If someone has stated what they wish to be called by, and rather than respecting their wishes, you choose to go down a tangent on how what you said is not a problem, then that is condescending, whether you intended it or not. Although I would have a very difficult time believing that someone who did that did not intend to be condescending.
From the context supplied it appears to me that this was a first offense. If it were a repeat offense, I would agree. I still recommend a softer tone. If your goal is to maintain a healthy collaboration, that helps. Either way, the offended party is inferring motives that may or may not be accurate.
Eich's "speech" (his donation to the Prop 8 campaign that would ban gay marriage in California) was telling all of his LGBT employees that he did not believe that they were entitled to the same basic human rights as he was. This is not a simple political disagreement; this is telling those people that he believes they are second class citizens. As a result, many of those employees, as well as other organizations that worked with Mozilla who highly valued inclusion did not feel they could effectively work in such an environment. They wished to exercise their freedom of speech by deciding to no longer associate with Mozilla. Eich chose to step down, recognizing that such actions would be very bad for Mozilla.
As I said, some people disagree that this type of speech is purely "political" - many others take the opposite side and would say that these viewpoints are legitimate political ones (even if they disagree with those viewpoints) which, when expressed in an entirely separate context, should not affect the workplace. I was trying to explain where people disagree.
Not that it's necessarily wrong that he left, but I think it is important to acknowledge that there were people at the time (and now) who felt that this was unfair and that it may have had an impact on certain people's likely participation in political speech, or put some people off contributing/working for Mozilla who otherwise wouldn't have been.
The dividing line between "workplace" and "personal" lives has been blurring for a long time which throws up many of these issues. Many people would like to undo some of that blurring - anti-discrimination laws in effect protect some of this but not all. This becomes even more problematic as the line between "volunteer community" and "workplace" is also increasingly being blurred in Open Source projects.
In the case of Eich, I would perhaps say it would be more accurate to say that he was hounded out - as the context was something coming to light that he'd done years earlier and not in a workplace context, when opinion polls showed the majority of the country agreed with him (and even President Obama agreed with him before Obama changed his mind).
The covenant of civility was already broken by those who hold those religious beliefs. They have attempted, repeatedly, to remove a woman's right to control her own body, and to use the force of government to interfere with attempts to exercise that bodily autonomy. That, to me, is the infinitely more uncivil act. That is the incivility that society should be seeking to correct, not the microscopic incivility of calling someone a mean name.
Please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle. We've discussed this before, but you've reverted with a vengeance. If that doesn't change, we're going to end up having to ban you again.
Obviously that comment was ideological rhetoric, regardless of that else was in there. But the point isn't one specific comment—it's your overall pattern of using HN overwhelmingly for ideological battle. That is an abuse of the site that we're constantly asking people not to do, regardless of which ideology they're battling for.
Since we've asked you many times over a long period, cut you all kinds of slack, and still you seem to have no intention of fixing this, I've banned this account.
Offhand, I can think of maybe a handful of instances where trouble was made by applying the CoC to someone's behavior, either rightly or wrongly. To me, it's seemed that the "trouble" that comes is when a project decides to adopt a CoC, and several members protest agains the idea of having one.
"The problem is that it is often turned into a politics."
Everything is politics. Politics is part of everyone's life, and affects everyone's life. Some more than others, and some have the good fortune to not have to face that fact every day.
No, this attitude is harmful. First, because it dilutes the meaning of the word "politics", which describes something much more specific than "everything". And second, because as you point out in your last sentence, politics is something that can and should be kept separate from many aspects of life.
Inviting politics where it does not belong particularly harms vulnerable populations, because politics is about the use of power and force. We agree to leave our politics at home in many realms of life, and this allows us to band together regardless of our political differences to prevent greedy and powerful people from exploiting those realms.
"politics is something that can and should be kept separate from many aspects of life."
The Trump administration had plans leaked this weekend that stated their intent to change the definition of "gender" so that trans people would not exist to the Federal Government. I'm sorry, but being able to keep politics separate is a privilege.
Listing the outrage du jour is not a good counterargument. The principle of "keep politics where it belongs" is a critical part of your ability to effect political change on issues like yours.
If you abandon it, then it gets much easier to silence unpopular voices -- the cab driver won't take you to the protest march, your ISP shuts down your advocacy domain, facebook bans your support group, all because your politics conflicts with theirs. Total political war is bad for everyone, especially those who are already unpopular.
Cabs are political, see Uber. ISPs are political, see net neutrality and state providing. Facebook is political because it is a corporate entity defined in law.
"X is political because it is a corporate entity defined in law." is a fully general argument that every company ever "is political", which is the dilution into meaningless I mentioned earlier.
And for all the things you mention, I support making them less political rather than more, and so should you. Finding an example of a politicized aspect of a thing is not an argument that it should become more politicized.
That is flat out not true. Someone constantly attacking your character to others is going to have an effect. Those other people may be influenced by what that person says, and that will affect how they perceive you, which will in turn affect your involvement in the project.
"What if the code was indeed garbage, and it cost a lot of time (super precious asset) and brain power (a precious asset) to evaluate and reject?"
Then do so. If you cannot articulate why it's bad, and suggest ways to improve it, then you do not have any business reviewing the code. Review is just as important as writing the code itself, and if you are unable to give that task the attention it deserves, then delegate it to someone who can.
Usually that's because when claims about discrimination against whites and men are made, there's no evidence that they are actively being discriminated against. Rather, the case is usually that they're not being favored as they were. Which, if you are in the previously favored class, may feel like discrimination, but in reality it's simply giving everyone else a chance as well.
This is an example of a bias in perception of discrimination. You dismiss the idea of discrimination of whites and men upfront. You probably believe whites and men are not discriminated against in any substantial way. You are even willing to paint discrimination of whites and men as a "loss of previous favors".
Consider this example: Difference in pay between men and women is a small discomfort (single women can afford 5% smaller homes) while divorce and child custody courts ruin lives (of men in 90% of cases) and cause unbearable pain (due to loss of contact with children). Yet pay equality is talked about and politically pushed through much more than joint child custody. This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination.
This is all a bit OT, but I think it is understood that misjudging discrimination and taking disproportionate action can damage opensource projects.
"You dismiss the idea of discrimination of whites and men upfront."
I'm saying I'm not seeing evidence of any.
"This is what I call bias in perception of discrimination."
You're exhibiting just as much bias as you're accusing others of having. You're picking and choosing what you're considering important to worry about, and dismissing other items.
Because they had already stated what they wished to be called. Once someone does that, conversation on the topic should be done; there is nothing more to be said. Choosing to ignore that is a massive sign of disrespect to the person, and should not be tolerated.
