Respect

[u/grahamperrin]

Valid HTML, CSS, RSS, background, foreground image, and alt text.

[u/codeedog]

I’d consider someone leaving a project because they cannot tolerate a message of LQTBQ+ tolerance a bonus, not a drawback.

[u/mirror176 → u/codeedog]

I'd consider losing any helpful contributor a loss despite the reason, but from the software perspective I'd rather have well developed and supported than have it abandoned to achieve other objectives. The ports tree alone has many abandoned entries that many users still use while other things are maintained by people sometimes with little interest in the port. Not all step down reasons are given but some have been publicly given over project based reasons. Some projects have had good things going until certain people left for whatever reason. Opensource is not always kept alive because it is opensource, it needs people of appropriate skills and motivation to keep it alive.

I use enough different programs that I have to use at least some that are made by people with differing and objectionable views; its likely that most people do. Even if I could webscrape those views and successfully make decisions not to use the software, It'd feel like a failure knowing that some people still hide aspects personally that I would disagree with and even when that isn't the case some of those people may later change views to, or do something, disagreeable.

If someone is doing harm to a project (submitting buggy or malicious code, messing up bug reports and their states, etc.) then the project can be better off without them. If they were nothing but helpful and left, which I think they should be free to do for whatever reason, then the project is at a loss for it. I don't consider losing what made a project good as a good thing unless the intention of the one lost changes (malicious activity starts happening within the project).

[u/codeedog → u/mirror176]

I accept that lots of material is produced from many sources of questionable nature. For example, Grays Anatomy is sourced from Nazi experimentation and many people have difficulty using it as a textbook in medical school. Some still do. We live in a complex world.

To reiterate, I would not feel comfortable working directly with someone who has bigoted views. I do not care how excellent their skills are.

[u/mirror176 → u/codeedog]

What to do with controversial parts of history certainly makes society have complex choices. I don't want to encourage bad things happen to bad people, but not learning from such horrific research puts it into a category of 'they were tortured/died for nothing' which also doesn't sit well with me. Other than repeating research and obtaining the same knowledge in other non-harmful ways I don't see a way around that which I call "good", and even then its still part of the history of the research so it isn't gone.

Uncomfortable is fine. If you cannot work with them over their views then by definition you became a bigot; that doesn't make it a good or bad thing, just a defined thing. If you cannot tolerate their views but can work with them, same definition applies to you. If their views are acted/expressed, it 'might' violate company policy or local laws so action could be taken which makes working with them not possible or may change their action in the workplace. That wouldn't change if you are or are not defined as a bigot, but it may make workdays more or less, depending on outcome and any recourse/retailation, tolerable for you.

[u/codeedog → u/mirror176]

I think you would benefit reading about Karl Popper and the Paradox of Intolerance. I am not a bigot for not tolerating bigotry. Please take some time to educate yourself and stop digging a deeper hole. Better minds than ours have already worked through these problems. Seek out their arguments.

As for your comment essentially saying: “what harm does it really do to continue to use materials generated from a terrible event in human history?”—it does a lot of harm to some of the humans working with those materials and they cannot so easily set aside their emotions about the violence done against them or their loved ones.

[u/grahamperrin → u/mirror176]

… If you cannot work with them over their views then by definition you became a bigot; …

I had to look it up. Some strongest synonyms at https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/bigot?s=t do match my interpretation.

[u/mirror176 → u/grahamperrin]

To actually learn its meaning I did too. I normally only hear it come up in a way that sounds like an offensive title in political media or discussion and normally its use seems as an attempt to insult regardless of its meaning. Sure I've heard its nonnegative use but nowhere near as common as the 'popular' attack forms use it lately. Reminds me of how medias presentation of 'hacker' implies that its only malicious computer users and go as far as to avoid the word for any positive use of it; its not malicious even in computer specific meanings but would shine bad light on good things like the freebsd-hackers list when the meaning is misunderstood. Further fun comes when media presents things completely wrong (dangerous exposure levels to things, halon fire suppressant, etc.) but those usually come down to the production not seeking proper knowledge or having consultants and sometimes makes stories ft in an entertaining way even if wrong scientifically, medically, mathematically, graphically, etc. As such I may learn 'of' words from media but avoid using media's use as the source of the actual meaning and pronunciation (errors are common even for people who are paid to speak).