Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (gnu.org)

AmiMoJo writes: Richard Stallman has announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, an effort "to start guiding people towards kinder communication." The Guidelines differ from a Code of Conduct in that it's trying to be proactive about kindness around free software development over being rules with possible actions when breaking them.

These new GNU communication guidelines can be found at GNU.org along with Stallman's commentary. From the guidelines: A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. I hope that kind communication guidelines will provide a kinder and less strict way of leading a project's discussions to be calmer, more welcoming to all participants of good will, and more effective.

Comments

Better than SJW/PC COCs

[alternative_right]

Most codes of conduct now are being used in the same way political correctness is: to prohibit certain types of thinking, forcing everyone to think in the ways that are left, which conveniently benefit one group attempting to take over what's left of Western Civilization.

Having a positive goal like this, and basing it on civility and not political alignment, is intelligent. It nurtures rather than censors.

Re:Better than SJW/PC COCs

[Entrope]

Only your first sentence was at all accurate. Political correctness started out as a way to silence and suppress people with the wrong politics -- whether they disagreed with the Communist Party or some other totalitarian regime -- and continues to have the same essential character today. Identifying it is not a suppressive action.

Re:Better than SJW/PC COCs

[slack_justyb]

Political correctness is a silencing tactic

No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone). Likewise, guns are really handy tools, but a few asshats tend to fuck it up for everyone else by killing folks with them.

By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant

No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true. Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.

The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith

Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.

It really got going in the 80s when people...(rest of your comment)

No, this has always been a tactic in politics. It's centrist versus polarity, but PC is just the new name for it. And the polarity folks on either side use it as a tool for their narrative. In US politics I always like to apply the accelerator/brake metaphor for the polarity ends. The far left tend to be the accelerator "You're message isn't forceful enough, it needs to explicitly say what CAN and CANNOT be done or else it is just garbage." The far right tend to be the brake "Your group's mission will inevitably lead to everyone being lawsuited to death!" The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.

Your comment isn't wrong, but it's assuming that PC is strictly defined as how it is being used and that's pretty depressing because it almost foregoes the fact that once upon a time it actually meant holding a centrist view and attempting to be affable to everyone. Maybe I'm naive in holding onto an archaic way of thinking.

Re:Better than SJW/PC COCs

[jeff4747]

and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity

Why?

Multiple Congressmen have died in duels. There was literally an assault in the Senate chamber.

The relative bipartisanship from roughly the 1940s to roughly the 1980s was an artifact of the Southern realignment. Before this, there were Republicans in all-but-name representing much of the South because Southerners hated the idea of voting for "the party of Lincoln". So while technically the various caucuses in Congress were party aligned, there also was a split between Southern Democrats/Western Republicans vs Northern Democrats and Republicans. So the leaders in Congress had to maintain their party split and the ideological split at the same time, resulting in far more bipartisanship than had ever happened before.

Then we get to the 1960s and civil rights legislation, and Southerners decided they hated black people more than they hated voting for "the party of Lincoln", so the Southern Democrats gradually converted to formally being members of the Republican party.

Once the Southern realignment was done, we went back to business as usual. And that isn't bipartisanship.

Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground

Think about any controversial issue today. There is not a stable middle ground.

Subsidized shitty private insurance is not a middle ground between what the parties want in healthcare.
There is not a middle ground between "you are slaughtering children" and "the state can not be given absolute control of someone's uterus".
"We should only sort-of invade countries" is not a middle ground between conquest and non-intervention.
Just like there was no way to successfully compromise between slavery and freedom.

There is conflict because these issues can not be solved by compromise.

Re:Better than SJW/PC COCs

[Stolovaya]

Incorrect.

Political Correctness is the idea that feelings are the most important thing, particularly over facts. Take the Healthy At Every Size (HAES) movement. This is probably the shining definition of PC. Of course, if you have anything critical to say about HAES, you are a fat shamer, you hate people, you're a bigot, etc.

You are right. PC is used to silence, but not in the way that you write about. It's dresses up being a bully as "being kind", because you're doing it in defense of perceived (rightly so or not) marginalized people. And you're allowed to do nearly anything in defense of those people, including being just as bad as the ones you're fighting against.

Agree with guideline #2. Bless RMS. Hopes he survi

[Anonymous Coward]

2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a
specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't
think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there
is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the
problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out
on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in
demographic D.

Re4lated article - Weaponized Empathy

[SuperKendall]

It's interesting that a bunch of ideas seem to be floating around the same time now about improving communities - that article yesterday on the monastic code of conduct for SQLLite, this ideal from GNU, and also an article I read recently on Weaponized Empathy - the kinds of behaviors you want to lock out of communities as soon as you see them to keep them healthy.

It seems like between the three ideas you could build up pretty solid community and moderation guidelines that would really make for a lasting peace and a great place to hang out on the internet.

Re:Re4lated article - Weaponized Empathy

[AmiMoJo]

It's a great document. Slashdot could benefit from a lot of these ideas:

"Please assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say."
"Please do not criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they actually say and actually do."

"Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person."

"Please recognize that criticism of your statements is not a personal attack on you."

"Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group."

"Please respond to what people actually said, not to exaggerations of their views."

There is no difference, that's the point

[SuperKendall]

What makes Rich-shart Stallman any more of a moral authority than the twitter team at Steakums (tm) or the good folk at Firestorne Tyres (tm)?

He is not any more or less of an expert than those people - and that's the whole point.

What he is is human, and fundamentally, deep down, all humans know how to be kind.

Ideas like these (not rules) help guide someone to remembering what it means to be kind, that other people are generally trying to be kind also and to remember that as well.

There will always be some outliers but the point is to at least try, if you don't take a first step you'll never get anywhere.

Re:There is no difference, that's the point

[Rei]

What he is is human, and fundamentally, deep down, all humans know how to be kind.

No matter how kind you think you are, German children are kinder.

Re:There is no difference, that's the point

[ArghBlarg]

This is excellent news. A proactive, gentle reminder to all to be kinder is a positive step.

And, the reaction to this, by those some pejoratively call 'SJWs' will be telling: if what they truly want is peaceful and respectful interactions in and around software projects, they should be optimistic at this development.

If, on the other hand, their *real* goal is surreptitious power grabs via identity-politics-based using reverse discrimination and 'victimhood' to tear down whatever 'privilege' structure bothers them, then this will make them go absolutely *nuts*.

In the end, if the code is bad, it won't work, so who wrote it is ultimately irrelevant.

Re:Agree with guideline #2. Bless RMS. Hopes he su

[AmiMoJo]

RMS manages to explain the goals of people concerned about things like diversity really well. His footnote about genderless pronouns is really good too, taking it as written that a person's gender identity is their identity but also showing how what matters is respecting that, not the exact words or conforming to some arbitrary standard.

I'm always impressed by his ability to think and write clearly, getting to the heart of the matter in a concise way.

Re:IT's all so tiresome

[jareth-0205]

I will communicate with people how I feel they deserve to be communicated with.

Indeed, please do. And those communities will be just as free to shun you for being an arsehole.

Compare with "How to ask questions the smart way"

[karlandtanya]

It seems that parents are no longer teaching their children how to behave in public.
Obviously this didn't start last week, because a lot of the offenders have been out of the house for a long time.
Lately it seems that it's become so prevalent that we need some (more) remedial education.

ESR's essay is instructive to people who want to participate in geek culture but don't yet know the social norms therein. It seems lately that the prerequisites for participating in any culture at all--starting with recognizing that dignity in others and in ones self are missing.

The grumpy old man in me suspects that society is crumbling and this is a doomed attempt to patch it.
The hopeful old man in me knows we have been assholes to each other for a long time and enough of us are fed up that all of are starting to hear about it.

This kind of self-discipline by communities is a messy process, but it really does seem like it's worth a try.

Re:That just proves the stupidity of your side

[Oceanplexian]

Do Chinese Americans still face a lot of problems stemming from history? You know, given that Chinese were effectively slave labor in the late 1800s, or that most Americans were blatantly racist against Chinese people for the better part of two centuries? Actually no, they don't. That's because victim culture isn't part of their ethos. If you go back far enough we are all "descendants of slaves", or something equally as bad in one form or another. The Irish came to America to escape starvation and were then exploited. It was not uncommon for (white) women and children were effectively worked to death in textile mills in the 1800s and early 1900s. How are their descendants doing today? Do they blame all their problems on things "stemming from history"?

Slavery is over. It has been over for over 150 years. It was a terrible time in history, but guess what.. there are lots of them. Communism tortured, killed, and dehumanized millions of more people and is celebrated by the same people who support affirmative action and repatriations for slavery. How about, instead of blaming our current problems on long-dead generations past, maybe people of all races and backgrounds should be held accountable for their actions in the present?