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

Re: Censorship in Debian



On 1/4/19 2:44 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:

For clarification from me, I don't expect a consequence free
free-for-all where anything at all can be said with no repercussions.
There are absolutely things that are not acceptable, but on the other
hand, I also don't think "someone was offended" is a reasonable standard
(and I am not claiming that's what Debian is currently using - but there
are places where things seem to me to be headed in that direction).

As a reference point, let me mention a recent incident at our church.

One of our committees radically changed a sign outside the building – essentially changing its use.

I went to the chair of our "outreach committee" and said, in about so many words, "I protest.  I don't like it.  And that kind of change should be voted on by the Congregation."

Apparently, that hurt the guy's feelings so much that he ignored me, and when I raised a protest on our Church-wide email list, it led to a huge bro hah hah.  (And right now, the sign has been changed to yet something else, that's essentially an "f u").  No resolution in sight, on either the specific issue, or the broader issue of Church governance.  We did have a Church-wide "listening session" where both the guy and his wife talked about how attacked they felt.

It sure seems that, in some sectors, disagreement is offensive, and offense trumps substance.  (One might point to our current President in that regard, as well.)

I kind of wonder if Debian is headed that way - given the way the discussion on systemd went, not that long ago.

Miles Fidelman


Reply to: