I'm a member of several communities which are welcoming and diverse, without a explicit Code of Conduct. That's doesn't mean that such communities doesn't see the political nature of technology, or that the way people participate on such communities is not deeply informed on who the participants are. I don't think that people just exchange words, but I don't think that we need to go, at least at this moment, to Speech Acts Theory or other approach on how words are mostly not "just words". But this is informed by my particular context and education. In some countries free speech is not an absolute right and for example is subordinated to non-defamatory or non-violent speech.
So while I agree, as Esteban, Ramon and others have pointed, on the view that this is a community where discussions are usually civilized and we can agree to disagree, like in this very subject, I don't think that "technology is neutral" or "politics are bad" or identity/context doesn't inform participation, but usually these are blind spots for people under privileged circumstances. That doesn't mean that I agreed with the Covenants CoC neither. And even when this position seems like a non-position, what I'm trying to showcase is that there are a lot of grays in the binary reading of we can have safe spaces for people or we can have discussions on ideas, but not both. I believe that there is much to think about yet, at least on a personal level and hopefully at some point on a community one. I will take a pause from this thread to think it more deeply. Cheers, Offray On 17/09/19 6:32 p. m., Richard O'Keefe wrote: > You just wrote what I didn't quite dare to say. > Thank you. > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:29, Ramon Leon <ramon.l...@allresnet.com > <mailto:ramon.l...@allresnet.com>> wrote: > > On 2019-09-17 2:34 p.m., Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote: > > as I say the important issue is to provide safe > > spaces via explicit or implicit rules > > I understand, I just disagree. These are of course my personal > opinions, others may disagree. "Safe spaces" are bad things, not > good things; the world is not a safe space, it is not the > responsibility of others to provide one a feeling of safety in a > an online community where people merely exchange words. Words are > not dangerous, you are already safe. If you don't like what > someone is saying, ignore them or mute them. Safe space a > euphemism for censorship and exclusion, people who want safe > spaces want to exclude other people who might express ideas or > opinions that they disagree with. Safe spaces are anti-free speech > zones. > > They are an attempt to prepare the world for the child rather than > the child for the world; they are inherently narcissistic. > Intellectual discourse is supposed to be challenging to your > beliefs, you're supposed to confront ideas you might not like or > agree with and people you might have a hard time getting along > with. If you submit code to a technical forum you should expect > criticism and debate. Technical discussions should resolve around > the ideas being presented, not around the identities of those > involved, and ideas should always be open to critique and debate. > I don't care what one's sex or gender are or what color one's skin > is or political beliefs are; those things have no place in a > technical forum. I watch these groups to see discussions about > technology like Pharo, Squeak, or Seaside. > > It's a rare thing to see anyone here being truly rude, there's no > need for a code of conduct, it's a non solution to a non problem > intended only to divide and punish for political ends. Maybe I'm > just getting old, but the younger generation is far too coddled > and expectant of the world to adjust to their feelings rather than > learning how to deal with the world and others who have different > ideas than they do. Safe spaces are bad ideas. > > -- > Ramón León > >
