Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board]
On 2021/04/12 18:41, Michael Stone wrote:
> Marxists? Maoists? Stalinists? Anarchists? Zionists? Anti-zionists?
> Militant Quebec nationalists? Royalists? Imperialists? Indigenous
> resistance groups? Ecoterrorists? Anyone that someone calls a terrorist?
> Speciesists? Anti-speciesists? Eugenicists? Any government that comes to
> power via a coup? Any government that maintains power while suppressing
> popular revolt? Anyone who participated in genocide? Anyone descended
> from someone who participated in a genocide? Anyone who denies a
> genocide? Anyone repeating a false genocide narrative? (By the way, you
> had better be very, very careful about creating the appearance that
> debian (via the DPL) is taking a position on some of those, because you
> could get debian banned in various places if you say the wrong thing.)
That's purely up to DAM, and while there aren't any extensive background
checks, I can tell you that they're pretty good at spotting some red
flags (that other DDs can also raise with DAM during someone's NM process).
> The idea that "nazis" or "fascists" represent the full spectrum of what
> can go wrong in human systems, or that understanding complex and
> emotional conflicts is as simple as "blame the nazis" is simply wrong.
> I'd go so far as to posit that the only common element in extremist
> ideologies is the certainty that their own beliefs and tactics are both
> superior to their opponents', and unimpeachable. I'd further posit that
> it's possible to have extremist positions on any side of any issue
> humans can argue about, and also that it's generally impossible to
> identify a specific point on a continuum of beliefs at which a position
> changes from "reasonable disagreement" to "extremism".
It was clearly just one example, one that admittedly gets overused
because it's easy and lazy. And sure, there are all kinds of extremists,
although there are especially those who are most problematic in society
and in our communities.
> The idea that debian should or even could create a list of acceptable
> and unacceptable beliefs in all facets of any participant's life is
> preposterous. All we can reasonably do is require certain standards of
> behavior within forums we control or which are immediately adjacent.
It's really not all that preposterous, I think (judging by the long list
you posted in the first paragraph) that you're jumping to the incorrect
conclusions on what I'd like to achieve with expanding our CoC.
> Even from people who have declared that their opponent is a "nazi".
I would consider calling another person a "nazi" to be CoC violation
even on it's first point. Calling someone a nazi because you don't agree
with someone is certainly very disrespectful and highly inappropriate.
-Jonathan
Reply to: