On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:31 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:29AM +1000, Julian Paul wrote: > It's overly long and convoluted. > > "inclusivity" Is a ideologue buzzword of particular individuals that offer > very little value apart from excessive policing of speech and behaviour > assumed to be a problem where none exist. > > "Personal attacks and negative comments on personal characteristics are > unacceptable, and will not be permitted. Examples of personal > characteristics include, but are not limited to age, race, national origin > or ancestry, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." > > So just leaving it at "Personal attacks" and ending it there won't do > obviously. I'm a big advocate of people sorting out there own personal > disputes in private but... > > "further personal attacks (public or *private*);" > > ...lets assume people don't have the maturity for that and make it all > public. > > "may be considered offensive by fellow members" - Purely subjective and > irrelevant to a piece of community software.
You might notice that a bullet list was removed and those example items were added 18 months ago:
I realize that putting no examples has its attractions, but some felt that having examples would be helpful. I am not a big fan of the "protected groups" concept because it is often exploited, which is why they are listed more as examples.
I suspect most of us could probably get behind the groups listed in the antidiscrimination section of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at least as a compromise.
Quoting the English version:
"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."
The inclusion of "political or any other opinion" is a nice addition and prevents a lot of concern.
