Item — HN Reader

> everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not

Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant?

> The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong".

Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things.

For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all.

The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult.

Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome.

If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to.

I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.

1 comments

I think that you've made my point really quite well. I gave perhaps the most basic possible example of accommodation, adjusting a single word with no impact on other project members and you were still able to argue about it.

> Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome.

People just want to be themselves. If the very act of appearing to be from a different group is "playing politics" then what you actually mean is "you cannot be different".

This behavior is exactly why a CoC is needed.

I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed. Not all projects want other people telling them what to do or what they should or shouldn't do, and I think that's perfectly ok.

If "people being themselves" means making SJW politics their entire identity and spraying it across the internet, then I'd say it's likely they're not going to be welcome in many places, CoC or not.

I think you could argue having any rule that someone happens to disagree with is telling them "you cannot be different"... people have to draw the line somewhere, or there wouldn't be rules. Who are we to say what's right or wrong in someone else's project?

And I think your argument still dismisses the weaponization that many people are seeing... maybe you call it their identity being someone who wants to change things... but that doesn't mean they should always get what they want.

> I think "playing politics" means trying to get people to change something, or how a group of people is managed.

That's probably where the disagreement/misunderstanding is. I don't think that's a definition of "playing politics" that most people would agree with.

IDK, it seems to fit with the definition to me:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics

> the activities of ... people who try to influence the way a country is governed

Britannica says politics is "the opinions that someone has about what should be done."

"playing politics" itself apparently also has its own definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/play%20politics

But I moreso meant the plain politics definition.