| Message ID | 20201223061718.102779-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | CODE_OF_CONDUCT: expect tolerance, not respect | expand |
On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. ... > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > * Focusing on what is best for the community > * Showing empathy towards other community members As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24): This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document used by the Git for Windows project. It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully crafted phrasing. Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community members. I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without being respectful. Thanks, -Stolee
Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. > > ... > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24): > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > used by the Git for Windows project. > > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully > crafted phrasing. No widely-used and carefully crafted phrasing is perfect. > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", Indeed. 1. Having respect is something that cannot be chosen at will. Either you have it, or you don't. 2. Being respectful is something you can choose, but it is *showing* respect, even though you might not actually have it. If you don't have the first, then the second is an act. > which negates your argument for changing this word. It's not my argument. It's the argument of dozens of intellectuals (and others) who criticized the original University of Cambridge freedom of speech policy. > We can only enforce what is evidenced by actual communication, not the > internal lives of community members. Indeed. But it's not wise to ask community members to *pretend* to have something they don't. > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without > being respectful. It is, and that's precisely the point; the change matters. If you say "I think this proposal doesn't make any sense", that's being disrespectful towards that viewpoint, but it is honest, and tolerant. If you police language and demand that members *pretend* to have respect towards certain viewpoints, even though they don't have it, that just stifles the expression of opinions. Not to mention the cognitive burden of being constantly lying. Either way, if you leave it as "being respectful", then the document is a sham, because people are disrespectul towards the viewpoints of others all the time, in this mailing list, and many others. That point is not currently being enforced as it is, and I think (and hope) it never will. Cheers.
On 2020-12-23 at 14:46:56, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. > > ... > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24): > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > used by the Git for Windows project. > > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully > crafted phrasing. I am also strongly in favor of keeping the commonly used wording. If you feel that wording is inappropriate, it would be better to have the change adopted upstream. > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which > negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what > is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community > members. > > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without > being respectful. I agree with this. I should also point out that the situation at a university is different than the situation on this list. A university is a large institution which is dedicated to the pursuit of learning and in which one may find a variety of ideas. Sometimes those ideas (both past and present) will be offensive, but they are a part of learning more about the world. We may tolerate those ideas as existing and being subject to critical analysis, but ultimately reject them and have little respect for them. On the other hand, many people work on Git or other open source projects as part of their job duties. As such, this is a professional environment for many contributors. In a professional environment, we need to be respectful of people who are different than us. We are aiming to have a common goal, which is to build a great version control system, and to have a coherent group of people who are willing to join together in that endeavor and best meet the needs of a diverse, multicultural base of users. The connotation I have of "tolerate" is "to suffer". I tolerate things which are undesirable but unavoidable. In a healthy community, we try to minimize suffering due to others. I am respectful of the fact that my colleagues may have different religious or cultural beliefs than I do and I try to consider those beliefs, such as considering their holidays when I ask someone to switch an on-call shift or schedule a meeting. That can be a neutral or positive experience for all involved; no suffering need occur. So I think the original Code of Conduct is more consistent with producing the positive, healthy environment we're looking for and best meeting our users' needs, and as a result, I don't agree at all that it should be changed. I will ask that I not be CC'd on future replies to this thread; I will read them on the list if necessary. Thanks.
Hi, [dropping brian from the Cc: list as per their request] On Wed, 23 Dec 2020, brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2020-12-23 at 14:46:56, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. > > > > ... > > > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > > > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24): > > > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > > used by the Git for Windows project. > > > > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully > > crafted phrasing. > > I am also strongly in favor of keeping the commonly used wording. If > you feel that wording is inappropriate, it would be better to have the > change adopted upstream. Just in case another vote is needed to keep the current form: here is mine. Thanks, Dscho
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes: > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which > negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what > is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community > members. > > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without > being respectful. ;-) If anybody wants to change the wording, the argument needs to be made with the upstream, not with us.
On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > * Focusing on what is best for the community > * Showing empathy towards other community members [I happen to be on the PLC, and I'm not speaking for the PLC, just myself] Generally speaking, and not just commenting on this specific patch: I'm not in principle against us forking the upstream CoC if we as a project & community deem that a worthy trade-off for whatever reason. But in the case of this specific patch, (and I'm focusing on points not already raised by others): 1. The specific wording you're changing is something that changed in the CoC from version 1.4 (which we adopted) to upstream's 2.0. My reading of the 2.0 wording is that it contradicts your interpretation, it talks about "being respectful of differing opinions". If the CoC means to enforce something about privately held views as you seem to suggest (and not just behavior in public), then it seems like a paradox to me that it also asks participants to be respectful of differing opinions. To be clear I don't agree with your reading of it. I'm just suggesting that any proposed updates to the CoC that rely on reading specific intent into the wording therein attempt to do the legwork of convincing this ML to accept the proposed change in a way that provides more context for the change. Discussing that upstream has changed the relevant part from A to B, but we're proposing a change from A to C seems highly relevant. 2. The CoC has official translations into a bunch of languages: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/ So I think that even if we deem a git.git-specific change to the CoC to be worthwhile losing a 1=1 mapping between our version and those translations should give us pause since we'd be less inclusive to non-native English speaking contributors of the project. Furthermore, I think a really basic sanity check on any specific reading or interpretation of the CoC is to see if also holds true if you read some of the official translations. In the language I speak natively this reading of "respect" doesn't agree with your interpretation. It's a really tiny language (Icelandic) whose translation is likely to have received little to no peer review (I didn't look into it), but presumably speakers of other languages can chime on this point if needed.
brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2020-12-23 at 14:46:56, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. > > > > ... > > > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > > > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24): > > > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > > used by the Git for Windows project. > > > > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully > > crafted phrasing. > > I am also strongly in favor of keeping the commonly used wording. Do you care to explain why? > If you feel that wording is inappropriate, it would be better to have > the change adopted upstream. What is upstream? [1]? > > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which > > negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what > > is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community > > members. > > > > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without > > being respectful. > > I agree with this. > > I should also point out that the situation at a university is different > than the situation on this list. A university is a large institution > which is dedicated to the pursuit of learning and in which one may find > a variety of ideas. Sometimes those ideas (both past and present) will > be offensive, but they are a part of learning more about the world. We > may tolerate those ideas as existing and being subject to critical > analysis, but ultimately reject them and have little respect for them. Yes. But ultimately it's about truth. > On the other hand, many people work on Git or other open source projects > as part of their job duties. Nobody has ever paid me a cent to work on git. Should the minority of open source contributors be held hostage because the majority are corporate contributors? > As such, this is a professional environment for many contributors. In > a professional environment, we need to be respectful of people who are > different than us. Yes, because somebody is paying you to behave in a certain way. If a company is paying you to smile to customers, you smile to customers. What about the rest of us? > We are aiming to have a common goal, which is to build a great version > control system, and to have a coherent group of people who are willing > to join together in that endeavor and best meet the needs of a > diverse, multicultural base of users. Indeed. And that's why we aim for the lowest common denominator. We don't say; the majority of us use bash, so either you use bash, or you are screwed. We say; POSIX covers almost all of us, so let's try to aim for POSIX. > The connotation I have of "tolerate" is "to suffer". I don't think your definition is right. Respect implies tolerance. If you respect X, you tolerate X. > In a healthy community, we try to minimize suffering due to others. I > am respectful of the fact that my colleagues may have different > religious or cultural beliefs than I do and I try to consider those > beliefs, such as considering their holidays when I ask someone to > switch an on-call shift or schedule a meeting. That can be a neutral > or positive experience for all involved; no suffering need occur. Therefore you are also tolerating those things. > So I think the original Code of Conduct is more consistent with > producing the positive, healthy environment we're looking for and best > meeting our users' needs, and as a result, I don't agree at all that it > should be changed. OK. I have an opinion about this, but I cannot express it without violating the code of conduct, so... I have three options. 1. I pretend (i.e. lie) saying that I respect that idea. 2. I express what I honestly think, but in theory I violate the code of conduct (like many people constantly do in this mailing list). 3. I keep my mouth shut. The reason so many intellectuals were against the word "respect" in University of Cambridge's freedom of speech policy is not because universities are special; it's because 1. and 3. are not conducive towards truth. As Stephen Fry put it: 'A demand for respect is like a demand for a laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given if not felt' (you can only fake then). Tolerance is the lowest common denominator everyone should be aiming for. Cheers. [1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > [I happen to be on the PLC, and I'm not speaking for the PLC, just > myself] > > Generally speaking, and not just commenting on this specific patch: I'm > not in principle against us forking the upstream CoC if we as a project > & community deem that a worthy trade-off for whatever reason. > > But in the case of this specific patch, (and I'm focusing on points not > already raised by others): > > 1. The specific wording you're changing is something that changed in the > CoC from version 1.4 (which we adopted) to upstream's 2.0. > > My reading of the 2.0 wording is that it contradicts your > interpretation, it talks about "being respectful of differing > opinions". I don't see how the change from "differing viewpoints" to "differing opinions, viewpoints" contradicts my interpretation. > If the CoC means to enforce something about privately held views as > you seem to suggest (and not just behavior in public), No, that's not necessarily what I'm suggesting. Let me try again: 1. Respecting differing opinions is an internal matter. You can't really do it, even if you want to. Also, it can't be enforced, because nobody can know if you are actually doing it or not. 2. Behaving respectfully of differing opinions is an external matter. You can do it, even if you don't really respect an opinion, you can act as if you do. It can be enforced, because others can see how you behave. Even if the CoC is trying to enforce #2, it's still not desirable to do so. Now, it's debatable whether or not "being respectful" is taking about #1 or #2, I don't think it particularly matters, since #1 is asking for something impossible, and #2 is asking to lie. Either way it's not good. > then it seems like a paradox to me that it also asks participants > to be respectful of differing opinions. I don't see how "views" or "opinions" alter the argument. > To be clear I don't agree with your reading of it. I'm just > suggesting that any proposed updates to the CoC that rely on reading > specific intent into the wording therein attempt to do the legwork of > convincing this ML to accept the proposed change in a way that > provides more context for the change. It is not my reading; it's literally saying "being respectful". The word "respect" has an established meaning, and it doesn't matter if they are asking to actually *be* respectful (#1), or merely *show* respect (#2); both are a problem. So at the very least it's asking to show respect. What is your reading? Does your reading not imply showing respect? > Discussing that upstream has changed the relevant part from A to B, > but we're proposing a change from A to C seems highly relevant. Yes, it is relevant, and I will contact upstream about it, but even if they deny the change, what part of the rationale is not correct? Many more people with a lot more knowledge about the philosophy of freedom of speech weighted in the University of Cambridge debate, and the exact same rationale applies here. > 2. The CoC has official translations into a bunch of languages: > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/ > > So I think that even if we deem a git.git-specific change to the CoC > to be worthwhile losing a 1=1 mapping between our version and those > translations should give us pause since we'd be less inclusive to > non-native English speaking contributors of the project. > > Furthermore, I think a really basic sanity check on any specific > reading or interpretation of the CoC is to see if also holds true if > you read some of the official translations. Yes, that is a good point. This is why usually it's a good idea to look back at the etymology of a word. In both words the etymology goes back to Latin, and since I speak Spanish I can grasp pretty clearly what is meant in the four cases {English,Spanish}{respect,tolerance}. From my point of view it's really simple: a. Respect: hold in high regard b. Tolerance: endure Whether it's "respect" (English), or "respeto" (Spanish), doesn't really change the meaning. Same with "tolerance" and "tolerancia". > In the language I speak natively this reading of "respect" doesn't > agree with your interpretation. We would need to see which interpretation you are talking about. One example to show the difference is that you are supposed to hold in high regard (respect) your parents, or the King, whereas in a Thanksgiving dinner you are supposed to endure (tolerate) your uncle talking about conspiracy theories. These are of course culturally-specific examples. But I hope you get the point. How is it different in Icelandic? Cheers.
Hello, Thanks for bringing this up. On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 09:14:00PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > > > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > > > * Focusing on what is best for the community > > > * Showing empathy towards other community members > > > > [I happen to be on the PLC, and I'm not speaking for the PLC, just > > myself] > > > > Generally speaking, and not just commenting on this specific patch: I'm > > not in principle against us forking the upstream CoC if we as a project > > & community deem that a worthy trade-off for whatever reason. > > > > But in the case of this specific patch, (and I'm focusing on points not > > already raised by others): > > > > 1. The specific wording you're changing is something that changed in the > > CoC from version 1.4 (which we adopted) to upstream's 2.0. > > > > My reading of the 2.0 wording is that it contradicts your > > interpretation, it talks about "being respectful of differing > > opinions". > > I don't see how the change from "differing viewpoints" to "differing opinions, > viewpoints" contradicts my interpretation. > > > If the CoC means to enforce something about privately held views as > > you seem to suggest (and not just behavior in public), > > No, that's not necessarily what I'm suggesting. > > Let me try again: > > 1. Respecting differing opinions is an internal matter. You can't > really do it, even if you want to. Also, it can't be enforced, > because nobody can know if you are actually doing it or not. > > 2. Behaving respectfully of differing opinions is an external matter. > You can do it, even if you don't really respect an opinion, you can > act as if you do. It can be enforced, because others can see how > you behave. > > Even if the CoC is trying to enforce #2, it's still not desirable to do > so. > > Now, it's debatable whether or not "being respectful" is taking about #1 > or #2, I don't think it particularly matters, since #1 is asking for > something impossible, and #2 is asking to lie. Either way it's not good. > > > then it seems like a paradox to me that it also asks participants > > to be respectful of differing opinions. > > I don't see how "views" or "opinions" alter the argument. > > > To be clear I don't agree with your reading of it. I'm just > > suggesting that any proposed updates to the CoC that rely on reading > > specific intent into the wording therein attempt to do the legwork of > > convincing this ML to accept the proposed change in a way that > > provides more context for the change. > > It is not my reading; it's literally saying "being respectful". The word > "respect" has an established meaning, and it doesn't matter if they are > asking to actually *be* respectful (#1), or merely *show* respect (#2); > both are a problem. > > So at the very least it's asking to show respect. > > What is your reading? Does your reading not imply showing respect? > > > Discussing that upstream has changed the relevant part from A to B, > > but we're proposing a change from A to C seems highly relevant. > > Yes, it is relevant, and I will contact upstream about it, but even if > they deny the change, what part of the rationale is not correct? > > Many more people with a lot more knowledge about the philosophy of > freedom of speech weighted in the University of Cambridge debate, and > the exact same rationale applies here. > > > 2. The CoC has official translations into a bunch of languages: > > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/ > > > > So I think that even if we deem a git.git-specific change to the CoC > > to be worthwhile losing a 1=1 mapping between our version and those > > translations should give us pause since we'd be less inclusive to > > non-native English speaking contributors of the project. > > > > Furthermore, I think a really basic sanity check on any specific > > reading or interpretation of the CoC is to see if also holds true if > > you read some of the official translations. > > Yes, that is a good point. > > This is why usually it's a good idea to look back at the etymology of > a word. > > In both words the etymology goes back to Latin, and since I speak > Spanish I can grasp pretty clearly what is meant in the four cases > {English,Spanish}{respect,tolerance}. > > From my point of view it's really simple: > > a. Respect: hold in high regard > b. Tolerance: endure > > Whether it's "respect" (English), or "respeto" (Spanish), doesn't really > change the meaning. Same with "tolerance" and "tolerancia". > > > In the language I speak natively this reading of "respect" doesn't > > agree with your interpretation. > > We would need to see which interpretation you are talking about. > > One example to show the difference is that you are supposed to hold in > high regard (respect) your parents, or the King, whereas in a Thanksgiving dinner > you are supposed to endure (tolerate) your uncle talking about conspiracy > theories. > > These are of course culturally-specific examples. But I hope you get the > point. This is rather sensitive issue. I think there are other two things that are often conflated: respect for views and opinions and respect for people. It is certainly true that respecting people cannot be enforced as much as respecting opinions cannot be. However, it is shown that not behaving respectfully to people stifles constructive discussion (eg. speech against ad-hominem arguments). What you can enforce is that people who do not behave respectfully to other participants of discussion are excluded from the discussion. Note: it is shown that under specific circumstances respectful behavior is not required for constructive discussion - on 4chan all users are anonymous and can easily express totally opposite view from one post to the next, and respectful behavior is not required to have a constructive discussion. Git is not hosted on 4chan, however. On the other hand, showing respect to useless views or ideas stifles constructive discussion as well. Useless ideas should be pointed out as such and discarded. The reason why respect to ideas is often part of code of conduct is likely religion. There are precious few people who hold religious beliefs and at the same time encourage scrutiny of religion. For the vast majority of religious people it seems religion is something to be followed blindly, and view the religion as integral part of their person. Then any doubt about the religion is viewed as doubt about their very person. Until people are mature enough to have constructive debate about religion I think CoC should simply ban religious topics from places which are dedicated to technical discussion such as this mailinglist. That is a reasonable way to sidestep the issue. Thanks Michal
> -----Original Message----- > From: Felipe Contreras > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:17 AM > > A lot of people confuse respect with tolerance, but they are not the > same thing. We respect the rules and rights that are given to the members of the git community. We tolerate the output of those same members. It does not imply that we have to agree or even use it. Behavior, opinions, and patches are best measured by its inherent value, quality, and utility. > > This was debated when Cambridge University decided to implement a > freedom of speech policy demanding respect, which caused a huge > backlash, not just within the university. > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. > > In that sense respect is like belief; nobody can force you to believe > the Moon is made of cheese. > > You can pretend to believe in something, and you can pretend to > respect something, but you really don't. Any policy that asks people to > pretend is not a good policy. > > What should be asked for is tolerance. > > Tolerance simply means allowing an idea to exist, and that's what the > Git project should ask from participants within the community. > > We don't need to pretend we respect other viewpoints, we just need to > tolerate them. > > [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/cambridge-university-rejects-proposal- > it-be-respectful-of-all-views > I have been reading and following most of the posts here, at centos, and several other mailing lists of the past few weeks. I agree with this patch, as it is efficient, accurate, timely, and most useful. > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> > --- > CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > index fc4645d5c0..3324d9f151 100644 > --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment > include: > > * Using welcoming and inclusive language > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences > * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism > * Focusing on what is best for the community > * Showing empathy towards other community members > -- > 2.30.0.rc1 -- Jason Pyeron | Architect PD Inc | CEO 10 w 24th St | Baltimore, MD | .mil: jason.j.pyeron.ctr@mail.mil .com: jpyeron@pdinc.us tel : 202-741-9397
Michal Suchánek wrote: > > We would need to see which interpretation you are talking about. > > > > One example to show the difference is that you are supposed to hold in > > high regard (respect) your parents, or the King, whereas in a Thanksgiving dinner > > you are supposed to endure (tolerate) your uncle talking about conspiracy > > theories. > > > > These are of course culturally-specific examples. But I hope you get the > > point. > > This is rather sensitive issue. I think there are other two things that > are often conflated: respect for views and opinions and respect for > people. Right, but the code of conduct talks about respecting views. > It is certainly true that respecting people cannot be enforced as much > as respecting opinions cannot be. However, it is shown that not behaving > respectfully to people stifles constructive discussion (eg. speech > against ad-hominem arguments). Indeed, but I don't think that has anything to do with freedom of speech... it's not constructive discussion because the main point is not being addressed. See Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement [1]. > On the other hand, showing respect to useless views or ideas stifles > constructive discussion as well. Useless ideas should be pointed out as > such and discarded. Yes, not all ideas should be tolerated in all forums. > The reason why respect to ideas is often part of code of conduct is > likely religion. There are precious few people who hold religious > beliefs and at the same time encourage scrutiny of religion. Not just religion, but any dogmatic belief. When you express you don't believe in an idea that somebody holds very dear, people take that as a personal attack, even though they shouldn't. What's more; when you provide arguments against such an idea, and they are actually good arguments, that creates cognitive dissonance, which is unconfortable to the person holding the idea. But that's what being part of an open society entails; your ideas are going to be challenged. That's actually a good thing. Ideas should not be protected. Cheers. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md index fc4645d5c0..3324d9f151 100644 --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include: * Using welcoming and inclusive language -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism * Focusing on what is best for the community * Showing empathy towards other community members
A lot of people confuse respect with tolerance, but they are not the same thing. This was debated when Cambridge University decided to implement a freedom of speech policy demanding respect, which caused a huge backlash, not just within the university. As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. In that sense respect is like belief; nobody can force you to believe the Moon is made of cheese. You can pretend to believe in something, and you can pretend to respect something, but you really don't. Any policy that asks people to pretend is not a good policy. What should be asked for is tolerance. Tolerance simply means allowing an idea to exist, and that's what the Git project should ask from participants within the community. We don't need to pretend we respect other viewpoints, we just need to tolerate them. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/cambridge-university-rejects-proposal-it-be-respectful-of-all-views Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> --- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)