"To respond to the comment below yours -- does it not suggest an execution to you that not only is Ted Ts'o decried as being solely at fault, but also anyone who'd stand up for him? That if he does not display sufficient submission, nor his supporters, then they should be cast out? Presented in the context of an appeal to community, I catch an undertone of group ostracism in the making."
No, not really. Or to put it slightly more controversially: I don't think group ostracism is a bad thing in all cases.
The problem with what you're saying is it's essentially the 'absolute free speech' argument rephrased: the misunderstanding that the concept of 'free speech' means 'anyone can say anything they like at any time and no group can place restrictions on speech within that group'. This is not what it means.
The world of F/OSS is a set of overlapping communities. It is entirely valid for communities to set standards of behaviour. I don't believe that if someone was, say, espousing racist views within the Fedora community and refusing to renounce or apologize for them, that the appropriate response is to say 'well, we believe in free speech, that person can believe whatever they want, we should just respectfully disagree and move on, we can't publicly execute them for their beliefs'.
I believe that it is healthy and necessary for F/OSS communities to clearly reject certain types of behaviour. They do not have to be anarchies. As F/OSS communities usually work by consensus, the _only_ way to establish what forms of behaviour should be considered unacceptable is to clearly declare a belief and persuade a sufficient amount of others that it is correct. Matthew and I are declaring a belief that it should not be acceptable in F/OSS communities to diminish the significance of the crime of rape or to state a belief that rape victims are in some cases responsible for getting themselves raped. I believe this. There are other forms of behaviour I do not believe should be tolerated in F/OSS communities - sexism, racism, homophobia, for instance - and if instances of such behaviour occur I would speak out against those too, and do whatever is in my power to influence the communities of which I am a part to actively reject such behaviour.
The problem with your position is it seems to imply that F/OSS communities should exercise absolute tolerance of any kind of belief or behaviour, no matter how abhorrent - that it is always worse to condemn and refuse to accept certain types of behaviour than the consequences of that behaviour could possibly be. I do not accept this. I believe the consequences of tolerating and accepting behaviour like Ted's - specifically, the consequence of repulsing women from becoming or remaining involved in our communities - are worse than the consequences of condemning and refusing to accept it.
Free speech, especially as interpreted in the U.S. means that someone like Ted can make posts like he did and not face criminal prosecution or government persecution. Fine. It does not mean that it is wrong for others in the community not just to disagree but to condemn his position. It does not mean that it is wrong for a community to agree not to tolerate such behaviour. Communities in general are free to set and enforce standards of behaviour, and I believe F/OSS communities benefit from doing so.
I think you are vastly exaggerating the complexity of the issue. Go and read http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0038.html again. Read this specifically:
"All aside from the legal question, there's also the question, in the Alice and Bob thought experiment, regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob (assume that Bob was inebriated and couldn't give consent, and she knew that Bob was drunk), should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk that he couldn't take responsibility for himself? What if it was pretty clear that he regularly did this *because* he could lose control and not take responsibility for what he did? Suppose he hadn't yet had sex without giving consent? Would, should he, face opprobrium for his actions? If yes, does that magically go away once he is raped, and is now a victim, since that would now be blaming the victim?
My personal opinion is that things aren't black and white, and even if Alice is guilty of raping him, Bob should also be faulted for his contribution towards the incident, and should take at least some responsibility for avoiding being put in similar situations in the future."
and tell me you can't understand why it constitutes rape apology. Ted very clearly and directly states that he believes that someone who gets drunk and is raped - _regardless of the state of mind or inebriation of the other party_ - "should take at least some responsibility" for the rape occurring. This is not Advanced Feminism 303. It is very very simple. I don't think you need a degree in feminist studies and a giant vat of Kool-Aid to understand what's abhorrent about such a statement.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: So, lemme get this straight
Date: 2012-10-31 12:24 am (UTC)No, not really. Or to put it slightly more controversially: I don't think group ostracism is a bad thing in all cases.
The problem with what you're saying is it's essentially the 'absolute free speech' argument rephrased: the misunderstanding that the concept of 'free speech' means 'anyone can say anything they like at any time and no group can place restrictions on speech within that group'. This is not what it means.
The world of F/OSS is a set of overlapping communities. It is entirely valid for communities to set standards of behaviour. I don't believe that if someone was, say, espousing racist views within the Fedora community and refusing to renounce or apologize for them, that the appropriate response is to say 'well, we believe in free speech, that person can believe whatever they want, we should just respectfully disagree and move on, we can't publicly execute them for their beliefs'.
I believe that it is healthy and necessary for F/OSS communities to clearly reject certain types of behaviour. They do not have to be anarchies. As F/OSS communities usually work by consensus, the _only_ way to establish what forms of behaviour should be considered unacceptable is to clearly declare a belief and persuade a sufficient amount of others that it is correct. Matthew and I are declaring a belief that it should not be acceptable in F/OSS communities to diminish the significance of the crime of rape or to state a belief that rape victims are in some cases responsible for getting themselves raped. I believe this. There are other forms of behaviour I do not believe should be tolerated in F/OSS communities - sexism, racism, homophobia, for instance - and if instances of such behaviour occur I would speak out against those too, and do whatever is in my power to influence the communities of which I am a part to actively reject such behaviour.
The problem with your position is it seems to imply that F/OSS communities should exercise absolute tolerance of any kind of belief or behaviour, no matter how abhorrent - that it is always worse to condemn and refuse to accept certain types of behaviour than the consequences of that behaviour could possibly be. I do not accept this. I believe the consequences of tolerating and accepting behaviour like Ted's - specifically, the consequence of repulsing women from becoming or remaining involved in our communities - are worse than the consequences of condemning and refusing to accept it.
Free speech, especially as interpreted in the U.S. means that someone like Ted can make posts like he did and not face criminal prosecution or government persecution. Fine. It does not mean that it is wrong for others in the community not just to disagree but to condemn his position. It does not mean that it is wrong for a community to agree not to tolerate such behaviour. Communities in general are free to set and enforce standards of behaviour, and I believe F/OSS communities benefit from doing so.
I think you are vastly exaggerating the complexity of the issue. Go and read http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0038.html again. Read this specifically:
"All aside from the legal question, there's also the question, in the Alice and Bob thought experiment, regardless of whether Alice is guilty of raping Bob (assume that Bob was inebriated and couldn't give consent, and she knew that Bob was drunk), should Bob be faulted for putting him into a situation where he was so drunk that he couldn't take responsibility for himself? What if it was pretty clear that he regularly did this *because*
he could lose control and not take responsibility for what he did? Suppose he hadn't yet had sex without giving consent? Would, should he, face opprobrium for his actions? If yes, does that magically go away once he is raped, and is now a victim, since that would now be blaming the victim?
My personal opinion is that things aren't black and white, and even if Alice is guilty of raping him, Bob should also be faulted for his contribution towards the incident, and should
take at least some responsibility for avoiding being put in similar situations in the future."
and tell me you can't understand why it constitutes rape apology. Ted very clearly and directly states that he believes that someone who gets drunk and is raped - _regardless of the state of mind or inebriation of the other party_ - "should take at least some responsibility" for the rape occurring. This is not Advanced Feminism 303. It is very very simple. I don't think you need a degree in feminist studies and a giant vat of Kool-Aid to understand what's abhorrent about such a statement.