> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt...
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
So simply having an opinion and expressing it counts as "intimidation" now? I have to point out that one aspect of an organization's culture that actually creates hostility and exclusion is punishing people for engaging in good-faith discussion. (And if the dialogue in question was not in good faith, why not put that at the top?) It's not enough for someone to engage in the process and help the team reach the best outcome. Their opinion must also be the correct one, or else.
Look, I'm an outsider here, so there are obviously a lot of details I'm missing, but this doesn't look good to someone reading it without context, and I don't think it makes the PSF look good. How it reads is "hey, we're writing to let you know we're banning someone. We won't say who it is, and we won't say exactly what they did, but the two top things came down to differences of opinion."
I would love to be wrong about all of this, because I especially don't like seeing it in an open-source organization that's so integral to my own work.
This is why I am generally not a supporter of these CoCs based on how I have seen them play out negatively over and over again, and I share the same sentiment as others in this thread that have mentioned the same.
My understanding based on talking to others who DO like them, is that the rules they put in there are an attempt to show contributors (and potential new contributors) that they will be welcome in this community and shouldn't have to worry about being harassed or ridiculed etc. in the hopes that they can point to specific violations and have moderators deal with it if something happens.
But moderators already had that power. And the terms they use in these documents are quite subjective, and so the interpretation ends up being left up to the moderators, which was already the case anyways. Then you have the people who weaponize the document specifically to use their own interpretations in ways that conflict with how the moderators view it in order to stir up drama and "cancel" people they don't like.
Other projects who try to be more democratic such as Nix etc., from what I can tell, end up getting too focused on endless discussions and disagreements over terminology that not much ends up getting accomplished that way either.
Even when people say simply to keep "politics" out of discussions, then there is always disagreement about what is considered politics, including the people who point out that it's impossible to do anything that's NOT considered politics to someone e.g. "everything is political" if you look at it that way.
I'm not sure what the solution is but I'd be interested to hear some ideas.
The claim that there’s no empirical evidence of “reverse sexism” is particularly absurd. Women can be just as sexist as men, especially since society deems it to be socially acceptable for women to denigrate men (“men are stupid”) or to objectify men in a way that would lead to severe social consequences if a man were to make similar comments about women.
I suspect what they mean is that they don’t consider such things to be within their definition of sexism because of their socialization. Nothing about empiricism.
You are missing a key point of their worldview: *Everything* comes down to 'critical theory' in one way or another. Whether you are focusing on race, sex, or anything else that can be the subject of criticism the outcome is the same.
Women CANT be sexist, because 'men' have more privilege and historically have less authority. So as the oppressed sex, they can't be sexist because they 'lack power'. So statements like "I hate all men, they are stupid violent thugs" are not viewed as sexist.
The same goes for race -- while you didn't call it out specifically, it's the exact same mindset. It doesn't matter if a BIPOC person literally kills a White person and says "I hate all white people and I killed them because they are white". This is not racist to these people, because that person supposedly lacks 'power'.
They (hypothetically) had and utilized the power to kill, but that isn't 'real' or 'institutional' power, so it simply does not count.
Both concepts are equally stupid and fly in the face of reality. And the inevitable outcome is CONSTANT conflict.
The conflict stems from being 'critical' of these different institutions and people who have 'power' or 'privilege' -- but the cycle never ends, so even if you manage to remove all Men or White people from existence, a power vacuum will exist and the criticism will be levied on whomever fills the role.
It's the perfect way to perpetually conquer and divide, where you get to claim perpetual victim status, while ensuring the voice of the majority -never- matters because of their supposed 'institutional power'. The end result of this thinking will be less tolerance, less diversity, and more asinine stuff like this python situation.
They mean EXACTLY what they said, take them at their word.
Not that I agree with it, the argument about “reverse sexism/racism” is that the judgements are based upon the identity group as a whole not as an individual. When taken in aggregate it is deemed that the smaller group is the one discriminated against.
The answer to this is to argue that it’s incorrect to take an overall statistic and apply it to an individual or smaller organisation in that group.
I skimmed through that looking for the context. It seems to be that Tim didn't want the governing group to have even more power to kick people out of the project, argued his point eloquently and was then kicked off the project. E.g.
> Like David too, I’m not opposed to making it impossible for the Board to do this on its own - I just want a higher bar than a simple majority vote. My years on the Board matched David’s experience: votes were usually unanimous. If there’s reasonable disagreement, under most systems of juistice that favors the accused
Initial impression to an outsider is that python's council is in the wrong here. Read a fair amount of that thread now and Tim seems pretty reasonable to me. Which does align with my mistrust of CoC structures I suppose.
What makes this "discussion" even more suspicious is how the (arguably justified) fear that this could lead to a Nix-style takeover is answered each time with "no problem here, just The Nix Community^tm doing what's right".
Of course, your interpretation will vary with your ideology.
>This is of course one specific point out of the 10 listed points
One specific point out of several more equally bogus points a person with an actual conscience would have felt shame to bring up as an excuse to suspend someone like Tim.
> It’s weird to not name them, but not linking to the thread is appropriate.
It looks like they're applying the Met Police standard: even discussing it in specific terms is "an offence" because of the potential for attracting sympathy for the offender.
Stepping back to observe a general pattern: When an organization permits and spends a disproportionate amount of time on nonsense and/or unfair governance then it could be too caught up in drama like ideological wars instead of its original mission. At that point, high performing and interesting people disengage or find another organization that doesn't waste their time or energy.
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence
Yeah, racism and sexism goes in all directions, at relatively equal rates. The key thing being the _power asymmetry_ that makes certain groups differently visible (and effective in their bigotry) than others.
Saying that bigotry does not flow in a particular direction is cultivated ignorance at best, and maliciously dismissive bigotry at worst.
Very bad look. They ask for discussion but when someone brings them counterpoints they suspend them for three months. I read the discussion and I'm assuming it's about Tim Peters. But his responses seem normal and not at all something that even almost should warrant a ban. This is almost cartoonish level of power abuse.
There ought to be an SNL Western sketch where robbers and cowboys act and interact like FOSS software developers revolving around a theme of "Agree with my social framework and do as I say, or I kill you!"
FOSS Codes of Conduct aside from obvious basics like "be polite" and such, is just a way for people who thrive on office-politics style backstabbing to get their way - in the process diverting a project from its technical goals. It's the corporate cancer now imposed upon FOSS.
Contributing to any such project is not worth it anymore. Someone like Tim has devoted decades of his life working for Python.
What modern FOSS projects need is a reverse Code of Conduct, explicitly telling the kind of people who hijack the project discussion and try to play these games to fuck off and that they're not welcome, and that the focus is the tech.
I haven't read the thread/s yet but this kind of thing always sets off an alarm in my head, lots of programmers are basically socially retarded in many ways, what happens if the bar for exclusion starts to drop?
I also don't like the "the battle ground for the ideology of tomorrow is this programing forum!" mindset but that's slightly deeper.
Yep. I was banned from the Ruby community on Github for literally nothing misinterpretation without any chance of clarification. That's the sort of standard FOSS short-shrift, rude, humorless, victimhood-point counting, cliquey, infantile elitism that is the norm rather than the exception. Communities who let in the crybullies, dramatic lawyers, and narcissists to run things dissipate into shit. Forgiveness, tolerance, chill, and benefit-of-the-doubt are lost arts.
Communities who let in the crybullies, dramatic lawyers, and narcissists to run things dissipate into shit. Forgiveness, tolerance, chill, and benefit-of-the-doubt are lost arts.
I need to print this out and frame it. same can be said for many companies.
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic)... The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion.
These two are insane. I'm almost speechless.
The rest don't sound good, and would be enough for a suspension on their own if presented truthfully. So why put those first two? Why put them first?
EDIT: Since no one has linked to it yet, this seems to be the discussion referenced. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, I admit, but what I read so far looks like one person in particular disagreeing with the prevailing opinion in a fairy respectful way: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...
Yes. He was referring to a python package called "slut". Instead of using that word he already self-censored - but still they twisted that in one of the most childish instances of disingenenuety, leaving out as much context as one could without being too obvious.
They also referred to it with two bullet points, conveniently spaced to make it seem like separate incidents.
Maybe because they are less obviously bad but they were nonetheless the biggest issues. I've found this before with problematic individuals on forums.
They rarely break "obviously bad" rules because they know they'll get the ban hammer and everyone will agree they they deserved it.
Instead they cause just as much havoc and disruption by doing things that don't seem that bad when they are accused of them.
Eventually they cross the line and get banned anyway, but the moderators have to struggle to explain why and if it leaks into another forum you'll get a ton of people defending the problematic person and saying the mods overreacted. When in reality everyone's probably been struggling to deal with this person's disruptions for months or even years.
So, people manage to express dissent while following all the rules and this is somehow a bad thing? You can't just handwave people away by pretending to be a mind reader and proclaiming firm opposition is "obviously" trolling or arguing in bad faith.
Affirmative action is taken when the outcome does not match the expected value assuming all contenders were equal and the mismatch is explained by racism. This assumption however falls apart considering that Asians do face racism and yet their outcomes are better than expected. Affirmative action does play a role in them being effectively disadvantaged even over whites, e.g. for college admissions.
So only white people have power? I doubt that's true for most countries in the world. Hell the president of the United States was black not that long ago.
> the argument that racism is "prejudice plus power.
Is it difficult for you to understand that two people might mean different things by the same word? One might say "racism is discrimination based on race", and the other might say ".... But it's only relevant coming from those with actual power". The concept for two people talking past each other should be pretty intuitive to any adult, but when it comes to this specific topic it's like people dont understand it (or pretend not to)
I really hope the sole comment in the original thread is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise I'll lose the little hope in society I didn't know I still had left.
I dug into that link where SNL is mentioned and honestly the connection made there to me seems a bit of a stretch.
I'm not in the Python ecosystem but I've seen this sort of drama in the Node.js community and, aside from resulting in a fork, it spurred a debate about governance of the project and an eventual change.
I thought he was just trying to allude to the word slut without actually saying it. They were talking about a package being banned because it was a wordplay on a slur and another package and I guess the name of the package was 'SLUT' and the other package was 'LUT' (pylut?).
> One of the very few split decisions I recall from my Board days would fall under the “CoC” label today. It was about kicking a package off of PyPI, because its docs repeatedly used a word that Dan Akroyd used to apply to Jane Curtin (brilliant comic actors from America’s “Saturday Night Live” TV show, but back in the days when it was genuinely funny :wink:).
> It won’t surprise anyone that I was one of only two who voted to leave the (seemingly dead anyway) package alone. The other has also been active in this thread, but I don’t want to name them lest they get even more death threats than usual :wink:
Also, if this was the statement from Tim Peters that the python statement:
> Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members.
was referring to. Then it is a misrepresentation of what Tim said. Because Tim didn't say the skit using the slur was "genuinely funny". He said the show was "genuinely funny". However, there are a bunch of removed comments from Tim in the discussion so it could have been referring to a different message.
The "council" members have chased away all reasonable people. One of the problems is that 90 core developers can vote for the council, but virtually all of them are inactive.
So they never set foot on GitHub or even the discussion platforms. They have no clue what is going on and still think everything is like in the good old times.
Couple this with the fact that only ragingly power hungry people apply for the council. There is a severe shortage of candidates.
So, in the elections the nasty people get something like 30 out of 90 votes. Since hardly anyone of the electorate has the faintest idea of what is actually going on (see above) and relies on official spin stories of the council members, who block opposing opinions, they can do what they like.
All people who oppose the inner circle are removed, defamed and silenced.
This is like (hypothetically) Trump first banning a Democrat from voting and then removing him from the U.S. entirely.
Codes of conduct all feature worthiness being assessed by a small group of special individuals who then declare judgement without rationale.
There are competing political systems to that one. The CoC enthusiasts are (likely to be) based in democratic systems so ignorance is not their reason for choosing this structure.
A couple of groups I'm involved with have gone down the mandatory code of conduct route. I do not feel safer with a mechanism for summary execution in place.
Specifically if I disagree with one of the chosen, they can solve that disagreement by excommunication. Thus when one of them spews insane nonsense the project tends to take damage instead of discussing saner alternatives. Worse, the connections of friendship / nepotism can be hard to detect from outside the inner circle, so disagreeing with anyone might be game over. Thus the system rots. But at least it gave power to the few for a period of time.
My primary takeaway from this particular case is that Tim seems more reasonable than the governing board so I'm less likely to use Python in future - both because squashing discussion usually leads to technical decay and because the project as a whole looks more likely to implode over time.
Codes of Conducts are "cider house rules" that are rarely or never followed with consistency or fairness. As such, they are absolutely pointless because the social contract is already implicit. Their existence merely reinforces a form of elitism.
> The name "The Cider House Rules" refers to the list of rules that migrant workers are supposed to follow at the Ocean View Orchards. However, none of them can read, and they are completely unaware of the rules – which have been posted for years. [Basically, they're a EULA.]
Sarcasm noted. Interestingly, this has been tried before[1] prior to DNA testing and apparently DNA testing doesn't provide the desired results since indigenous ancestry is apparently rarer than is socially-acceptable.
I know this type, they definitely know how to belabor a point, and their language can be "colorful". I read through a bunch of comments, and on a scale from 0 to Terry Davis, Tim seems like a 1 or 2, annoying and crotchety but well-meaning and mild-mannered (Linus would be an 8 on this scale). Suspension is a drastic move, and it's hard both to suspend[0] and to be suspended, so I hope the PSF engaged with him offline first.
After reading that python discussion I have a very hard time believing the suspension was warranted unless there are some major factors i'm missing. It looks like a relatively cordial discussion yet in the suspension notice his posts are framed as having created "an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt".
I can't believe the offensive word / slur that is mentioned is the word "slut", which was said in reference to a pypi package that was removed back in the day. He even censored the word and made the SNL reference so that people would know what the word was. So according to the suspension notice the following comment was showing lack of empathy to the community members, which is just wild to me: "It was about kicking a package off of PyPI, because its docs repeatedly used a word that Dan Akroyd used to apply to Jane Curtin (brilliant comic actors from America’s “Saturday Night Live” TV show, but back in the days when it was genuinely funny".
Couldn't agree more. Must be politics. The reasons sited for the suspension totally misrepresent the conversation too. It'd be nice to know what's actually going on.
If there's a justified reason to suspend, and the community genuinely believes it's necessary, then it doesn’t suck — it’s a responsible action. But if there's not enough cause and you're being pressured into such decisions, it's time to stand strong and consider stepping down from the Steering Council and Core team. (Would that be a 9 on your "typing" scale?)
its not useful, I can't tell what a 1 or a 2 is if I don't know the value of "Terry Davis". 1 or 2 is bad if "Terry Davis" is 3 but we don't know that.
Certainly there are people more offensive than Terry Davis, I'll allow that items on this scale could be at 11, maybe even 12. It's just that the top of this scale is 10 :)
For anyone on the outside, this appears to be an intensely rash decision. I can rest assured that Tim Peters found trauma in the experience of being suspended as the level of appropriate communication is never met, neither in this announcement, nor in Lukaz Langa's persistent references [1] [2] to rapists when discussing conduct on an internet forum.
I'm sure there are reasons to become a python core developer, but open hostility and defaulting to homogeneity have rarely been experienced as acceptance by me; they simply scale in ways easily implemented across a wide audience.
De-escalation and finding middle ground without validating harmful behavior do not scale well but then again, there has never been a capitalist movement behind finding a solution which works
Sorry in advance if this is "a bit" flamebait-y, but the irony is too strong for me to not point out:
Working around another person’s problematic behavior and having to teach newcomers to the group to do the same is a known psychological antipattern.
When talking about "neurodivergent" people having communication issues, but the now enshrined "use my pronouns or else" thing is conveniently forgotten.
There's a huge gap between someone being an odious asshole whom everyone just accepts, and, "this is how I'd prefer to be addressed".
Like, if a "Robert" says "I prefer Bob" and you still call them Robert, you're choosing to make them unhappy. If someone says, "I prefer they/them" and you use her, you are choosing to make them unhappy.
If someone says "I will be an asshole in public and won't accept critique on that" and everyone is like "this guy's an ass but deal with it" that's a problem with the community that should be addressed.
Can I just say what a genuinely fascinating perspective you have there
That pronouns are somehow an exercise of power that must be submitted to, and not just a common courtesy because we're not all sensitive snowflakes
And that this is in any way remotely comparable to being tortured and killed for religious beliefs
I wonder how you feel about the nearly 1.7% of people born intersex that you meet and definitely work with, that have been newborns treated by your own GP... occupying possibly the "wrong" pronoun according to whatever this week's definition of Definitely Binary means
I'm sure people getting tortured and killed for religious beliefs will definitely relate to this discussion
>whatever this week's definition of Definitely Binary means
Humans are definitely sexually binary, much like how they are definitely bipedal. Genetic abnormalities prove the rule: humans only produce two types of gametes, sperm (male) and egg cells (female). There are no other types of gametes.
> not just a common courtesy because we're not all sensitive snowflakes
It's not courtesy if it's non consensual, same way that wealth redistribution isn't charity. Statistically and rhetorically speaking, the pronouns enforcers' beneficiaries are the sensitive snowflakes who can't do with a few people not indulging in their delusions.
You completely misunderstand the point. The vastly different level of threat itself is of no importance to the comparison, since the goal isn't to enact said threat, it's to force people to publicly betray their convictions, to mentally castrate them. It's nothing more than Orwell's "2 + 2 = 5", if you prefer this analogy.
Maybe it's a special snowflake thing to want to live with your head held high, standing for what you think is true, what do I know...
> I wonder how you feel about the nearly 1.7% of people born intersex that you meet and definitely work with
There's nothing to feel, these people are neither male or female and would indeed deserve a specific pronoun, but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people.
Also, your 1.7% is a bit biased, reading its source from Wikipedia's article.
> It's not courtesy if it's non consensual, same way that wealth redistribution isn't charity
I truly don't understand what you are talking about. When I was in primary school, and perhaps in no small part due to some prosopagnosia, I was unable to determine the gender of my peers reliably. This occasionally resulted in violence as I misgendered peers.
Do you live in a part of the world where you can use whatever pronouns you want on people?
If no, what exactly are we disagreeing about?
> standing for
Can you explain what, exactly, it is that you're standing for?
> There's nothing to feel, these people are neither male or female and would indeed deserve a specific pronoun, but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people
That's why they generally choose one or the other? Occasionally, someone will prefer a "non-standard" pronoun but I have never faced someone that didn't accept "they" (which, by the way, was my coping strategy in my childhood - when in doubt, use "they"! This was in pre-internet era of regional Queensland, Australia, where we barely had dictionaries, let alone knew what a pronoun even was)
You've obviously put a lot of energy and thought into this issue but I'm not exactly sure what the issue /is/
Good, so you agree that explicitly refusing to call someone what they want to be called is against common courtesy, since you are using a word to refer to a person that they have not consented to be called.
> but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people
If you could make all cars perfectly suitable for one-armed people for very low effort and without deteriorating the experience for two-armed people, you'd be an asshole not to do it. Just like a person tends to be an asshole if they refuse to call a person what they want to be called.
I generally go by my middle name. I have done so since before it was even my decision to do so, my parents made that decision for me and I have chosen to remain doing so. I have had multiple jobs where middle management and even co-workers would steadfastly refuse to use my middle name, instead trying to call for me by my first name that I have never listened for in my entire life. This continued even after speaking to them about it after them complaining that I didn't hear them call for me because they used the wrong name. That is the same level of assholery.
Reads like Wikipedia. One thing I learn there is that every accusation should be excessively sourced. People who don't do that aren't necessarily lying but they shouldn't be trusted.
Given the long list of things, as an outsider, it seems like this person was quite disruptive to the community.
It doesn't seem like there's a "this one post was sus", but rather, "we've exhausted other options after repeated violations of our rules across many, many threads."
This seems like basic moderation of a community, and good on the mods for applying their rules even to a core developer?
Reading Tim's posts gives me the exact opposite impression. As far as I can tell, his "defense of "reverse racism"" was simply:
> Can’t say I’ve paid it much attention in recent years. Last time I did, “all races can be prejudiced, but only whites can be racist” was the Correct View™. [...]
> While it still largely makes good sense to me, I don’t want to see the PSF insisting that any other view can only be held in “bad faith”. Other views are common too. Among people of my age, very common. I can attest from personal experience that some people near my age never even heard of the view the PSF endorses. [0]
So, to my understanding, PSF's stance is that only white people can be racist. Tim's supposed offence wasn't even disagreeing with that, but saying that people who don't share that stance aren't acting in bad faith.
The slur alluded to was when discussing removal of a PyPI package named "slut". Instead of using the word directly, Tim said:
> It was about kicking a package off of PyPI, because its docs repeatedly used a word that Dan Akroyd used to apply to Jane Curtin (brilliant comic actors from America’s “Saturday Night Live” TV show, but back in the days when it was genuinely funny). [1]
It all seems exceptionally mild to me. I'm not sure if this is an escalation of purity standards, or those in power wanted him gone for other reasons (like the mentioned questioning of PSF decisions) so twisted anything they could find to match CoC terms.
The wanted him gone because he repeatedly has pointed out double standards. That is to say, the ruling class who verbally and with empty phrases assert their morality are as undiplomatic as the dissenters they prosecute.
They are even more rude and certainly more mean, because issuing official sounding invented negative character pictures is far more damaging than a single person occasionally going off on a rant.
Python-dev is a now full blown dictatorship, and speaking the truth is not allowed.
They are probably also afraid because Google fired the Python team that contained some members of the ruling class, so they double down.
"Core team members are expected to act as role models for the community."
Seriously? Who on earth could possibly say that Tim Peters isn't the embodiment of this? It’s utterly ridiculous to even question whether he’s a role model. This kind of talk is completely out of touch with reality.
This is hard to evaluate without a reference to the discussion the individual is supposed to have negatively impacted.
This may be anything between shutting down someone derailing the discussion by spouting genuine nonsense, to being overreaching and paternalistic, punishing for not conforming to the preordained outcome of a farcical "discussion".
Seems like it was many many threads, and the mods looked at them in aggregate. Though they did call out one thread in particular, it doesn't seem like that one thread was the primary motivator here.
This reads like mods, doing modding, which is always a judgement call and never black and white.
It often feels like we've lost the ability to truly connect with each other as human beings, replacing genuine respect and understanding with hypocrisy and superficiality. In today's society, there's a growing sense that many of our conversations and actions are driven more by a need to conform to trends than by authentic values.
When we start dividing ourselves and others into categories based on race, gender, origin, or other characteristics, we lose sight of our shared humanity. Instead of recognizing each individual as a person with unique thoughts and feelings, we resort to generalizations and stereotypes, leading to further division and alienation.
As a society, we need to remember that, above all, we are all human beings. We must listen to each other, understand, and accept our differences, while also recognizing that we have much more in common than what separates us. Sincerity, respect, and empathy are the qualities that help us stay connected as humans, despite our differences.
Additionally, it's crucial that we approach the communication styles of elderly individuals with greater attention and tolerance. Their way of expressing themselves might differ from what we’re used to, shaped by different experiences and cultural contexts, but this doesn’t make their perspectives any less valuable. We should strive to be more understanding and patient, recognizing that everyone has something important to contribute, regardless of how they communicate.
Let's reflect on how our words and actions impact others, and make an effort to be more mindful of those around us. Being human means understanding and feeling, not just following social norms or external pressures.
> Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.
Why shouldn’t neurodivergent people get special treatment if they have a disorder/issue? Seems like accommodations should be made to promote inclusion.
This isn't what that says. This is saying that when a neurodiverse person breaks decorum (read: is a giant asshole), the correct behavior is to let that person know they are having an impact and give them grace to grow their skills.
Saying, "they are allowed to be assholes because they are neurodiverse" does nothing to help the neurodiverse person, and creates a stigma.
I'm autistic. I constantly tell myself, "being autistic is not an excuse for being an asshhole. I have to work harder to not be an asshole, but I can learn it ".
The issue is that the people in charge in the Python community are not "letting [neurodivergent people] know they are having [a negative] impact". At best they are simply shutting down opinions they don't like, regardless of who expresses them. In many cases, though, complaints about those posts are presented more like open invitations to debate, natural responses to which are then treated as further evidence of malfeasance. (The entire situation reminds me very strongly of how James Damore was treated at Google.)
Certainly there is no attempt to justify that talking about whatever issue is inappropriate, and certainly there is no attempt to connect such justification to the Code of Conduct. (Please ctrl-F that Code of Conduct - https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ - for any mention of "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism", for example. Or try to find the part that explains how typing "XXXX" and giving hints about what specific naughty word it stands for, in the context of relating a story about taking action to block a PyPI package given that name, is verboten.)
With respect, I don't think you actually have to work harder. The onus should be on others to recognize that you genuinely aren't being an asshole just because you, e.g., said something that makes them uncomfortable or challenges their worldview. Certainly they should be expected to recognize that, if you appear to understand emoji differently from how they do, perhaps it would be kinder for them to try to figure out how you're understanding them, rather than objecting to how you use them based on that understanding. But that is not a courtesy that was extended to Mr. Peters (nor to myself), as far as I can see.
I mean, there are situations where there could be a bit wiggling room to allow a neurodiverse person to break decorum a bit. For example, if someone has tourette they could be excused a bit the same way an autistic person can be excused a bit for not noticing a subtle social cue.
But there is a clear difference between allowing a bit of leeway to break decorum and allowing one to be a massive asshole.
I think there is a balance, like everything in life.
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
So simply having an opinion and expressing it counts as "intimidation" now? I have to point out that one aspect of an organization's culture that actually creates hostility and exclusion is punishing people for engaging in good-faith discussion. (And if the dialogue in question was not in good faith, why not put that at the top?) It's not enough for someone to engage in the process and help the team reach the best outcome. Their opinion must also be the correct one, or else.
Look, I'm an outsider here, so there are obviously a lot of details I'm missing, but this doesn't look good to someone reading it without context, and I don't think it makes the PSF look good. How it reads is "hey, we're writing to let you know we're banning someone. We won't say who it is, and we won't say exactly what they did, but the two top things came down to differences of opinion."
I would love to be wrong about all of this, because I especially don't like seeing it in an open-source organization that's so integral to my own work.