[edent]

Why shouldn't people be overly emotional? Humans are emotional - and that's a good thing.

This change would make people sad because things they like would stop working.

It would cause them stress because they would have to work hard to fix or replace things.

It would cause them anger because some unaccountable people would be making decisions without considering them.

It would make them afraid that those same people might destroy something else which is useful.

These are all valid and useful emotional responses. Telling someone "if you do this it will make me sad" should be useful feedback.

Web developers aren't Vulcans. We have and use emotions.

[haburka]

It’s ok to have emotions, even as an adult, we all have feelings. However, it’s important to be kind to other humans and to treat humans with respect. Even on the internet, even when people are proposing removing features from a browser. Now it can be difficult to voice opposition without coming off as rude but its definitely an important skill for a professional to have.

I think this is especially true on GitHub where people are using their real professional identities. I’m honestly shocked that anyone can just comment on these proposals given how toxic it gets. Imagine if this is your day to day work environment - you’re trying to improve the web, which is already a tremendously difficult thing while all of these keyboard warriors are insulting you and your efforts. I wouldn’t want to wish that on anyone.

[edent]

> However, it’s important to be kind to other humans and to treat humans with respect.

Very true. But why is that argument never deployed against the bullies?

Chrome's developers say "We want to do X". People say "No, please don't." Chrome says "I'm not going to respect your wishes."

Where's the equality in that?

> Now it can be difficult to voice opposition without coming off as rude but its definitely an important skill for a professional to have.

The same is also true of people making those proposals. Chrome devs should know (from bitter experience) that releasing a high-handed statement, studiously ignoring all dissent, and then swinging the ban-hammer is going to lead to ill-will.

Again, why isn't anyone calling for them to be more calm and respectful of the people they're hurting?

> I wouldn’t want to wish that on anyone.

I've been on the receiving end and - yes - it sucks. But given that they know these proposals would be contentious, why didn't they approach this in a more respectful and collaborative manner?

[perching_aix]

> Where's the equality in that?

How would you expect equality in an arrangement where you have a few hundred to a few thousand very specific kind of people producing something for billions?

They are in a special position. Every time you depend on someone to do something for you you cannot perform yourself, either due to a time or any other constraint, that is no longer an equal relationship, and it cannot be. You can make it codependent at best, which is not the same, and doesn't apply here.

All the licensing and open collaboration theatrics are just that, "words on a piece of paper" and things that can go away. I feel people really misjudge the "power" they "gain" from "open" and "transparent" processes like this.

[account42]

> They are in a special position.

And that position should not be that of a dictator.

[arp242]

> Chrome's developers say "We want to do X". People say "No, please don't." Chrome says "I'm not going to respect your wishes."

Absolutely not what's happening in that thread. Complete nonsense. It's a discussion/proposal.

The bullies are the people coming in and commenting with a bunch of rants, personal abuse, etc. Not the ones wanting to have a technical discussion (either pro or against removal). This is classic "reversing victim and offender" abuser/bully stuff.

[haburka]

> Very true. But why is that argument never deployed against the bullies?

Unfortunately part of being an adult is realizing there are no bullies. There are adults with power and some people who wield unfairly, but that’s different from a mean schoolchild, although the similarities are there. I don’t think the people who work on browser standards are bullies and it’s weird to frame them in that way.

> Where's the equality in that?

I guess why do you think there should be equality between users and the people that work on browser standards? It’s a committee not a direct democracy. Although they do take user feedback seriously, they surely can’t only do what every vocal minorities wants right?

> Again, why isn't anyone calling for them to be more calm and respectful of the people they're hurting?

They’re not be disrespectful by moderating the thread. They’re simply trying to do their jobs without being insulted constantly. It’s a bit different. They are actively responding respectfully to the feedback, I don’t think they’re hurting people.

> But given that they know these proposals would be contentious, why didn't they approach this in a more respectful and collaborative manner?

How could it be more collaborative? It’s already a request for feedback on an open forum. The comments aren’t even deleted just hidden because they’re duplicates. I’m curious what could be more collaborative?

[LtWorf]

> There are adults with power and some people who wield unfairly

Bullies, the mafia… it's a question of scale really.

[perching_aix]

> Web developers aren't Vulcans. We have and use emotions.

You might find that the people on their end, too, have and use emotions.

Acknowledging and voicing your emotional and mental position is one thing, that alone doesn't make it overly emotional. What does is being so taken by them, that it ends up trampling on others'.

[JimDabell]

> Why shouldn't people be overly emotional?

By definition overly emotional is bad – that’s what separates “overly emotional” from just “emotional”.

Regardless, having emotions is not the problem, lashing out at others because of those emotions is the problem.

> These are all valid and useful emotional responses. Telling someone "if you do this it will make me sad" should be useful feedback.

The person you are responding to said:

> we were constantly called names for absolutely any change we would do. Insulted and accused of the worst intentions.

Why are you misrepresenting this as “it will make me sad”?

[edent]

> By definition overly emotional is bad – that’s what separates “overly emotional” from just “emotional”.

Human reactions are by definition not bad. They are a genuine expression of how we feel. We use that to signal our emotional state to others.

Try an experiment for me. Tell your partner that you want to split up. Once they finish crying, tell them that they're being "overly" emotional. See how that goes for you.

> Why are you misrepresenting this as “it will make me sad”?

Your mental model of the world has to include that other people have emotions, right? When you announce a change, you know that some people are going to be upset by it. That means you need to craft your message to account for other people's reactions.

Much like the above experiment, email your mother and tell her that you've decided that calling her every week is too much of a hassle and you're not going to do it any more. What do you think her reaction would be?

Perhaps you have a genuine reason for doing so. How would you best communicate that with her? What mitigation strategies would you use? What would you be prepared to compromise on?

Gatekeepers are usually terrible at accounting for the emotions of others. This is a repeated pattern and, by now, shouldn't be surprising to them.

[JimDabell]

> > By definition overly emotional is bad

> Human reactions are by definition not bad.

I said “overly emotional” was bad by definition, not “human reactions”. Don’t change my words then argue against what you changed them to.

> Try an experiment for me. Tell your partner that you want to split up. Once they finish crying, tell them that they're being "overly" emotional. See how that goes for you.

Why? They would not be overly emotional. Crying in response to being broken up with is a normal amount of emotion. Same goes for the mother example.

The whole point of overly emotional is that it is a label that specifically describes the emotions as being in excess. The label means “bad” – it’s bad by definition. If it were not bad in this way, then it would just be “emotional”, not “overly emotional”. Attaching “overly” is describing it as bad.

> > Why are you misrepresenting this as “it will make me sad”?

You did not even attempt to answer this.

GP said they received hate and insults. You misrepresented that as “it will make me sad”. Hate and insults are not somebody saying “it will make me sad”. You misrepresented what GP was saying. Why?

[edent]

OK, so what makes you the arbiter of when an emotion is "in excess"?

Your partner crying at being broken up with is OK by you. What if they call you a rude name? Or throw crockery? Who decides that the emotions they are showing are bad?

> Hate and insults are not somebody saying “it will make me sad”. You misrepresented what GP was saying. Why?

"How dare you break up with me! You bastard!"

"Whoa! There's no need for rude language!"

Humans use language to indicate their strength of feeling. My reading of the GitHub thread is of people politely replying with several reasons why they don't want this change. When Chrome then ignores them, the people escalate their language to make their strength of feeling known.

This is a normal feature of human language. This is how humans have communicated for millennia.

[JimDabell]

> OK, so what makes you the arbiter of when an emotion is "in excess"?

You asked:

> Why shouldn't people be overly emotional?

I am not the arbiter. I am not calling any particular thing overly emotional. I am merely pointing out that overly emotional is bad by definition. People should not be overly emotional because it’s overly emotional. It’s bad by definition.

> Hate and insults are not somebody saying “it will make me sad”. You misrepresented what GP was saying. Why?

You are still avoiding this question.

[perching_aix]

> OK, so what makes you the arbiter of when an emotion is "in excess"?

The ability to form their own opinion.

And I take you meant to say, "the display of an emotion" being in excess.

> This is a normal feature of human language. This is how humans have communicated for millennia.

Really? An appeal to tradition?

As if people trying to control their emotions and trying to deescalate and debate it out wasn't a millennias old tradition...