On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:41:05PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 14:20:49 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> >“Obscenity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.”
> 
> "They say it's a sign of a limited vocabulary but I don't think that's true, because I know, oh, at least 127 different words and I still prefer fuck." (Billy Connolly)
> 
> :-)

I think his dictionary should use an unsigned byte instead of a signed byte. :-P  One of the places where size_t being unsigned is important in an 8-bit environment. ;-)


T

-- 
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 23:14:43 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
> Whatever miffs us, let's try to keep cool and show the same class that the Rust guys do here:
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-July/004838.html
>
> Oh, and BTW, I really want to congrat them, they've been doing a great job so far.

I'm not of the opinion this community needs a code of conduct. This group has many examples of harsh language both directed at code/projects and people. It results in community members to speak up against that language use, which is great, but we don't need Andrei and Walter stepping in and pointing out violation of rules.

And I must say generally the harshest language directed to people tends to come from newer members to the forum. Though there is definitely very frank comments which can be taken as insulting.

I think the worst combination is harsh language used to express something that is completely wrong. The statements relate to D shouldn't surprise any of us and knowing our field, everything is a crappy design 1970 or 2064.

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 04:58:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> It's either an overreaction to the quotes, or it's whitewashing reality
> itself. There's nothing else in those quotes to take issue with unless
> we're so very immature that we can't even handle the word "crap".


Or maybe it's simply because the rules 4, 5 and 6 (or whatever) of their community simply forbids such behavior, even if only very mildly offensive. I believe the moderator wants to keep good relations with other communities and not look like of a bunch of sectar fanboys.

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 17:09:50 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I'm not of the opinion this community needs a code of conduct. This group has many examples of harsh language both directed at code/projects and people. It results in community members to speak up against that language use, which is great, but we don't need Andrei and Walter stepping in and pointing out violation of rules.

 I agree.

On 7/26/13 1:42 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:55:05 +0200
> "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"<joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net>  wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 05:10:55 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> If you have an opinion on something that doesn't amount to "it
>>> is
>>> good", then yes, you are seen by *many* people as being bad
>>> person who
>>> exhibits the sorts of ideas and beliefs that (slippery slope
>>> fallacy
>>> here) lead to atrocities (making such beliefs therefore
>>> unacceptable
>>> viewpoints - or at least unacceptable to speak and write).
>>
>>
>> There's a difference between expressing a negative opinion and
>> expressing it in an insulting or offensive way. The latter tends
>> to create an unpleasant atmosphere to work in.
>
> True, but the quoted examples from the Rust NG looked quite benign
> to me. If something as basic as that is deemed "insulting or
> offensive", then that creates a chilling effect on the ability
> to express negative opinions.

FWIW I agree with the moderator. He over-played the case a bit to clarify his stance and to stop a trend early.

Andrei

On 7/26/2013 11:33 AM, SomeDude wrote:
> On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 17:09:50 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> I'm not of the opinion this community needs a code of conduct. This group has
>> many examples of harsh language both directed at code/projects and people. It
>> results in community members to speak up against that language use, which is
>> great, but we don't need Andrei and Walter stepping in and pointing out
>> violation of rules.
>
>   I agree.

I would rue the day we felt it necessary to have a written code of conduct here. I prefer to presume that we can simply be expected and trusted to act as civilized and honorable adults.

On 7/26/2013 7:20 AM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> This discussion brought to my mind the quote (don't know who said
> it):
>
> “Obscenity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself
> forcibly.”

It reminds me of something my lawyer told me:

1. If the law is on your side, argue the law.
2. If justice is on your side, argue justice.
3. If neither is on your side, use ad homenims.

(I inferred from this that you can tell how good the other guy's case is by how he argues it!)

> However, I must admit I've known many people who have brilliant
> minds that tend to enjoy using obscenity, so this cannot be
> entirely true.  However, I do think the quote has some truth to
> it as sometimes obscenity is used to add force to an argument,
> when perhaps a little more thought would have simply produced a
> better argument.

Jobs and Torvalds famously use(d) obscenity, and in fact being cussed out by either of those can be a perverse badge of honor.

But I think those are exceptions, and their methods are not general license for others to use the same techniques.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:09:09 +0200
"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:

> On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 08:42:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > True, but the quoted examples from the Rust NG looked quite
> > benign
> > to me. If something as basic as that is deemed "insulting or
> > offensive", then that creates a chilling effect on the ability
> > to express negative opinions.
> 
> 
> Yes, but you are someone who throws around swearwords very clearly. Of course you have a high tolerance for crap! :-)
> 

A fair point ;)

> Not everyone is so thick-skinned, though, and it can create a better collaborative environment if everyone tries to avoid swearwords and pejorative terms (which isn't the same as censoring negative opinions -- in my experience, it helps convey them more effectively because the recipient has fewer grounds to take offence and use that as a reason to dismiss your opinion).

Well, when we start being afraid of people mistaking our objections against a thing or idea as objections against the person, then that very much stifles (ie, not eliminates, but strongly reduces) the ability to meaningfully critique things.

That's why I, for one, make a point - in anything I say or read - to maintain a strong separation between statements about a thing/idea versus statements about any person associated with such thing/idea. If I'm objecting to a person then I'll be clear about it, and I always try to assume others are *not* talking about actual people unless there's *very* clear unambiguous reason to believe otherwise. Yes, sometimes that will lead me to mistake an intended personal attack for a benign statement, but I say that's a *good* thing - it helps put a wet blanket over unnecessary potential flame wars.

I really believe that's the only way to foster civility without hindering meaningful discourse.

And yes, sometimes people *will* mistake something for being more malicious than it really is and they'll fly off the handle as a result of their *own* mistaken impression (and I'm not claiming I've never done that). But that's life, that's going to happen. If we're going to live our lives in fear of how others might twist things around, or what they may be offended by, then we may as well never say anything to anyone because there will *always* be a potential for someone to offended, or invent reason to be offended, no matter what we say (or what others will decide to pretend that we said).

And yes, sometimes people *will* mistake something for being more malicious than it really is and they'll fly off the handle as a result of their *own* mistaken impression (and I'm not claiming I've never done that). But that's life, that's going to happen. If we're going to live our lives in fear of how others might twist things around, or what they may be offended by, then we may as well never say anything to anyone because there will *always* be a potential for someone to offended, or invent reason to be offended, no matter what we say (or what others will decide to pretend that we said).

On 07/26/13 22:49, Walter Bright wrote:
> Jobs and Torvalds famously use(d) obscenity, and in fact being cussed out by either of those can be a perverse badge of honor.
> 
> But I think those are exceptions, and their methods are not general license for others to use the same techniques.

That could give the impression that Linus frequently /uses obscenity/
as a /method/, which would be very, very misleading. He does so /rarely/
and in exceptional contexts where it's appropriate, using a style which
pretty much makes sure no one is, or could be, offended.
The fact that he does it sometimes (and that he has a sense of humor)
means that various trolls and pseudo-news|discussion|journalism-sites
always have some material which they can mine from the vast amounts of
data, then deliberately use of out of context and misrepresent. [1]
Somebody reading just those accounts will get a very skewed picture,
which can then spread further. The quoted statement above is vague enough
that this might not be the case here - but it's also vague enough that
most readers *will* draw the wrong conclusions.
Which is not only unfair, but can have the opposite effect; people
will try to emulate Linus, without realizing that that his online
persona is extremely a) nice and friendly, b) eloquent, and c) frank.
In that order.

artur

[1] Which, btw, does not mean that one needs to avoid the possibility
    of this happening - it only means that one shouldn't blindly believe
    everything read. More often than not, somebody is trying to manipulate
    you.

> That could give the impression that Linus frequently /uses obscenity/
> as a /method/, which would be very, very misleading.

Zed Shaw also falls into this category. He is usually polite and civil during debates. However like Linus, he does sometimes throw around obscenity to express a particular point... a trait that other people try to emulated thinking its cool to use as a default method of asserting a point. Simply I believe the people who have the most respect or fame in the industry need to be the most careful about their expression. Just like any parent to child relationship, be aware that others may emulate your behavior and cross boundaries where you had carefully walked the line.