| 3 Nov 2021 |
 GallantChef | The "everything is political" folks try to push that everywhere, and I'm 100% confident that it's a terrible idea to enable that | 18:59:56 |
 ryblade | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I'd appreciate if we aren't labeling people as "them". We won't find a resolution on any issue if it's "us" against "them". What we need is to better understand where everybody is coming from, what their arguments and experiences are, to find out where the differences lie and to find a good compromise while i fundamentally agree (rule 10 and all), them is less characters to type. as a person with RSI, it's not very accommodating to have to type "authoritarian" in full every single time if context has already been previously established. | 19:00:35 |
| GallantChef | That's a shortcut to authoritarianism, which I feel the CoC should do its best to safeguard against | 19:00:37 |
| GallantChef | To be fair, we have firmly established an antecedent for that pronoun | 19:01:09 |
| GallantChef | If only we had pinned messages | 19:01:24 |
| GallantChef | * To be fair, we have firmly established an antecedent for that pronoun/demonstrative/whatever | 19:01:42 |
 infinisil | ryblade: I'd rather we don't use labels like these, they aren't very representative of the individuals that are grouped under it. Some people might agree with some views of label "foo", but don't with others. Some people might be 50% "foo" but not more. Some people might be "foo" but have had experiences that would convince anybody to be "foo" | 19:02:03 |
| ryblade | i've already had to take quite a lot of pain medication today, i'm going to get woozy if i have to do it your way... but alright. gulp | 19:02:39 |
| GallantChef | Are you confident about that infinisil? Based on what little I've seen of the behaviour of the people we perceive as authoritarian the "label" is actually an accurate descriptor | 19:03:12 |
| GallantChef | Having read the RFC makes that even more obvious | 19:03:21 |
| GallantChef | If we become unable to use accurate descriptors to refer to things or persons, then what is even the point of defining terms | 19:03:49 |
| infinisil | GallantChef: It's my experience with labels in general, but that's just my experience, totally fair if you can't confirm that (getting meta!) | 19:04:07 |
 jonringer | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
Moving forward, I would like to split RFC#98 into two RFCs, one defining the CoC for the NixOS ecosystem (with no mention of governing body). And another around the governing body, their powers, and the processes by which they exercise their powers (with no mention to CoC) Anyone feel like this line of thinking is out-of-line. I would like to proceed and put this behind us. I'm aware of two people that have left community because how much perceived drama and politicization is going on. I would like for no one else to be detoured to contribute because of a vocal minority of the community. | 19:04:21 |
| GallantChef | No, I 100% agree that DYMOism is a terrible thing | 19:04:23 |
| jonringer | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
Moving forward, I would like to split RFC#98 into two RFCs, one defining the CoC for the NixOS ecosystem (with no mention of governing body). And another around the governing body, their powers, and the processes by which they exercise their powers (with no mention to CoC) * Anyone feel like this line of thinking is out-of-line. I would like to proceed and put this behind us. I'm aware of two people that have left community because how much perceived drama and politicization is going on. I would like for no one else to be detoured to contribute because of a vocal minority of the community (myself included). | 19:04:32 |
| GallantChef | But in this case it's not merely casting a label on someone for personal gain | 19:04:34 |
| ryblade | them is a pronoun used as an object of a preposition, infinisil. it's used in place of an established subject within the context of a discussion. its purpose is brevity, not division. | 19:04:52 |
| GallantChef | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
Anyone feel like this line of thinking is out-of-line. I would like to proceed and put this behind us. I'm aware of two people that have left community because how much perceived drama and politicization is going on. I would like for no one else to be detoured to contribute because of a vocal minority of the community (myself included). I think this is an appropriate way forward. Breaking things down into actionable components is the heart of programming | 19:05:21 |
| ryblade | my intent was not to label but to be brief | 19:05:40 |
| GallantChef | First establishing a code, and then establishing an enforcing body sounds like a reasonable approach | 19:05:59 |
| GallantChef | The body would derive their authority from the former, rather than empowering it | 19:06:17 |
| GallantChef | * The body would derive their authority from the former, rather than empowering it themselves | 19:06:22 |
| ryblade | and my intent is what should matter, because everyone else's personal interpretation is going to be a different experience, a condition that is impossible to accommodate for everybody. | 19:06:27 |
| GallantChef | Second to that, you can't make everyone happy | 19:06:43 |
| ryblade | it is also to save myself from real physical pain caused by a real physical disability | 19:06:53 |
| GallantChef | * Further to that (what ryblade said), you can't make everyone happy, and trying is a fool's errand | 19:07:07 |
| ryblade | if it's still okay to call it a disability around here | 19:07:18 |
| GallantChef | I think that largely depends on how this RFC ends up | 19:08:17 |
| GallantChef | Compelled speech is definitely a very real possibility | 19:08:47 |
| ryblade | i'm new here so go easy on me, i don't know what all the "bad words" are yet | 19:08:52 |
