Am 23.10.2019 um 17:54 schrieb Matthew Ahrens: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:28 PM > <mailfrom-openzfs.topicbox....@kopka.net > <mailto:mailfrom-openzfs.topicbox....@kopka.net>> wrote: > > > A thing that dosn't exist /can not/ be used for anything - even > with humans in existance who choose to /believe/ otherwise. > > Looking at the topic of perpetual motion machines should make this > quite obvious, stating that these dont't exist does in no way > imply that there are no misguided humans who believe otherwise. > The exact same applies to "there is no such thing as race". > > Stating discrimination based on 'race' /being possible /implies > that 'race' exists, effectively bootstrapping a false idea into > existance. > > > I think part of the problem is that we are working with different > ideas of what "race" means. Possible. Things might get lost in translation.
> I think that "race" to you means "a classification of people based > on genetics", which we agree is not actually a thing. Yes. > To me, "race" is a cultural construct - an invented labeling of people > not based in any legitimate biological science. I think labeling people in that way is the basis of racism, in the sense of being the first step of it. > We agree that it's bad to discriminate based on either genetics or an > invented grouping of people. Yes. > What would you think if the CoC said something like, "Racism has no > place in our community. We strive to create a space that encourages > participation regardless of gender identity and expression, physical > appearance, ethnicity, ... [race not listed here]. " ? Am 23.10.2019 um 18:10 schrieb Udo Grabowski (IMK): > That's exactly what I wanted to propose as an alternative, based > on what I've learned from this interesting discussion (which is really > civil and constuctive, compared to the flamewars other groups had with > their CoCs...). This formulation directly targets the bad behaviour > that should be sanctioned, instead of using an already contaminated term. Udo sums it up nicely. Now... off the next change: /regardless of ... mental ... ability/. Does this mean that bad pull requests have to be merged to not offend the one making them? Wouldn't it be, in general, not be better to streamline the whole enumeration into a simple /We strive to create a space that encourages participation, ///obey the laws and /don't be an asshole. /and leave the detail definition to sanity and reason? This worked without relevant problems all the time prior to the CoC, didn't it? Gregor ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T91ab128e3e20cf25-M7ccde8249058ca738300c336 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
