assured, which are good traits for a lone wolf but dangerous traits for a community leader. I've been on the fence on whether to adopt Gleam, but I've honestly seen enough here to know that it's not worth investing the time right now. You may course correct and save the project, but the way you talk about your success as though it's something you achieved in the past through your own efforts doesn't make me think it's likely.

You've also likely seen enough of me to know that I'm not someone you'd want in your community, so I'm content at this point to part paths amicably.

[giraffe_lady]

> It's not just the far right that's uncomfortable with this kind of policy and rhetoric

It really kinda is though. HN commenters generally lean a lot harder right than they are aware of and/or want to admit. This belief about a "growing tendency towards sheltering oneself and others from all emotional discomfort" is straightforwardly a right wing view.

[lolinder]

> HN commenters generally lean a lot harder right than they are aware of and/or want to admit.

That's a perception that is common among left-wing commenters who find themselves exposed here to right-wing ideas for the first time. As someone who actively seeks to represent whichever perspectives are underrepresented in a given context (down to specific threads), I can assure you that HN leans pretty firmly left. I very rarely need to take the left-wing perspective here when trying to provide balance.

(Obviously you only have my word for it, but my friends and family all think I'm a raging liberal because I represent the left to them.)

> This belief about a "growing tendency towards sheltering oneself and others from all emotional discomfort" is straightforwardly a right wing view.

If Jonathan Haidt is a right-wing activist from your perspective, then sure. I don't think most people see Haidt that way, and certainly don't think he sees himself that way.

[giraffe_lady]

The guy whose writings the american right loves and quotes constantly? IDK how he views himself. But his argument is a modern variant on "the weakness/degeneracy of contemporary youth" which has an inherently reactionary heart.

[lolinder]

Your way of thinking is so... polar. Does everyone need to be sorted into progressive or reactionary? Could concern for the state of youth be simply a humane reaction to the doubling of teen suicide rates [0]?

Are you really going to ignore the calls of 'fire' just because some reactionaries cried 'fire' in the past?

I think the political right likes to quote Haidt slightly more than the left because the right is slightly less prone to blindness about this issue than the left—their priors line up. But that doesn't exclude willful blindness on the part of the left—sometimes the youth really are in crisis, and there's a lot of evidence that our natural antifragility is the problem.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db471.pdf

[giraffe_lady]

FWIW I don't even neatly fit into progressive or reactionary: I'm deeply religious and it's not one of the accommodating ones. So I'm sympathetic to the right wing view on this, holding it to a significant extent myself.

I'm not dismissing this position because of similarity to other reactionary movements in the past, I'm rejecting it because of how this reactionary movement is using it to mobilize a revanchist assault on the rights of minorities, women, queer people. An issue that "rational centrists" like Haidt and the general consensus of HN commenters certainly seem blind to and sanguine about their part in.

[lolinder]

We can't just abandon teens to suicide because right-wing revanchists use the same data to attack other teens. That's exactly the kind of dodging of uncomfortable truths that I'm concerned about—we plug our ears and pretend it isn't happening so as not to hurt one group of people. Because we can't deal with the dissonance everyone gets hurt.