On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:49:39PM -0700, Weaver wrote: > On 20-08-2021 01:12, Steve McIntyre wrote: [...] > > Inappropriate behaviour on the list may lead to warnings; repeated bad > > behaviour may lead to temporary or permanent bans for offenders. > > And who is it who determines what is `inappropriate'? [...] > > If you're trying to label that as "politically correct" then I think > > you may need to change your expectations. The "principles of open > > source" do not include a free pass to be abusive to others. > > And, who is being abusive? Communicating is Hard Work (TM). You know that perfectly well. There is no absolute here. You know that, too. Thus, your two questions above can only be rhethorical. As such, they just divert attention from the issue here: everyone of us has to genuinely try to do her best for the whole thing to succeed. And that includes trying (mentally) to walk in each other's shoes. This means that in this list, I won't do things I do at home, because I've gained the insight that they hurt people here, my Sacred Free Speech be damned. Easy as that. I do have other venues where I can vent that at ease. Same as I am not going to have a shit in the middle of the streets whenever I feel the urge. There's toilets for that. > Building strawmen to knock over does not qualify as cogent argument. Steve's was no strawman. The fact that there's no "mathematical" answer to your rhethorical questions doesn't mean that "inappropriate" and "abusive" are void terms. They describe inter-human categories, and as such are necessarily messy and dependent on some current rough consensus. If that rough consensus in the current group doesn't suit you, you're free to discuss it; if it feels to you like groupthink or tyranny, that could be a sign that this isn't a group for you. Who knows. Cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature