Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #10008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> - 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-05 18:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-06 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2019-01-10 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-01-10 06:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 15:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 23:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-12 00:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-11 18:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 07:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian <flackjacket5@tutanota.com> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-07 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 02:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 02:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 04:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-08 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 16:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 11:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> - 2019-01-08 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 18:20 +0100
[OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian) Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: [OT] distributions without systemd Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-01-08 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-05 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-05 22:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-06 17:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2019-01-08 13:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-12-21 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 12:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2018-12-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-21 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2018-12-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> - 2018-12-24 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-24 13:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-25 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 06:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-12-26 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 07:50 +0100
Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-29 00:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2018-12-26 15:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-26 16:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-27 03:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-27 14:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 08:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdHvA-2Hv-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10166 |
Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Ian Jackson - 05.01.19, 18:17:
> > Very competently toxic people will calculate precisely what they can
> > get away with: they will ride roughshod over weak victims or in
> > situations with less visibility; when challenged by an authority who
> > can impose consequences, they will lie and obfuscate and distract as
> > much as they can get away with. They will turn the dispute about
> > their personal bad behaviour into a big poltical fight so as to
> > increase the cost of enforcing the rules against them. And if that
> > fails they will do precisely as much as is needed to avoid further
> > punishment.
>
> Have you actually really seen such kind of behavior?
Yes.
> I disagree with calling people toxic.
Well, I don't want to name names, of course. But it hardly seems
controversial that toxic people exist ? We have maybe 1000-10,000
active contributors.
So, making for a moment the assumption that there is no correlation
either way with someone's toxicity and being a Debian contributor, we
should expect our community to have between 1 and 10 people who are
more toxic/abrasive/dishonest/whatever than 99.9% of the population.
We can make a much nicer community by applying a gatekeeping
function...
> Also I am not sure how you'd come to know about about any agenda behind
> the behavior. How do you know about the intentions?
It is not actually necessary to infer intention. Since it is not
necessary, in order to take action, to prove that bad behaviour is
malicious.
Rather, it is sufficient to observe that continuation of the behaviour
is harmful, and that lesser efforts to stop it have failed.
But, it is useful to understand intentions because they can be
predictive. This is true even for intentions inferred from past
behaviour (which is the only way you will ever discover the real
intention of someone dishonest, obviously):
> One part of the code of conduct as I got it is to assume good
> intentions, here, if I got you correctly you assume bad, harmful
> intentions for at least some people, people that you call toxic.
No, I am not assuming bad behaviour. My first assumption if I see an
abrasive message is that the person is having a bad day. My first
assumption if I see someone stating a falsehood is that they are
mistaken.
These assumptions can, however, be overcome by evidence.
In particular, things like: refusal to acknowledge error or apologise;
use of sophistry of various kinds; escalation in response to every
criticism; making mutually inconsistent statements or repeating
falsehoods already debunked; significantly worse behaviour to weaker
victims or in less auditable scenarios. Recurrence of the above.
> For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on
> actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how
> people are.
Once again, there is a difference between *assuming* and *inferring*.
I doubt this will really convince you. But I couldn't let stand the
claim that I am *assuming* bad intentions. I most certainly am not.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdHFf-2L6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10180 |
Ian Jackson - 07.01.19, 19:00: > > For me, any code of conduct and its enforcement needs to be based on > > actual behavior, never on assuming intentions or assuming about how > > people are. > > Once again, there is a difference between *assuming* and *inferring*. > > I doubt this will really convince you. But I couldn't let stand the > claim that I am *assuming* bad intentions. I most certainly am not. I am sorry, that was the conclusion I arrived at as I read your initial mail. Thank you for clarifying. I am still with just looking at behavior for any enforcement, but I agree that on repetition of harmful behavior after have been warning, a stronger enforcement might be needed. I am not positive whether that has been the case here, but unless I missed I did not yet hear any official statement of anti-harassment or dam team. I do not have a complete picture, I wonder whether anyone has. So I just let it be as that for now. Thanks, -- Martin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeuZl-87g-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10150 |
Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > > world is doing this all the time. > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a more fundamental problem. It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. Debian is not a locker room.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xewor-E8-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10256 |
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about >>> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the >>> world is doing this all the time. >> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying >> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", >> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a > more fundamental problem. > > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. > > Debian is not a locker room. On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by everything? I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ - a good read. One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the greatest injustice known to humankind." Miles Fidelman p.s., Debian is a place where people get work done. Maybe it is a locker room (or more locker room than ivory tower). -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 06:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeALo-3qW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10257 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about > > > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > > > > world is doing this all the time. > > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying > > > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", > > > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". > > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a > > more fundamental problem. > > > > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words > > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. > > > > Debian is not a locker room. > > On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by > everything? [...] That would be whenever people started complaining about "political correctness" when they were criticised for what they said. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeJF0-je-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10259 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 1/10/19 12:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: >> >>> Anthony Towns wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>>>> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about >>>>> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the >>>>> world is doing this all the time. >>>> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying >>>> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", >>>> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". >>> If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a >>> more fundamental problem. >>> >>> It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words >>> on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. >>> >>> Debian is not a locker room. >> On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by >> everything? > [...] > > That would be whenever people started complaining about "political > correctness" when they were criticised for what they said. > No. That's "fragility," or just plain belligerent obtuseness. Then again, as a friend recently commented, "people who go out of their way to take offense at this or that are exceptionally annoying, but it is those who go out of their way to take offense ON BEHALF of someone else who really tick me off." And that really sums up legitimate complaints about "political correctness." If you want to call it 'in bad taste' for this New York Jewboy to call himself a Hebe - you might have a point. Call me anti-semitic, and you're being a politically correct asshole - particularly if you're a WASP. (On the other hand, call me an asshole, and I'll agree with you, maybe even thank you.) There's a really large spectrum from "less than civil" or "insensitive" or "oblivious to nuance" or perhaps, to use an old fashioned word, "boorish" to racist, sexist, etc. But somehow, it seems like all too many people rush right to taking maximum offense and calling for censorship or banning. Personally, I find that highly offensive in its own right. Seems to me that all together too many people have forgotten Postel's law - "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" - which applies just as well to conversation, particularly online, as it does to protocols. (Actually, for protocols, there are some pretty good arguments for being a bit more strict in what you accept. Not so much, for conversations.) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeOOm-3A7-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10257 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about > > > > what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the > > > > world is doing this all the time. > > > There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying > > > before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", > > > or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". > > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a > > more fundamental problem. > > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words > > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. > > Debian is not a locker room. > On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by > everything? > I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ > - a good read. > One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by > things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to > which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being > ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world > countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water > offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly > offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the > greatest injustice known to humankind." That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve* to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics. So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are offensive, and everything'll be ok. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xePKq-49Y-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10268 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 1/10/19 3:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: >>> Anthony Towns wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >>>>> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about >>>>> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the >>>>> world is doing this all the time. >>>> There are times when you don't have to think about what you're saying >>>> before you say it; that situation is often called being "among friends", >>>> or "in a safe space", or "able to let your guard down". >>> If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a >>> more fundamental problem. >>> It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words >>> on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. >>> Debian is not a locker room. >> On the other hand, when did people get so thin skinned, and offended by >> everything? >> I came across this in a FreeBSD community discussion of similar issues: https://notablelife.com/our-generation-needs-to-stop-being-offended-by-everything-and-learn-how-to-take-a-joke/ >> - a good read. >> One paragraph, that nails it: "The thing is, people are often offended by >> things that are so minimal compared to the actual problems in the world to >> which they turn a blind eye. You don’t tend to see many people being >> ‘offended’ by the fact that there are starving children in third world >> countries, or making rambling Facebook posts about how access to clean water >> offends their sensibilities. Yet the second a joke or an ad is slightly >> offside in their eyes, they lash out like they’ve been a victim of the >> greatest injustice known to humankind." > That's because the vast, vast majority of people have the residual decency > to not open their fat mouths and argue in public that people don't *deserve* > to have access to food and clean water, whereas there is a quite high number > of assholes who feel no shame at treating someone as less-than on the basis > of irrelevant intrinsic characteristics. Well, no. In other settings (a neighborhood list I host), I've seen perfectly reasonable, if a little heated, discussions on immigration policy - in this case on whether our city should pass a sanctuary city ordinance - get completely derailed over someone's use of the term "illegal alien," which now seems to be politically incorrect terminology (and certainly more legally accurate than "undocumented alien" - which seems to be the currently popular term. Discussion of a rather serious issue, got completely derailed over outrage over terminology, along with calls for moderation of a particular person's posts. Given that I'm a firm believer in free speech, particularly when it comes to political discussion - no censorship was imposed. > So, you know, take some personal responsibility for things you say that are > offensive, and everything'll be ok. At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense, at so much, as to be offensive for that. And, of course, those who seem to be always outraged are the least aware of how uncivil and offensive their behavior is (or least least willing to acknowledge it). You know - kind of like grammar nazis. Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeQZQ-4PJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10269 |
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying > Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do, > be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to > observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just > the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense, > at so much, as to be offensive for that. The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for example, you are a white male), then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect "if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not being liberal in what you accept". ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women and believe them. And I should then help ensure that language that is offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or offputting to women. Regards, Matthew [0] WLOG to other minorities -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xf310-3M2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10270 |
On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes:
>
>> At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
>> Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
>> be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
>> observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just
>> the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense,
>> at so much, as to be offensive for that.
> The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the
> receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for
> example, you are a white male),
White JEWISH male, who's grandparents all came from Eastern Europe -
we've been on the receiving end of LOTS of bad language & behavior.
(And it seems to be coming back.)
Also, grew up in the 60s - not a good time to look Jewish, and have long
hair (well, a bushy Jewfro) when traveling in large parts of the
country. ("Long haired hippy freak" could get you killed.)
And then, it wasn't always "age of the geek."
> then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind
> what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're
> speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you
> say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because
> they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect
> "if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the
> racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not
> being liberal in what you accept".
No. I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf. I
find THAT offensive.
To keep it personal, I mind if someone calls me a "Jewboy" or a "Hebe"
(unless, of course, it's me, or some other NY Jewboy - then it's just
fine - I'm proud of being a "New York Jew," and a Yankees fan, now
living in Red Sox Nation).
I appreciate it you don't use that kind of language, and more if you
don't think that way, but I can fight my own battles thank you very much
- I sure don't appreciate someone censoring discussion on my behalf.
(Cops stopping violence, laws against broad-based discrimination,
programs that balance the scales and redress previous grievances are one
thing - but I'm with the ACLU on on speech, demonstrations, and so
forth, or, as Lewis Brandeis put it, in a famous Supreme Court Decision,
is "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" -
though, strangely, in an opinion CONCURRING with suppression of speech).
I'm saying that there's a point at which one gives back as good as one
gets, rather than crying for others to protect one's sensibilities. And
I sure don't want folks stepping in, who don't have a dog in the fight.
I don't want wannabee nazis (you know, the morons who march around in
polo shirts, carrying tiki torches, chanting "Jews will not replace us,"
and generally making good targets of themselves) complaining about
Internet censorship. I want them afraid to rally, running home to
momma, because they're afraid of the "scary liberals." And maybe, just
maybe, learning something from the experience. (Have you noticed how
few "free speech rallies" we've had lately?)
>
> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
> get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
> and believe them.
It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go way
over the top. It's quite another to have star-chamber like censorship &
banning. And even more for you (a male) to take action on their
behalf. It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some) women's
complaints about offensive language, while not listening to other
women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.
> And I should then help ensure that language that is
> offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have
> to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or
> offputting to women.
Maybe not. And good for you to refrain from using such language. But
who are you (male from your name) to be the one applying defense on
their behalf - haven't you heard enough complaints about playing "white
knight?" Personally, I find it offensive to have privileged people
whine & complain on behalf of the oppressed. (Ever notice how often
it's the white suburbanites who are quickest to take issue with
"offensive language," preach political correctness, and jump in as
social justice warriors? We used to call them "limousine liberals.")
Frankly, I don't want WASPs advocating against anti-Semitism. And I
prefer to either respond in kind, or kill-file people, than to have
someone else call them out, or censor them in my name, thank you very much.
Censorship & banning are, in themselves, offensive behavior (to me).
Calling someone out, shunning them, not so much (again, to me). I have
mixed reactions to firing people for behavior outside work (e.g.,
marching in a nazi rally) - obnoxious behavior at work, harassing
co-workers, pissing off customers are certainly firing offenses,
marching in a political rally, not so much (though being stupid enough
to be caught on camera, consorting with wannabe nazis - drop a drone on
that guy's ass).
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xf52O-4YV-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10273 |
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote: >> >> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't >> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we >> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't >> get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women >> and believe them. > > > It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go > way over the top. It's quite another to have star-chamber like > censorship & banning. And even more for you (a male) to take action > on their behalf. It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some) > women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to > other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior. A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise): i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this subject: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I don't think you mean to accuse me of? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting Regards, Matthew [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00364.html -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xfalQ-8iN-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10274 |
On 1/11/19 8:28 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > >> On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote: >>> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't >>> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we >>> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't >>> get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women >>> and believe them. >> >> It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go >> way over the top. It's quite another to have star-chamber like >> censorship & banning. And even more for you (a male) to take action >> on their behalf. It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some) >> women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to >> other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior. > A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following > paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise): > > i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on > feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of > argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on > why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear > that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean > that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this > subject: > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman > > ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I > don't think you mean to accuse me of? > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting You, specifically: I am not familiar enough with you, or your writings, to make such an accusation. An awful lot of calls for censorship - here and elsewhere - yes. Regards, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-12 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xfez7-2jG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10276 |
Might I suggest that Miles and the rest of us have had as much of a meeting of minds as we can in the media of email and that this thread has drifted into noise? In my oopinion continuing would do more harm than good. --Sam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xf8tI-79h-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10273 |
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > No. I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf. I > find THAT offensive. Then I won't do that for you. But I'm sure you realize that your experience is not universal among all of humanity, and some people *do* want other people minding on their behalf in some situations, mostly because they're exhausted, sick to death of having to fight this battle, and/or much more likely to get abuse and harassment if they do speak up than I am. I will continue to emphasize the voices of those people and push for things that they care about in places where I'm fairly sure that's what they want because that's what members of a community do for each other. Hell, that's what *friends* do for each other. They have each other's backs. If a friend of mine cares about something that impacts them personally, that means that I probably should at least consider whether I should care about it too. For me, this is a core part of the *definition* of friendship. If I don't give a shit about things that hurt my friends, I'm not much of a friend, am I? Obviously, it's then on me to be *really* good at listening, and to not jump into places where I'm *not* wanted. And obviously it's not completely blind; sometimes a friend is going to be hurt by something, and on reflection I'm going to decide that whatever they were hurt by wasn't out of line. It's tricky. I'm going to mess up occasionally and have to readjust. But that's okay; it's still a lot less tricky than having to deal with constant harassment every time you express an opinion. I'm happy to do some of my part in supporting my friends. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xewHM-KE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10256 |
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes: > If you have to have your "guard up" to avoid hurting people, you have a > more fundamental problem. > It really *isn't* that hard to just think about the effect of your words > on others *all the time*. As Russ said, that's a fundamental skill. Eh... I do think that goes a little far. It *is* a fundamental life skill, but there are a lot of fundamental life skills that come harder for some people than others. For example, the absolute fastest way to make me miserable is to put me in a situation where I need to make verbal small-talk with strangers. In writing, absolutely, I can do that all day. In person, I run out of social energy *really fast*. I also consider this a fundamental life skill, and I've gotten better at it, but I am in no way good at it, and am usually still feeling awkward about mistakes I made in some conversation five years ago. My point in those messages was poorly expressed, particularly at first. It's not to argue that this is *easy* for everyone, just that this is something we do all have to do. For some people it's harder than it is for others, and if someone is trying and working on it and apologizing when they don't do it well, I'll extend them the benefit of the doubt all day long. Where I start drawing boundaries is when that transitions into not even making an attempt, or arguing that one should get to say whatever pops into one's head because free speech and the responsibility for filtering is entirely on the listener. That just doesn't fly in any human community I want to be part of. In other words, intention matters a lot to me. If someone is trying but it doesn't come naturally, that's one thing; if someone is being intentionally provocative and sniping at people because they think it's enjoyable or funny (and I grew up on-line on Usenet; I've met a *lot* of those people), well, surprise, people don't put up with that shit nearly as long as they used to, and that's a *good* thing. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCxY-3EP-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10127 |
On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:17:56 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > > If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's > > the right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public > > due to the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian? > > Being an adult. Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think is reasonable. My question is independent of if recent DAM actions were appropriate or not. I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't think "My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point in a worldwide project like this. Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the less, do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain about where the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to participate in Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions. I am not trying to make excuses for people who go out of their way to make other people feel less welcome in Debian. I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if their opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very troubling. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCRj-3LF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10129 |
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully > understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think > is reasonable. Anyone who has held down a job in a typical workplace has already shown that they can understand what's reasonable and adjust to a social environment well enough to do just fine in Debian. (And yes, I realize that's *also* a challenging environment for some folks, and in a lot of cases we can be *more* welcoming than that, but I think it's being aware of that baseline.) > I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't > think "My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point > in a worldwide project like this. It's certainly not "my" way -- it's some sort of consensus emergent standards among all of us, which changes in the complicated and intricate ways of all human communities. But every community has standards of behavior and social consequences, whether formal or informal, for violating them. There exists no place on earth in which you can say literally whatever you want with zero consequences, because humans are a social species and we interact with each other and those communities involve making judgments about who we include and don't. > Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the > less, do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain > about where the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to > participate in Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions. Yup, sometimes it's uncertain and uncomfortable. That's because navigating social situations can be work. It can require effort. And yes, we all make mistakes (for instance, I just made one in going for pithy over fully explained, and made it seem like I was attacking you, for which I sincerely apologize). And it's a process; you step on someone's foot or put your foot in your mouth, and then you adjust, and pick yourself up and dust yourself off and try again. The part that I'm a little frustrated by is that I feel like you think people of a particular political belief are doing *more* work than others, and wow, that is not my experience at all. The people who complain the most about "chilling effects" are, in my experience, the people who are doing the *least* amount of work in most conversations. And that may still be a lot of work! That may still be really hard for them! I'm not saying this to say that they're doing very little work in some objective sense. What I am saying is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the people on the other side of the discussion are *also* doing a *considerable* amount of work on how they communicate, and when, and what wording they use, and have been all along. They're just not complaining about it, because they realize this is just the normal price of human social community. > I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if > their opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very > troubling. That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Having concern and confusion about whether your opinions are okay to express is *also* part of being an adult. This is a universal experience. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcDaF-47B-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10131 |
On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:55:51 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > > Nonsense unless you define being an adult as completely and fully > > understanding exactly what the hundreds of people around the world think > > is reasonable. > > Anyone who has held down a job in a typical workplace has already shown > that they can understand what's reasonable and adjust to a social > environment well enough to do just fine in Debian. (And yes, I realize > that's *also* a challenging environment for some folks, and in a lot of > cases we can be *more* welcoming than that, but I think it's being aware > of that baseline.) > > > I suspect we agree on more than we disagree in this area, but I don't > > think "My way or the highway" is the right answer beyond a certain point > > in a worldwide project like this. > > It's certainly not "my" way -- it's some sort of consensus emergent > standards among all of us, which changes in the complicated and intricate > ways of all human communities. But every community has standards of > behavior and social consequences, whether formal or informal, for > violating them. There exists no place on earth in which you can say > literally whatever you want with zero consequences, because humans are a > social species and we interact with each other and those communities > involve making judgments about who we include and don't. > > > Please accept that I am concerned that reasonable people who, none the > > less, do not fully accept a certain political orthodoxy are uncertain > > about where the lines are and find that chilling their willingness to > > participate in Debian beyond narrow strictly technical discussions. > > Yup, sometimes it's uncertain and uncomfortable. That's because > navigating social situations can be work. It can require effort. And > yes, we all make mistakes (for instance, I just made one in going for > pithy over fully explained, and made it seem like I was attacking you, for > which I sincerely apologize). And it's a process; you step on someone's > foot or put your foot in your mouth, and then you adjust, and pick > yourself up and dust yourself off and try again. > > The part that I'm a little frustrated by is that I feel like you think > people of a particular political belief are doing *more* work than others, > and wow, that is not my experience at all. The people who complain the > most about "chilling effects" are, in my experience, the people who are > doing the *least* amount of work in most conversations. > > And that may still be a lot of work! That may still be really hard for > them! I'm not saying this to say that they're doing very little work in > some objective sense. > > What I am saying is that they seem oblivious to the fact that the people > on the other side of the discussion are *also* doing a *considerable* > amount of work on how they communicate, and when, and what wording they > use, and have been all along. They're just not complaining about it, > because they realize this is just the normal price of human social > community. > > > I find this notion that if anyone has any concern or confusion about if > > their opinions are OK to express it's only because they are wrong very > > troubling. > > That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm sorry that it came across that > way. Having concern and confusion about whether your opinions are okay to > express is *also* part of being an adult. This is a universal experience. Thanks for clarifying. I understand your perspective much better now and appreciate the apology. 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). I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. My personal challenges with engaging constructively don't derive from any particular political perspective. They come more from having a strong temper over which my grasp is unfortunately not always adequate and being old enough that I worry about language shifting under me in ways I can't anticipate. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcDDH-4h5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10133 |
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). I think it's useful to think of offending someone as being like stepping on someone's foot. Most of the time, it probably means you should apologize. Apologizing doesn't mean that there was necessarily anything you could have done differently. Perhaps you stumbled into someone's foot through no fault of your own, but it's still normal to apologize. Apologizing doesn't mean rending your garments and doing five years of penance; it just means saying "whoops, I'm sorry!" There are occasional instances where someone intentionally sticks their foot in your way. But this is relatively rare, and the first time you step on someone's foot, it usually doesn't make sense to assume this happened. If the same person's foot constantly ends up under your feet, but you don't seem to be stepping on anyone else's foot, it may be time to start reconsidering whether you should keep apologizing or if something else is going on. If you keep stumbling over a variety of people's feet with some regularity, it's probably time to figure out why this is happening and what you need to do to stop stepping on people's feet, which might involve some real work, unfortunately. But most of the time, if you step on someone's foot, you can just apologize and move on and everything is fine. It happens to all of us. It doesn't have to be a big deal. (But refusing to apologize does very quickly make it a big deal.) And sometimes people stick their feet in the most irritating places, and it can be a bit of a chore to step over their feet, and it can be seriously tempting to tromp down on that foot that someone is sticking out *right in the middle of the aisle*. And, just like we do in everyday life, it's almost never a good idea to do that, as opposed to just grumbling to yourself about it and maybe complaining to some friends about that rude person who had their foot stuck out in the aisle. Usually when I do give into temptation and stomp down on that rudely-placed foot, it turns out that person had just broken their foot and was on the way to the doctor's to get a cast put on it, and then I feel awful. > I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core > issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like > that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not* political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow definition.) > My personal challenges with engaging constructively don't derive from > any particular political perspective. They come more from having a > strong temper over which my grasp is unfortunately not always adequate > and being old enough that I worry about language shifting under me in > ways I can't anticipate. A sincere apology goes a very long way. No one wants to make life unreasonably harder for other people. What gets people upset is not that people make mistakes, or even that some people make mistakes more than other people. This is normal, ordinary human community stuff. What gets people upset is when people don't make any apparent attempt to not make mistakes, or (particularly) when they vigorously defend their right to tromp on someone else's foot because the foot shouldn't have been there in the first place. Then everything gets heated. As long as you're trying, even when it's hard, I think nearly everyone is going to assume good faith. The hard feelings come when someone declares that they should not have to try, and that being told to try to not step on people's feet is an offense against their human rights. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcEzN-4QW-55@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10134 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web