Add political preferences to list of items

[garthus1]

I added political preferences to the list of items which should not be a focus of discrimination.

[MattiSG]

Thanks for your contribution @garthus1!

These changes / additions encounter two limitations in the current system:

1. There is no way we can define in a consensual way what is acceptable and what is not —hence my use of the tag redaction-committee, marking that this would need a way to be acted upon collectively.
2. Changes in one language need to be translated into all others, and there are both no assigned translators and no version management for this document, which makes it hard to track what each translation says.

I'm leaving this open, but won't act upon it on my own. Hopefully one day I will have enough time to set up the governance needed for this to go forward. In the meantime, you are always welcome to use whichever modified version you'd like for your own events 🙂

[alexrudd]

Hey,

For this discussion It's worth making clear the distinction between what are choices and what are unchangeable characteristics.

For example: gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, and ethnicity are all innate; whereas political preferences are choices, and there are objectively moral and immoral choices therein.

Politics at it's core is the process of defining who the state will be violent towards (via police, prisons, military, borders, removal of aid, etc). There are political preferences which demand violence towards people with the above unchangeable characteristics, and therefore it's a contradiction to say we protect both.

The simplest example is that you can't both protect people of colour and tolerate fascists at the same event.

[garthus1]

What happens when those fascists are of the progressive ideological bent, would they be tolerated. What about toleration of all ideas and nontoleration of physical violence or threats from anyone. Gerry

Gerard Arthus 409 Lowell Avenue East Mishawaka, Indiana United States 46545 Cell - 631-335-5250 Home - 574-520-1337 <574-217-8726>

Instructor ITT-Tech - Mathematics, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Engineering.

garthus801@gmail.com Notary The State of Indiana #685426 http://www.OpenEducation.org http://openeducation.org/moodle/ (For Course Portal) Log In as Guest http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=tab_pro http://www.facebook.com/gerard.arthus https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardphilosophicalwritings (Philosophical Discussions) https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardpoems (Poems) https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardzoe?sort=titleSorter (Zoe Book) https://archive.org/details/@garthus1&tab=collections (Gerard Arthus Collections Page) https://archive.org/search.php?query=hacking%20the%20world%20garthus (Hacking The World) https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardmedical&tab=about (Medical Records) https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardrec&tab=collection (Musical Recordings)

https://archive.org/details/arthusgerardpackagingandinstructionmanuals (Packaging Collection) https://archive.org/details/@garthus1&tab=uploads (All Items Uploaded to Date) https://archive.org/details/What_Have_We_Wrought_ (Selected Poem) https://archive.org/details/A_World_Where_We_Consume_Our_Hearts_ (Selected Poem) https://archive.org/details/Here_There_Is_No_Lesson_To_Be_Learned_ (Selected Poem) https://archive.org/details/Deception_And_The_Self_Created_Terrorist_Threat_American_Complicity_In_World_W (Selected Poem) https://archive.org/details/Solitary_Horsemen_Reflections_On_Life_In_Cyberspace (Selected Poem)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:43 AM Alex Rudd notifications@github.com wrote:

Hey,

For this discussion It's worth making clear the distinction between what are choices and what are unchangeable characteristics.

For example: gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, and ethnicity are all innate; whereas political preferences are choices, and there are objectively moral and immoral choices therein.

Politics at it's core is the process of defining who the state will be violent towards (via police, prisons, military, borders, removal of aid, etc). There are political preferences which demand violence towards people with the above unchangeable characteristics, and therefore it's a contradiction to say we protect both.

The simplest example is that you can't both protect people of colour and tolerate fascists at the same event.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/confcodeofconduct/confcodeofconduct.com/pull/140?email_source=notifications&email_token=AC74Y6B3ZE5II6ZVCMRR2E3QIIX6XA5CNFSM4HAYXMC2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD6CPGAA#issuecomment-528806656, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC74Y6AN5KNAZYE3N6O67R3QIIX6XANCNFSM4HAYXMCQ .

[garthus1]

Alex Rudd, Just a minute there...How is sexual orientation and gender identity innate? If it is innate then it is not changeable; this conflicts with saying gender is innate and then claiming that it can be changed. So are you now saying that gender affiliation or preferences are not choices when people are free to change them. You also do not mention what should be done with fascists who are people of colour, or do they get a special exemption.This cr-p is why people are leaving GitHub. At least make the rules consistent...Not just designed to promote a certain political agenda.

Gerry

[MattiSG]

As a maintainer here, and lacking a Code of Conduct, I feel compelled to intervene before this discussion escalates into conflict and / or decreases legitimate contributions.

@garthus1 your last message is not appropriate. I will here outline the main problems in your message, in the hope that it was posted perhaps too hastily but in good faith.

1. If you disagree with sexual orientation and gender identity being innate, you are welcome to state your point. There was no mention in this conversation, however, of the possibility of changing them, so your argument of inconsistency makes assumptions on other participants' beliefs. This, and particularly the way it is framed with aggressive phrasings such as “so are you now saying” that are not actual questions, is inflammatory and decreases the likelihood of proper debate. This is not welcome.

2. I had quite well understood “fascists” in @alexrudd’s message as “white supremacists”, and believe this language is quite easily understood. If you want to ask clarification questions, or outline possible inconsistencies, you are welcome to do so. However, with your chosen phrasing, this reads like an attack and not as tentative clarification.

   Actually, one could argue that fascism in its original meaning, as opposed to its more versatile usage in today's language, is a form of authoritarian nationalism that specifically saw existence in Europe in the XX^th century, where minorities (including “people of colour”) were severely mistreated, and that there is no evidence of non-white fascism as a political regime.

3. “This [crap] is why people are leaving GitHub.” If you believe this discussion is not bringing value to you, you are welcome to stop participating in it. Your PR is still active, and I had already defined its status a couple months ago. Insulting others, or the value of their contributions, is not welcome.

4. “At least make the rules consistent...” This is open-source software, and a discussion on a PR you opened. You are welcome to state that the suggested points would lead to inconsistent rules, but this phrasing does not yield any constructive suggestion. If you want to suggest changes on the current language, please do so by opening pull requests.

5. “Not just designed to promote a certain political agenda.” I wonder if there is a misunderstanding here. This repository does not contain official rules for GitHub, or for anything. It simply provides a template for event organisers who want to include a code of conduct. This code of conduct definitely has a certain political agenda: one for more inclusion and diversity. If you disagree with this goal, your contributions are not pertinent here.

---

Considering how fast @garthus1's answer was sent after @alexrudd's message, I have taken the responsibility to add a 24h cooldown period to this discussion before further replies can be added, to prevent any regrettable, too fast answers. Please use this time to reflect upon the actual necessity to add more points. Thank you for your attention to contributing improvements to a Code of Conduct template that aims at creating more diverse, safer events for all.