Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines

From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Jun 11, 2013, 14:40 UTC
Message-ID: <51B736FA.5010407@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0kMvac7Sp3QwvEm+J_-Hj7JAn-AY-juDDw1HR3oQ+hamA@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/11/2013 03:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
> rational argument...Why are you incapable of
> using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
> that you cannot see the consequences of acting without reason?

Ram, you are insulting Thomas the human being rather than addressing his points. Please stop.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Tomorrow the majority opinion will dictate that I am a fire hazard and
> must be removed.  Soon, anybody who disagrees with the majority
> opinion will be removed, and the community will be reduced to a
> handful of circlejerking yes-men.  The git project will die a sad
> death.  And the blood will be on your hands.

It is not disagreement that is causing problems; it is the inflammatory tone of the discussion. Civil and constructive disagreement is completely welcome here. But hurtful and offensive discussion is not, even if it is in support of the "party line" (haha as if there were such a thing).

And yes, I know that the word "offensive" is subjective, but for the sake of this discussion let's take it to mean "offensive to the vast majority of a community". Not "controversial", not "contrarian", not even "stupid"; I don't think anybody is proposing to prohibit dissent or stupidity. But there is no reason for discussion that is gratuitously aggressive, insulting, or derogatory; such discussion is what I mean by "offensive".

Show 10 quoted lines

> [...]  I already gave you the
> example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
> it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
> the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
> sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
> chances of survival of the others.  I am making a pragmatic argument,
> based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
> bullshit.  Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
> problem, by recommending an accessible course.  You have either not
> gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.

Your idea that you can assign Thomas "homework" in ethics and call him stupid for coming to a different conclusion than you is presumptuous in the extreme.

> [...]
> You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.

This is also presumptuous, not to mention extremely ironic. In my opinion Thomas's email was calm and reasonable while yours is beyond the pale.

Ram, don't just take my opinion on this matter. At the risk of being presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like your mother or father, or a teacher whom you respect, or a member of clergy if you are so inclined. Ask that person's opinion about your email.

It is so easy to lose perspective in the Internet.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/