Tony Derks is Iron Dan?
maybe unfortunately, it does seem necessary to explicitly signal that this is, among other things, a queer friendly space, and if someone can’t deal with that then they should hang out somewhere else.
having something concrete to point at when moderating unfriendlies would be helpful.
I think specificity is important in this case
I like @alanza’s suggestion of moving it towards the end, I also prefer the use of “including but not limited to” instead of “etc”
“etc” to me always just feels like “oh and other things as well” (these are personal feelings, I’m not sure anyone else interprets it like that)
whereas “including but not limited to” sort of lets people see that you know you may not grasp the whole of human identity but you’re still being intentional about the respect that we expect in the community and that the code of conduct is flexible and can grow
I guess this is a somewhat minor point but as part of the “etc.” I kind of prefer it. It’s more informal than the legalistic “including but not limited to” (cue robotic 200 wpm voice) and hints that moderator discretion can and will be swiftly applied, as happened thankfully during that unfortunate blip Wed morning. Maybe there’s a still better alternative.
Also, being a bit performatively fuzzy about negative duties helps shift the emphasis towards positive duties: to listen empathetically, to be open to others’ personal stories rather than be locked within fixed categories, to leverage individual openness towards the collective enactment of new perspectives that are properly the work of “the conversation” or the community at large. I believe the more we commit to the positive goals (as the community already does, in so many ways I appreciate so much) the less likely tensions concerning negative duties will arise.
just to sync, here’s a version folding in the above suggestions:
lines is a space that embraces civil dialogue, which can sometimes challenge biases through discussion and analysis. Diversity of thought is valued and encouraged.
Empathy is the core of communication on lines. Disagreement can remain healthy if each member: a) assumes positive intent and b) genuinely seeks to understand others.
Flagging is a tool for members to help moderators identify communication that does not exhibit empathy. To foster the growth of our community’s culture, all members should be held to a clear system of accountability.
When a post is flagged for incivility, a moderator will review it:
- If the moderator agrees, they will contact the flagged member and share the community’s feedback. Members are not punished for their ideas or opinions, but they are held accountable for their presentation. The mod will encourage a revision of the post or other necessary action.
- If the moderator disagrees, they will share their review with the flagging member to help guide good discourse.
If the flagged member receives additional related flags:
- Their ability to post will be temporarily revoked.
- A moderator will be available to discuss their actions and community impact.
- If they express interest in remaining a contributing member of the lines community, they will be re-granted posting privileges after one week.
If, upon their return, the member does not demonstrate growth toward more empathetic communication (weighed by additional flags or other measures), this will be grounds for account termination.
The lines moderators are committed to the equitable treatment of all community members, regardless of their identity, inclusive of: class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, sex, sexual orientation and religious, non-religious, or spiritual beliefs.
I do like “comprising” as a word better, but I wonder if it might imply that the list is exhaustive?
I’m having a little trouble unpacking all that @sixnon said (not really familiar with some of the references) but I do agree that it may not be accurate to say we’re cool with all political ideologies.
But that begs the question of which political ideologies we are cool with. Uh… not feeling very optimistic about how that discussion would go.
Not sure of general usage, but “comprising” is used in patent claims where the claim is open-ended.
I can appreciate why you didn’t feel that was the right kind of language to use here, and I’ve been called out before for speaking as casually here as I do in real life, but I find it hard to find fault in that particular statement. If you’d like to start a thread and quote me there so I can see it, we can talk about unpacking it.
I hope that, as the current proposed CoC states clearly, we would as a community be cool with any expression of political ideas that is empathetic and civil. This is not to suggest it would be agreed with by many/anyone here, but so long as someone is willing to engage with ideas in a civilized manner, I’m willing to try to change their mind (or mine)
Yeah, true. Just have observed a pattern that certain behaviors tend to accompany certain ideologies.
I think we should trust the process and not worry at this point about specific political orientations or even try to think too much ahead. Dan’s latest iteration to me seems very close and in fact seems to already cover what is problematic about those positions, although more emphasis on the “etc” and @zebra’s note about this being a queer friendly space could be further emphasized. If a problem arises, then we can iterate. Certainly it is a great improvement over what was there before.
Agree. Don’t want an impossible perfection to stand in the way of an attainable good.
It’s a good idea to quote someone if you have a specific problem with the things they’ve said. I wouldn’t have known you had a problem/I had said something offensive if I wasn’t reading this thread. Probably a good idea to start a new thread, about political tolerance, rather than clog up that one.
you know what? i’m 100% A-OK with not treating political ideologies as all equal. jordan petersen has really regressive opinions about gender roles. some of our members and visitors appear to think that being queer or transgender is a mental illness. those aren’t harmless opinions, and they’re pretty rife in the engineering world.
obviously i don’t own lines. brian and kelli do. but as i see it it’s not a gear site. it’s a house. it’s a clubhouse.
i’m here to share. but if someone wants me and my family dead, then i don’t want to share with them, and i don’t want them in my clubhouse. if the rules say they have to be allowed, then i leave. i don’t need another gear site where exclusionary politics are tolerated.
in any case, it doesn’t seem too hard to just put some rules around presentation and language. it’s not always obvious - there’s a lot of ways to be inflammatory without explicitly attacking anyone (you might say i’m doing it right now.) but there should be something in writing, and i think what dan has is pretty close. (that last paragraph is indeed the tricky one.)
I don’t think anyone is proposing treating all political ideologies as equal (I’m certainly not), but I am against trying to bake some delineation into a code of conduct a priori.
I don’t know that much about Peterson’s positions (and what I do, I don’t like), but I don’t see how one could express the idea that women shouldn’t hold positions of power with empathy. Maybe civility, but certainly not empathy.
So in my mind, that (and any equally retrograde and demeaning idea) is already covered by the existing code.
If it comes down to it, I’m here for the art and music, not the politics, so I’m not gonna fight too hard against it if there’s a consensus that we want to ban … whatever … in that regard.