Cultural learnings of the Internet.

[Okulo]

It shouldn't be.

People shouldn't be afraid to contribute. Just, you know...

Just saying "this" isn't a contribution though. It's noise. It brings nothing new to the table.

[psi29a]

In the absence of a 'like' button or a poll, how else would you voice your enthusiasm for a post?

[Antsan]

By giving a explanation. Also there are some communities where simply voicing your approval or disapproval without anything further is considered unwanted noise.

About that whole argument regarding open discussion and using whatever kind of language you want:
Normally discussion should happen rationally, right? Usually in a discussion it is preferable to address issues in a manner that avoids riling up emotions, just so that the people involved understand the actual argument instead of getting lost in the conotational jungle that natural language can be. I understand this to be the purpose of what I call "political correctness": To avoid language which serves to make someone else negatively emotionally engaged.
Of course you can argue that people should be mature enough to see past insults and unfortunate implications to see the actual point, but the fact of the matter is that people really do care about their politics very much and most lack the training that is absolutely necessary to overcome that. What you are expecting isn't trivial and certainly not common, as much as some people like to make it out to be. Another effect of using language you find comfortable but others don't is that you will soon mainly discuss with people who largely agree with you either way. How does that help "open discussion"?
Put another way: If you want a discussion you will need to make sure that it stays a discussion and doesn't devolve into shouting matches. Political correctness does not forbid topics, it forbids laden words. There's always a synonym that's safe to use.

In a similar manner it might be prudent to not derail topics. If the topic is stuff which may make rape more likely in our society it is really bad form to make the discussion about false rape allegations instead – as it would be the other way round. It's just disrespectful, especially on the Internet, where different discussions can be neatly separated.

[psi29a]

^-- this +1

Also there are some communities where simply voicing your approval or disapproval without anything further is considered unwanted noise.

Of course, thankfully this isn't one of them.

It is about community management, inclusiveness and support with OpenMW at its center. I would argue that being combative and personal is counter productive and that simply giving your assent or dissent to things is productive.

For you it might be noise, for others it would be signal.

I think it is overkill, but there are mods available:
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... &t=2210021
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... &t=2246576

[HiPhish]

Here is my problem with labels like "feminist", "egalitarian", "men's right activist", "humanist" or whatever: the words or the dictionary definition, or the sociological definition, none of it matters. I don't look at what people say, I look at what they do. There is no feminist charter or the feminist association that keeps its members in check. Anyone can call themselves a feminist, just slap the label onto you and there you go. And if anyone can be a feminist, then no one can really be a feminist.

I am sure there are feminists who are equally concerned about both female and male genital mutilation and who are aware the life is not sunshine and lollipops for men in 3rd world countries either. But they will be overshadowed by all the other feminists who get people arrested for sitting the wrong way in the subway and think that farting is a form of rape. But who is to say which form of feminism is "the right" one?

The same goes for all the other labels. All I can really go by is how the individual people or organisation act, what they do instead of what they say.

One good way of examining that is by first asking "what does it mean" and then looking at the consequences. Returning back the CoC, in particular the Contributor Covenant that is currently being debated at Ruby. It assumes that a lack of diversity is a problem, but it never explains why it would be a problem. The usual explanation I get is that having different perspectives will make the code better. So the question is, how does the machine know whether its instructions were written by a straight white man, or a Filipino gay midget in a wheelchair, or even by another machine? Then the reasons is shifted to something like wanting to provide a "safe environment". Well, who defines what is safe? My feelings? We have seen what happens when you "feel threatened" in the Gregory Alan Elliot case recently in Canada, which went on for three years and was only recently finally concluded.

TL;DR: I'm glad OpenMW has no intention of adopting a CoC. I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and just assume most project maintainers take a quick glance at a CoC, see nice words and adopt them because what could possibly go wrong. After all, who doesn't want to be nice welcoming?

That being said, I can't call myself an egalitarian because of my deep seated hatred of certain groups (Westboro Baptists, I'm looking at you!).

The WBC is a particular case: they are a sect who believe in predestination and charge it up to 11. Basically whether you go to heaven or hell has been decided before you were even born, and you can tell one's destiny by looking at how they fare in life. So if you are all miserable it's because god wants to make you miserable before throwing you into hell eventually. This means god doesn't hate people for being gay, but that people are gay because god hates them. It goes without saying that this is a major heresy for most Christian denominations.

[psi29a]

There is an infestation of feminism and other "social justice warriors" going on in computer technology, entertainment and education.

You seem to have a pretty good definition of feminism to make a statement like that. The street works both ways here. It would mean that even OpenMW has been infested with crypto-feminists this _whole_ time.

Just because some fundamentalist religious nutjob lights people up doesn't mean that the rest are also nutjobs.

Going back further, I honestly believe that third-wave feminism is just floundering. They grew up in a world that already saw first-wave (right to vote) and second-wave (have a job other than house-wife), there isn't much left to do and many of things being advocated are in my opinion are just plain counter-productive or worse: man-hating.

So don't get me wrong, I understand, the frustration and what has happened with #Gamergate was really shitty. That being said, I don't think the situation isn't as black and white and easy to swallow as: all feminists are feminazis (radical feminists).

Update: The WBC decided they would protest outside of my university. Lets just say, it got out of hand. They actively try to bait you into confrontation so that they can sue you. Sorry, I don't play that.

[HiPhish]

Here is the thing: If there is a term X and the vast majority of people who call themselves X have something in common, then it's fair to equate X with them. Now if we were talking about a few outliers, or even only half of feminists, then you would have a point.

What I was getting at was the problem of labels in general. Was my first statement inflammatory? Yes, it was, but I assumed everyone knew what I meant for the sake of brevity. You know, not all feminists

[psi29a]

You mean feminazis? Not all feminists are feminazies. I would agree that that would be bad. I think it is a perception problem, the drama queens take the head-lines as a result. That just gives everyone a false image of feminism, shit, is that what they're all about? Fuck them!

After all, my sister-in-law was a self-professed anti-feminist... until it was explained that it would mean she was assenting to giving away her own right to vote, to work and to have a voice. Sounds like some middle-eastern lands doesn't it?

We're (wife and I) not overly fond of them too, just like the radical vegans that keep trying to guilt trip you with 'meat is murder'. That is the moment you look them in the eye, channeling your inner Hannibal Lecter and say: "and don't you just look yummy."

Same goes for eco-terrorists that sabotage your local nuclear power plant to prove a point.
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/arti ... otage.html

Or firing five grenades with an RPG-7 at a nuclear power plant being built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

[johndh]

Here is the thing: If there is a term X and the vast majority of people who call themselves X have something in common, then it's fair to equate X with them. Now if we were talking about a few outliers, or even only half of feminists, then you would have a point.

I hope you know you just described exactly what stereotyping is. I see a lot of homophobic and sexist people belonging to a particular religious group, but lumping all members of that religion together as homophobes and sexists would be incorrect and counterproductive, since I also know a lot of them who are not homophobic or sexist. I'm not sure that the "vast majority" of feminists act the way you describe, and I suspect that confirmation bias may be at work here. When a prominent feminist talks about how routine circumcision of boys is wrong, that gets dismissed as an outlier, but when one says we need to ban videogames with powerless or sexualized female characters, that reinforces the already-held concept of feminists as ultra-PC radicals.

What I was getting at was the problem of labels in general. Was my first statement inflammatory? Yes, it was, but I assumed everyone knew what I meant for the sake of brevity. You know, not all feminists

That's the problem with painting with such broad strokes and going after a diverse group. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I disagree with the kinds of censorship and misleading statistics that I see and hear from some people under the umbrella of feminism, but that doesn't mean that the entire idea of feminism is wrong.

Look up Christina Hoff Sommers a.k.a. the Factual Feminist if you want to have your idea of feminism turned on its head.

[Antsan]

Here is the thing: If there is a term X and the vast majority of people who call themselves X have something in common, then it's fair to equate X with them. Now if we were talking about a few outliers, or even only half of feminists, then you would have a point.

What I was getting at was the problem of labels in general. Was my first statement inflammatory? Yes, it was, but I assumed everyone knew what I meant for the sake of brevity. You know, not all feminists

The problem is one of perspective. Most feminists I know are not feminazis, as such it would be stupid of me to equate the two, right?
Actually most educated, devoted feminists I know are much better and more diligent in debunking feminazi stupidity than most other people I know.

To give you a visual explanation of the problem: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939