Re: [PATCH] CODE_OF_CONDUCT: expect tolerance, not respect

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2020, 15:19 UTC
Message-ID: <5fe35fef595de_22f222088f@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <3d21cc06-415d-860b-7bd2-31047d68bc05@gmail.com>

Derrick Stolee wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't
> > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't
> > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  * Using welcoming and inclusive language
> > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences
> >  * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
> >  * Focusing on what is best for the community
> >  * Showing empathy towards other community members
> 
> As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24):
> 
>     This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed
>     to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted
>     language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations
>     and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document
>     used by the Git for Windows project.
> 
> It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully
> crafted phrasing.

No widely-used and carefully crafted phrasing is perfect.

> Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect",

Indeed.

 1. Having respect is something that cannot be chosen at will. Either
    you have it, or you don't.

 2. Being respectful is something you can choose, but it is *showing*
    respect, even though you might not actually have it.

If you don't have the first, then the second is an act.

> which negates your argument for changing this word.

It's not my argument. It's the argument of dozens of intellectuals (and others) who criticized the original University of Cambridge freedom of speech policy.

> We can only enforce what is evidenced by actual communication, not the
> internal lives of community members.

Indeed. But it's not wise to ask community members to *pretend* to have something they don't.

> I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without
> being respectful.

It is, and that's precisely the point; the change matters.

If you say "I think this proposal doesn't make any sense", that's being disrespectful towards that viewpoint, but it is honest, and tolerant.

If you police language and demand that members *pretend* to have respect towards certain viewpoints, even though they don't have it, that just stifles the expression of opinions. Not to mention the cognitive burden of being constantly lying.

Either way, if you leave it as "being respectful", then the document is a sham, because people are disrespectul towards the viewpoints of others all the time, in this mailing list, and many others.

That point is not currently being enforced as it is, and I think (and hope) it never will.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras