[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The tone of discussion on this list

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Steve Langasek wrote:

Hi Steve, 

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:47:42PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Ghassan_Kanafani wrote:
> > > Can you provide the definitions of anti-semitism and "antirealism" that
> > > you're using?
> > No, this is something that can't be pressed in a proper definition. But if
> > people think that sentences like: 
> > "Either way this ignores the fact that Israel has been murdering Muslims for
> > countless years and the state of Israel sits on occupied Palestinian land.
> > Debian having a conference in contestedland where military conflict and
> > oppressive acts are occurring is unacceptable."
> > (Just one example). 
> > are acceptable on our lists they are wrong.  We can of course now start
> > constructing sentences like those for muslims, hindus or whatever ethnical
> > group.  But I don't want to see someone going that route.
> > So we either discuss in a constructive way or we should stop that
> > discussion now.
> I welcome the listmasters reminding us that we are a community and that the
> tone of our discussions should correspond, and I acknowledge your statement
> that the above message is not acceptable for this reason.
> But as a fellow Debian Developer, I must object to the implication that this
> particular statement is antisemitic.  It is not antisemitic to object to the
> policies of the Israeli government.  It is not antisemitic to characterize
> the actions of the Israeli government as "murder", any more than it is to do
> so in regards to the actions of my own government.
> This is a problematic topic all around; please do not make it more
> problematic with unsubstantiated accusations of racism.
I did not wanted to say its antisemetic, I wanted to say that we don't want
to see either antisemetic _or_ antiisrelism. In my experience most discussions
starting with antiisrealiasm will end with being antisemetic. 

Sorry for not being clear. I just wanted to draw a line for that discussion
that we shouldn't cross. 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: