[Tagging] _Would_ Xist abuse be banned? | Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

[Rory McCann]

On 25.05.19 01:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Threats of violence, racist or sexist abuse would get someone kicked 
> out whether or not we have codified rules or processes.

Really? That should be written down and defined. Because people _always_
argue that what they said wasn't racist/sexist/homophobic. (e.g.
"pantigate"). Hand-wavy "of course we ban X-ist abuse" just isn't good
enough. Absent a proactive declaration that bigotry isn't tolerated,
marginalized people will make the rational decision that it will be
accepted. Many social media sites _claim_ they ban abuse, but e.g. Twitter.

It's the year of our loud two thousand and nineteen, a CoC for your
communication channel is the basics. There should be no problem strictly
defining. and banning, this sort of thing if it's rare? Right? 😉 How
about we copy the diveristy-talk@ CoC (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct )?

> tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't 
> stand that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of 
> that aspect of the project in which such ideas are debated.
NB: Subconscious biases! Which do exist and often affect marginalized
people. People can think they are being objective & giving accurate
criticism, but they might be treating a marginalized person harsher then
they would a privileged person. If you're getting to the level of
different cultural definitions of "respectful", it's hopelessly naive to
pretend subconscious biases don't exist.

> Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of 
> attacking the idea.

On the surface this sounds like a good idea. But I can't help think of
all the bigots who say "hate the sin, love the sinner" (happens a lot
with LGB issues). I'm not sure one can always separate the idea and the
person. Alas this just makes our task harder!

Rory