> Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it?

I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries!

All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where I set my boundaries has no bearing on what Andrew should write on their website.

If Andrew alienates people by his writing, it's his decision, his action, his consequences that he has to deal with. How does it matter where I draw the line?

▲

petersellers 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries.

That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#safe-constructive-only

> I do but I decline to share it here

The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist - it's an attempt to find a common denomiator so that it can help foster a community where people can feel included without feeling like they are being attacked or insulted.

▲

throwaway150 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct

Yes, he did. It is funny. I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it. If you are bothered so much by this violation, file an official report on their issue tracker.

> The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist

When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist. Thank you very much. I am not morality police. Neither are you.

My morality applies to myself. Andrew's morality applies to himself. But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker. If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them. That'd be fair.

▲

petersellers 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yes, he did. It is funny.

Yeah, it’s hilarious! Calling someone a monkey is such a clever and thought provoking insult!

> I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it

If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

> When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist.

I really don’t think you know why CoC’s exist, because you are chastising people when they point out a legitimate violation (e.g. being the "morality police").

> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point

Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

> If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them

No thank you. I’m not actually offended by what he said, I just find it weird when people rush to his defense on this.

▲

throwaway150 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

I'm not confused by anything. That was a rhetorical question. I continue to respond because there are other things that I care about and I have things to say about that. I don't care about what style or tone or words Andrew choses on their website. But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly. So that's why I continue to respond.

> Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Credit where credit is due. If you make good points I agree with, I'll certainly say that.

> Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Because there are other points of yours I don't agree with.

Must a person always 100% agree or 100% disagree? Can a person not 10% agree and 90% disagree? The latter is happening here.

▲

petersellers 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly

This appears to be a strawman. You already admitted he violated the CoC - so he is in the wrong here.

I'm not sure what else there is to disagree with - that's been my assertion from the beginning.

If he wants to write childish stuff on his own website that is not covered by the CoC, that's his choice. I'm also free to express my opinion on that, but I never implied that he shouldn't be able to write whatever he wanted on his own personal blog.

▲

throwaway150 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You already admitted he violated the CoC - so he is in the wrong here

I didn't say that. This is what I said -

"But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker."

Emphasis: "may", "I don't know if", "If you know more".

▲

petersellers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You did say that. You performed a stealth edit and modified your comment, but fortunately I quoted what you originally said in my previous comment:

> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point

Since you’ve just proven yourself to not be arguing in good faith, this will be my last response to you.

	▲	throwaway150 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not a stealth edit. It's an open edit. HN allows edits for 2 hours for good reason. I misspoke first when I thought the CoC applies to him. Obviously I don't know for sure since I hadn't read the CoC. So I corrected myself to be less sure. But you chose to reply to my outdated message although at the time you were replying my message said that I wasn't sure whether the CoC applies or not.

▲

throwawaymaths 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

read the CoC carefully, it says which spaces are governed by it. the website does not seem to be. that's deliberate, the CoC only applies to "working" spaces.

▲

ncruces 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If it was a company, you'd say the CoC is meant for lackeys, not for C-suites.

▲

LinXitoW 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it's meant for interactions inside the company, not towards random giant corporations outside of it.

	▲	ncruces an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Made by monkeys and losers (because everyone else has left) does not target the company, but its employees.

▲

yunohn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If that is how you feel, why are you spending multiple comments defending the language used? It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.

	▲	throwaway150 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If that is how you feel, why are you spending multiple comments defending the language used? I don't care much about the language used. I neither intend to defend it nor criticize it. But I do care about people trying to be morality police. That's why I am spending multiple comments here. > It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand. Yes, the reason is that my line applies to myself. My line doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to Andrew. So my line, which is a personal and private matter for me, isn't something I want to share here. It is irrelevant when talking about the words Andrew chose on his website. That's the reason. It's a simple reason. Don't overthink it!