loading...

re: How Can We Keep On A Tech Side VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

Also I am strictly against any kind of censorship, while it’s the topmost rule here so far ...

Many cultures value politeness. So much so that it is considered intentional disrespect to not engage in politeness. However, other cultures view politeness as a kind of posturing which is offensive and wasteful.

Currently this is a global community -- as in, we haven't yet divided ourselves by these cultural criteria -- so everyone has to make compromises toward the middle to participate meaningfully.

 

Thanks for the link, now I know what politeness is.

The only culture really valuing politeness I am aware of is a Japanese culture. I suspect more Asian cultures to value politeness as well, I shamefully know less about.

But the most pressure on politeness issue I suffer in the internets for my whole life comes from Americans. Even if we agree to call culture what barely exists for five centuries and even has no own language, American culture never valued politeness. Read some urban novels back from the middle of the last century.

What suddenly raises from the ashes in a decade cannot be inspired by culture. There is the only way for it to conquer the minds—propaganda. Since American society is the one most suffering from the propaganda of any kind, and since I have heard the freedom of speech was indeed invented as a rule in US, I expect everybody to stop shifting accents and let other people say whatever they want—there are a lot of civilized tools to react: contempt, scorn, disdain, disgust, ignore after all.

Censorship is what ruins every healthy community. IMHO, of course.

 

There have been various studies/books on the relative politeness (in-directness) vs directness of various cultures. America varies wildly depending on the area where you live. Where I live in the Southern US, politeness is very valued and expected. (Except in sports and politics.)

American freedom of speech famously does not allow anyone to say anything they want. For example, you can go to jail for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room when there is no fire. Likewise, certain methods of communications online are not profitable. Pushing people's buttons will make them want to avoid you (for example, negative characterizations of their native country). However, expressing disagreement without making it personal can be really productive and informative for everyone involved.

expressing disagreement without making it personal can be really productive and informative for everyone involved

I could not agree more.

pushing people's buttons will make them want to avoid you

That is fully understandable and that is exactly what I said. Avoiding is fine. Blocking what I am trying to share (unless it’s a “fire” roar in a crowded room) is not.

Also, I do respect the penal code. What I disrespect is a tendency to imply onto others rules that were not proven to be, say, correct. And the frames of the freedom of speech in my understanding should be set by something more graved in stone than today’s fashion.

I am still positive that unless I violate the penal code, I should be allowed to say whatever I want wherever I want, save for private territories. And communities are not a private territory by any mean.

The situation with dev.to is rather more complicated: besides community, we have owners. So I am fine if owners decide to ban me, I understand the borders of the private property. I am also fine with the aspiration to create a community based on this platform.

What I am not fine with is that the proclaimed inclusiveness is valid for those who coincide the private club rules only.

Excellent points.

Regarding the last point. Consider that many people do not have your self-confidence to brush aside (even indirect) personally-targeted remarks.

I do not believe an attitude of "being offended" is at all productive. But I do try to consider whether my words will be effective. A wise person once told me to assume that someone who can hear me is acutely hurting (because it is statistically probable). Using careless and hostile words will not reach that person, and in fact may aggravate their hurt. I certainly don't get this right, but I think it is worth the attempt to avoid that.

Anyway, I think the main point is that this community does not seem like it wants to be the place where I should come looking for a fight. It wants to be the place where I should come looking for a supportive voice. Even if that voice happens to be disagreeing with me on the specific details.

The last word is yours.

I could not agree more.

Also, I have to bold this: I am not advocating the willingness to fight. What I am actually advocating is being welcome to the diversity of any kind.

The set of rules is fine, and nobody should have issues following one. People (thank God :) are different and what hurts Jim does not hurt Gem at all, and vice versa. We cannot predict at all what actually hurts Joe. That is exactly why I don’t believe much in rulesets. Immature persons who don’t understand how to behave in a society are always losing without any rules. But the more strict rules are, the more innocent persons who do not fit—let’s call it culture—literally suffer from these rules implications.

I think the attempt to decrease the amount of those who were oppressed by existing strict rules is a good goal. Even better than having one jerk explicitly banned due to the existence of the rules.

code of conduct - report abuse