Re: Social Committee proposal
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:21:44 +0000, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.iki.fi> said:
> On pe, 2007-01-26 at 13:35 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> But this is the problem. It is called selective enforcement
> I thought it was called showing compassion and understanding and
> empathy.
It can. It can also be used punitively. The basic idea is that
having rules on the books that are not enforced except when the
enforcer feels like it empowers the enforcer -- and such can be used
either to favour oens friends, and show compassion and understanding
for them, or to punish ones enemies.
>> Selective enforcement can be chilling.
> Status quo is chilling. I am sure I'm not alone in avoiding
> discussions about Debian issues in public, or at all with a set of
> people, since they always end up with my skin being raw.
And yet, below, you are the first to call me names. Very
interesting. I've rarely seen a sensitive temprament quite so
effectively used as a weapon as you use it. My admiration goes out to
your technique.
> For this discussion, I have borrowed some extra thick armor. I don't
> know how long it will last.
Well, I am not gonna swear at you, like you did at me, so your
armour need not be as thick as mine.
>> Also, your example has the negative implication, no matter how you
>> disclaim it, that the end result of a social policy is gonna make
>> me feel like I am in a disney movie.
> See, this is part of the problem: every time, and I do mean *every*
> time, anyone want to discuss the possibility of actually doing
> something about the abusive communication culture in Debian, there
> pops up people who loudly reject any changes. They (and you're
> usually one of them) say that it will be a violation of free speech,
> or will turn Debian into Disneyworld, or Teletubby land, or
> whatever.
Your problem is that unlike Josip and Raphael, you are unable
to brook any criticism whatsoever. They listened to me, corteously,
were not swayed, and managed to convince me to go along with the
experiment.
You, however, expect there to be no expression of isgivings,
or anything -- just arh rah rah all along.
> I'm quite disgusted with this by now.
I think your approach is unlikely to result in something that
succeeds. If you want uniform yes mean, and no people like me who
are skeptical, and yet willing to engage in the process while
providing a conceptual check and balance, and a voice of caution, you
really are going to burn out, and not get anywhere.
> There is no need to become a Disney movie. There is no *intention*
> of becoming anything even like a Disney movie. I said the "don't
> swear" rule was an example and that it was not my intention to make
> up one. Yet you immediately pounce on that and use it as a stick to
> beat down any proposal for change.
And I said that the fear I have (just look at the code of
conduct someone already came up with -- cloyingly sweet and dainty and
meant for saints, not human beings). I think I have precedence on my
side.
> It's a matter of people showing respect towards each other. One way
> of showing that is via politeness. Politeness is not the same as
> being touch-feely, cuddly teletubbies.
The no swear rules seems like it is likely to get into codes
of conduct. I'll be ecstatic to be proved wrong.
> Another way of showing respect is to actually consider what other
> people propose in a discussion from various points of view, instead
> of rejecting them and their arguments, because you've made up your
> mind ten years ago.
Who rejected anything? I've already stated that I am willing
to go along, but I am not the rah rah cheerlewaders.
So you want either silence or a whole hearded yeah, yeah, lets
rock on, man? Sorry. I am not going to be a indless follower -- and I
intend to engage in this experiment with a full set of skeptical
brains, and not blinkers on.
>> No fucking way, man. No fucking way.
> Well, fuck you then. Fuck you and the paranoid ass you rode in on.
Very nice. An escalation from a mostly harmless example of
swearing at no one in particular, to a viscious attack on the person
you are supposed to be having a discussion with.
And this is the example of the kind of p[erson working on a
social policy?
Heavens help us.
> Is that the level of discourse you want to engage in?
No, but it does seem to be your level, which you do
effectively hide very well most of the time.
manoj
--
AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccckkkkkk!!!!!!!!!
You brute! Knock before entering a ladies room!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: