![]() ![]() ![]() Here’s the thing, many projects have adopted CoCs over the last few years because in the absence of specific documents saying “don’t be racist, sexist, antisemitic, transphobic, homophobic, …” there were people doing just that, and then saying it wasn’t against the rules. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etcĪn example of leftist dog whistle behaviour being.? This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptionsĮ.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour.Īgain, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on. If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable. * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on * Reasonable communication of boundaries. These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed. * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ What was discriminatory in the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section? It might have been in DMs but the developer hasn't said anything about it to my knowledge. (they took that idea from, which did not even mention anything about lgbt)Įxample 2: claim that the PolyMC developer received death threats:, I have not seen any evidence for this claim in the repo nor in the reddit and twitter threads. Side note: I find it sad to see how people took the chance to spread misinfo.Įxample 1: claim that the MultiMC (not PolyMC!) developer is an alt right person who hates trans and gay people. I would personally suggest to use this fork because it does not require access to your MS account, so even if it was compromised the risk would end up being limited in comparison. Various people (such as the creator of the PolyMC fork that is confusingly named PollyMC, notice the amount of 'l's) suggest to change the metadata server. A reminder to go to your microsoft account remove consent for PolyMC once you change clients. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |