Godot Engine continues advancing Vulkan support, adopts new Code of Conduct

2) They want to evade the common meanings of something for political reasons. So suddenly if we talk about sexism or racism we get all these postmodernist, deconstructionist right wingers wanting to quibble about linguistic indeterminacy and, not generally having a background in English Literature, not doing it terribly well.

This. Right there. It's super funny how the last line of defense of these people always seems to come down to that. It's really laughable. There is no objective definition of "love" either, and yet everybody knows what it is. Likewise, the concept of racism/sexism/bigotry/etc is well enough established in the general population that it's really safe to assume that everybody has an understanding of what it is, even the racists themselves. Resorting to linguistic hair-splitting is just a cheap attempt by these people to shut down the other side's line of reasoning, and that's really all there is to it.

Please share with us an objective definition of "definition".

Valid. I concede that point.

But I've noticed that generally nobody has that hard a time getting what they mean across and nobody worries that much about this stuff unless either
1) They have an English Literature paper due and their prof is into postmodernism, or
2) They want to evade the common meanings of something for political reasons.

I agree with you partially about "2)".

I've got it made.

This isn't about you, and you don't speak on behalf of folks who share your biological demographics.

the fact that people worry more about one kind of discrimination than another does not affect the typical remedy proposed

I'd love for that to be the case. The CoC appears to be neutral on that front, which is why I posted in support of that fact.

However, some of the folks in this thread have wanted to take things above and beyond what the CoC states. You're responding to my response to those folks.

prejudice is a problem largely because it is used by those with more power to step on those with less.

Correct. Aside from the fact that "power" is subjective, let's look at the folks who do have power in this realm.

https://godotengine.org/code-of-conduct

Akien, QbieShay, TMM, and vnen

They've done a great job coming up with a CoC that helps treat all manner of folks in an equitable manner.

If Kimyrielle or scaine were to have written the CoC, based on their comments here, I assume it would contain more lopsided and biased language.

If they were on the committee that determines who to punish for violations, I'd have strong concerns, unless there were other extremists on the board to provide counterbalance their wishes.

Some white males like to pretend that pendulums have shifted so far, people are worrying so much about (various other groups) that now we're somehow the oppressed group, but it's the most utter patent bullshit. White guys still have the money and the power and better interest rates and less chance of getting whacked by cops and on and on and on. The utterly wimpy fear I often see displayed, of the prospect of having to operate on a level playing field with everyone else, shames me.

This last bit of your post is a bit disappointing to me and I'm not sure how to address it.

I wish it were easier to treat members of the out group (those who disagree with the majority in a specific group) with more respect.

Yes, some members of the out group (any out group) have terrible traits. Focusing on those terrible traits and applying them to the whole group is not cool.

If we write our rules in a manner that avoids mentioning any out groups, or in groups, we can have rules that are fair.

In short, I'm glad the CoC avoids many of the traps that we've fallen into with this discussion.

It could use a bit of improvement though, as could most things.


Last edited by psymin on 6 November 2019 at 12:22 am UTC

If Kimyrielle or scaine were to have written the CoC, based on their comments here, I assume it would contain more lopsided and biased language.

You assume incorrectly. I've already said that this is the kind of CoC I support. And no, I don't have anything to do with Godot, beyond supporting it financially.

I am an admin on GamingOnLinix and its associated Discord though. Never had to use any of those powers of moderation though, despite many, often heated, arguments both here on the site and on discord.

I think this is the first the I've ever been called an extremist though! That's new! :S:

I think this is the first the I've ever been called an extremist though! That's new! :S:

You and me both. Although I have been called all sorts of other things, by a certain side of the political spectrum, that is. You will get used to it. It's the price of standing up against said certain sides the of political spectrum in 2019! ;)

Well, just for the record in case anyone wants to call anyone that, I am an extremist. :D
Although perhaps not on identity politics, which I consider in good part a game attempt to defeat problems caused by capital and class issues, while carefully avoiding any acknowledgement of either so much as existing. As a result, it ends up treating symptoms without addressing causes. I still support the efforts, just like I support giving a sick person something to bring down a high fever, but there are limitations to the approach.

Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.

If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?

Wouldn't you agree that "misogynist who behaves fine towards everyone in the project" is either an undetectable misogynist to the project members (nobody knows) or, when observed performing discriminatory actions or speech towards someone outside the project, will indirectly make some project members feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. (I acknowledge that perceived witch hunts against valid/nearly_innocent people would make you feel uncomfortable as well, but probably not as unwelcome).

You don't want to convince him of anything other than your power to get him offed, you don't want to understand why he thinks what he thinks, how he came to the wrong conclusions. You want to get someone fired for simply not agreeing with you on topics that are for one reason or another dear to you - and you think it to be the most natural thing on Earth.

I'm not certain, but I think you are interpreting things here that were not said. I mean being overly stuck in other peoples' wording is also bad, but reading things that were not said is maybe worse? I like the principle of charity when it comes to ambiguity.

Yes, and that is nonsensical collective punishment that I do not support.
"Someone of you did something I do not agree with, unrelated to the project, so now I hate all of you, and the project, especially if that person's head doesn't roll".
If that screeching is the best people can do, I can't wait for the next meteorite...

Collective responsibility is a complicated topic. We can try to discuss it if you've for example watched this video on it. (I will also rewatch it if you do, so we both have to invest effort, but we will have a lot of discussing done for us). If you don't feel like watching that (or discussing it), then I don't want to discussing it either (too much off-topic effort), but tl;dr of my opinion: I think collective responsibility is a real everyday not-bad-for-us(the society) thing. It is how people function and it isn't bad.

And even if it was something really serious: Maybe that person was drunk, or maybe just in a really bad space, or, or, or... Those are not excuses, but there are a lot of reasons to give second chances and not just pre-emptively exclude everyone who might disagree on something.

I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't exclude and ban people with little thought and consideration and empathy. BUT it all depends on the degree and frequency. You can imagine feeling threatened or unwelcome to exist as a result of someone's drunk comments or such. And sometimes (presumably rarely) people with the most horrible, toxic, hateful behavior demand their second chance in order to hurt even more people. That's why it is difficult to put "giving second chances" directly into the rules of the CoC.

We as a society are not very good at codifying empathy - at making that part of the written CoC. But I believe it is part of the implied one. The one intended. I wonder if anti-CoC and anti-tolerance behavior would be less bad if we made attempts at putting more empathy towards real or perceived perpetrators into the written CoCs?

But you will have to live with people not understanding how a persons views on unrelated topics affect their ability to be a GSoC mentor, for example.

Analogously, in the alternative, they would have to live with people not understanding how such an extremely offensive, inconsiderate person (expressed outside project) could become a GSoC mentor. Both crowds applying pressure exist, and whichever is the bigger one is more likely to get what they want whether they are right or not.

If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?

I have never met a misogynist who was able to hide their crappy personality for long when there was a female around, but even IF they somehow could hold back in my project, I -still- don't want to work with a person who I know beyond reasonable doubt, is a douchebag. It's my right to chose who I work with. Again, you're more or less saying that voicing douchebag opinions is fine, but not wanting to be exposed to douchebags, is not. It's hypocrisy, because by doing that, you implicitly rank one side's freedom higher than the other.

I think TheSHEEEP was saying that douchebag behavior outside the project/community is fine AND not wanting to be exposed to douchebag behavior at the project/community is fine. I think you are perhaps reading something that was not written.

@Scaine and Kimryelle, you have both taken some effort to explain us you would exclude people for what they are regardless of what they do. Or do not in that specific case.

(Not that i think you are not free to do so) :D

Your comment feels snarky, but is there really that big of a difference between being a racist and behaving in a racist way or being smart and behaving smart or being Christian and behaving Christian? In practice it is just faster to say the shorter version. (tangent: I have learned in practical psychology that it is generally more constructive to use "do" verbs than "be" verbs). I guess ideally people shouldn't be defined by their behavior (partially in order to facilitate change of said behavior) and people absolutely should be given a few second chances if their behavior hasn't been too outrageous or if they haven't been intentionally uncooperative. But there is risk of abusing these second chances. Also most people lack the resources (patience, time, energy...) to properly give (seemingly) misbehaving people second chances. Especially since there are some people who are just trolls (defined in my previous comment on this thread) and even some who are paid trolls.

All of our (me+you) examples are behaviors - that is things one does, which might or might not be a part of an identity, but all can be changed throughout a person's life. That is unlike sexuality, disability (most of the time), sex and gender (that you are most comfortable with), ethnicity, age, species, cultural origin. We want to limit the exclusion of people based on any unchangeable aspects of a person. And I feel there is no middle ground between accepting all people based on their unchangeable aspects of person AND accepting people who via their actions/speech exclude other people based on their unchangeable aspects of their person. You can either tolerate one or the other, not both.

But I prefer to put my energies into communities that are welcoming of civil dissent and diversity of opinion.

Please be so kind as to check my last passage before this quote.


Thanks to everyone for being as reasonable and calm as you have been! <3

But yes, I do really not think that racism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia and bigotry qualify as "civil dissent" by any stretch of imagination, and neither are any of these things an "opinion". Being a pathetic moron isn't an "opinion". I guess that's really the thing where we don't agree on.

I too want to express my dissatisfaction about name-calling here. Secondly, I feel that if I apply principle of charity I could see that there might be some underlying valid concerns about the format or methods of the very welcome push for anti-racism, anti-misogyny, anti-misandry (which is so much less prevalent that I understand why people might even be offended for seeing them on a list together, but technically it does exist in very rare cases), anti-sexism (better to use this word than the previous two, eh?), anti-homophobia and anti-bigotry in general. Having issues with implementation details, so to say, and feeling dread and anxiety about a perceived wave of change they have no input to or influence over all the while hearing many scary conspiracy theories passed on around them. Yes, for some it is about not relinquishing power to be spread more evenly, but not for everyone. BUT I completely get your sentiment as well and also agree.

However, some of the folks in this thread have wanted to take things above and beyond what the CoC states. You're responding to my response to those folks.

If Kimyrielle or scaine were to have written the CoC, based on their comments here, I assume it would contain more lopsided and biased language.

If they were on the committee that determines who to punish for violations, I'd have strong concerns, unless there were other extremists on the board to provide counterbalance their wishes.

I might completely be wrong, but I didn't get this impression and therefore feel that this is an unfair conclusion.

Correct. Aside from the fact that "power" is subjective, let's look at the folks who do have power in this realm.

https://godotengine.org/code-of-conduct

Akien, QbieShay, TMM, and vnen

This isn't a closed system existing in vacuum. They are affected by people around them. Power relations outside project sphere carry over to project sphere. Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have unimaginably more power over Godot than even the project leaders, even if they never exercise it (or specifically realize they have it).

Well, just for the record in case anyone wants to call anyone that, I am an extremist. :D

For the record, I too am an extremist, but it isn't relevant to this discussion and extreme views are no reason for uncivil behavior generally. Not meaning anyone here specifically, just being a smartass.

Btw I think calling someone an extremist is maybe also a form of name-calling, as in addition to the descriptive meaning (someone who is extreme in their views) a judging aspect was also present ("those people are bad/invalid"), I feel. Compare with the word "faggot" - descriptive meaning + strong negative evaluative meaning. More on the topic here.


Last edited by chr on 8 November 2019 at 1:02 pm UTC

I think this is the first the I've ever been called an extremist though!

:P

I've doing some extreme drinking on the 7D2D stream. That probably counts. :)

For the record, I too am an extremist, but it isn't relevant to this discussion and extreme views are no reason for uncivil behavior generally.

I agree that extremism should be welcome and allowed and that uncivil behavior is where codes of conduct should focus, rather than the politics (extreme or not) of a community member.

Btw I think calling someone an extremist is maybe also a form of name-calling, as in addition to the descriptive meaning (someone who is extreme in their views) a judging aspect was also present ("those people are bad/invalid"), I feel.

I agree. Over the past few days I've reflected on the way I've expressed things here. I probably shouldn't have used that specific wording, and/or shouldn't have used specific names.

I'd like to apologize for the way I phrased my statement. Sorry.

As I thought about the concept of extremism, I wondered where the bar is set for that descriptor. If everyone in the world has an extreme world view, is that view no longer an extremist one? If so, the term "extremist" would mostly be redefined to mean "nonconforming", which is a beneficial trait except in authoritarian structures.

Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have unimaginably more power over Godot than even the project leaders, even if they never exercise it (or specifically realize they have it).

I suppose that could potentially be true. Regardless, if any of those figures wanted to contribute to a FOSS project, I would hope that the project would welcome them with open arms. Regardless of what their personal impressions of them might be outside of the project.

I mostly just want to see an open and inclusive community that would welcome anyone who tries to bring more to the table than they take away regardless of what they believe. Regardless of "who" they were.

Regardless of where they donate their money.
Regardless of their opinions on certain high-profile criminals.
Regardless of their opinions on any hot-button issues.

Regardless of how they identify or the labels that others apply to them.

As long as they kept the off-topic stuff in the proper channels, either by avoiding that type of conversation in the community, or by directing it to an off-topic forum.

We want to limit the exclusion of people based on any unchangeable aspects of a person. And I feel there is no middle ground between accepting all people based on their unchangeable aspects of person AND accepting people who via their actions/speech exclude other people based on their unchangeable aspects of their person. You can either tolerate one or the other, not both.

I agree that we should avoid the exclusion of people based on immutable aspects of their being.

I think it is okay for bigots to exist. It is okay for all manner of folks to exist. It is okay for folks to have opinions that are incompatible with mine. It is okay for a demographic to believe that my demographic shouldn't exist and/or shouldn't have any rights.

It is okay to disagree with me. Disagreement alone should never be a reason to exclude someone from a community.

How that disagreement manifests is a far more important facet to focus on than the disagreement itself.

I might completely be wrong, but I didn't get this impression and therefore feel that this is an unfair conclusion.

I came to that conclusion as a result of folks seeming to express that they'd like to discriminate and gatekeep based on their subjective impression of who someone was rather than objective measurements of what they do in the community.

If Thanos or Satan, for example, wanted to be a part of a community, I say please let them. If, through their actions in the community alone you cannot determine that they are actually causing harm, please be tolerant enough to accept them as members of the community.

If someone is considered to be bigoted in various ways, that alone shouldn't be a reason to exclude them from a community. If they take actions within the community that are vile, that is different.

If I were to potentially mislabel someone as an extremist and the CoC had a ban on extremists being part of the community, I'd hope that some type of objective measurement could be applied to determine that I was the one at fault for applying the label in an overly broad manner.

-- SNIP --

So, the takeaways here are that bigotry is both immutable and okay and we shouldn't mind if someone kills half of the entire humanity or funds someone with similar aspirations, as long as they don't do that in our community. Cool cool.

I'll just go and say that if I was operating an open source project with any sort of community, if I know you follow a hateful ideology that aims to harm me, my community or someone else purely based on irrational prejudices, I'll kick you to the curb and not even entertain the notion that your ideology might be considered normal. Either you fix yourself or you make sure I never find it out.

You know, I have to say, I haven't received a single comment report for this entire debate. Well done community. Great to see that a reasonably healthy debate can be had, without serious name calling and mud slinging :)

My own personal stance is the same rainbows and sunshine as always, I hope people can always find a way to get along. Even when views are different, as hard as that can be sometimes.