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

Re: changing flavor of the linux world? was: craig sanders

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jules Bean wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:38:13PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > the course of 10 years.  In fidonet days Craig was just one of many 
> > technically skilled people who didn't mind telling idiots to fuck off...
> Indeed, you think that's a good thing? I've told people to fuck off in
> the past, but I can't remember an instance that I'm proud of..

I have, and some times I'm proud of it, but that's mostly because of the
WAY I've done it: telling people to fuck off is one thing, making people
want to because it's the better alternative is fun.
> > 
> > One thing that you really need to learn is that the Internet is run in an 
> > anarchistic fashion.  You can't force people to do what you want.  If people 
> > do things you dislike then you can filter out their email, use 
> > iptables/ipchains to block their IPs, and pretend that they don't exist.
> All of which is true, I guess, but I don't think it changes the moral
> fact:
> Gratuitously offending and upsetting people is wrong.

No argument

> There are a few people on this list who won't agree with that. There
> are many who would have rather varying definitions of 'gratuitous',
> 'offense' and 'upset', which is the way life is --- these things are
> relative and subjective.

Again, no argument, but it IS making one of my points: you can't muzzle
anyone because somebody took offense: there's no objective way
to tell which one is "in the right".
> Some people are saying that words are irrelevant, you can just ignore
> them. Words aren't irrelevant, they're very powerful (hence this
> discussion).

No argument

> Some people are saying that Thomas should just ignore Craig.  There's
> merit in that view.
> But it really surprises me the amount of people who seem to be saying
> that Craig was right?

Not that Craig was right, that Thomas was in the wrong by suggesting that
Craig be kicked off the mailinglists.  Craig was a bad boy, but you don't
execute somebody for being a bad boy.

> Do you really think it's OK to upset and offend people? Would you
> stand by someone who, when on a train, stoop up and told his fellow
> passengers they were all wankers?  Would you stand by someone who
> regularly in his canteen at work told the cooks they were losers stuck 
> in a dead-end job? 

Would you suggest that they had their tongues cut out for it?

> Do you really think that just because debian is a cooperative anarchy, 
> we should have no standards of decency? [I'm not necessarily that such 
> standards are codified or enforced, I'm suggesting that most of us
> think they exist, deep down]

Standards of Decency, yes: social pressure: yes, kicking off mailinglists
because of profanity: no

> I think that to work together in a large project, it is an important
> exercise to show respect for other participants, even when you think
> they're wrong about something.

No argument.  But the respect has to be mutual, and publically calling for
banning from mailinglists is NOT a sign of respect.

> Jules

<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>

Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
	-- Ferenc Mantfeld

Reply to: