| 5 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | joepie91 🏳️🌈: I'm very libertarian, as long as you are impeding my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. I don't really care what you do. So if someone prefers a pronoun, I'm indifferent at an emotion and personal level. It just isn't the "social norm" I'm familiar with. | 17:51:11 |
| jonringer | * joepie91 🏳️🌈: I'm very libertarian, as long as you are not impeding my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. I don't really care what you do. So if someone prefers a pronoun, I'm indifferent at an emotion and personal level. It just isn't the "social norm" I'm familiar with. | 17:51:20 |
| jonringer | * joepie91 🏳️🌈: I'm very libertarian, as long as you are not impeding my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. I don't really care what you do. So if someone prefers a pronoun, I'm indifferent at an emotion and personal level. It's just isn't the "social norm" I'm familiar with. | 17:51:37 |
|  7c6f434c joined the room. | 17:52:04 |
| jonringer | * joepie91 🏳️🌈: I'm very libertarian, as long as you are not impeding my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. I don't really care what you do. So if someone prefers a pronoun, I'm indifferent at an emotion and personal level. It's just isn't the "social norm" I'm familiar with.
The "social norm" landscape could change tomorrow, while I'm under my little OSS rock, and commit some grievous act of insensitivity.
| 17:52:24 |
| jonringer | I'm probably digging myself into a hole I did not intend. And feel like these discussions are now looking for ways to find "vulnerabilities" in what I say, or take what I said out of context. I will excuse myself. | 17:54:16 |
| jonringer left the room. | 17:54:32 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: okay, so let me try to rephrase my summary of your concern: you are fine with eg. respecting someone's pronouns or otherwise doing your part in adapting to social norms in a community, but your concern is that those norms might be 'overzealously' applied in cases where you failed to follow them through no fault of your own, for example because you were not aware of them or because they are difficult for you personally to adapt to? | 17:54:48 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (please hold, all) | 17:57:30 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | okay, jonringer has decided not to continue with the conversation for personal reasons - hopefully this is a redundant request, but obviously please do not use the above to attack them | 18:14:43 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think my understanding of their concern is accurate enough, however, and it seems to be a concern about overzealous application of social norms that one has difficulty adjusting to or that one simply doesn't know about - and I suspect that that is also what drove the suggestion to explicitly define acceptable behaviour in an RFC, to address this problem by having an unambiguous list of acceptable and unacceptable things so that one doesn't run that risk | 18:16:35 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I believe the intention of RFC 98 was to prevent this by prioritizing deescalation over repercussions, ie. giving people room to adjust and make mistakes, and from jonringer's earlier comments about arbitration I believe that they share that goal - but I think it's safe to conclude that RFC 98 is currently not making this intention clear enough | 18:18:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I don't like talking for other people, but that seems like the only possible option here :/) | 18:18:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️: ^ so that is probably something to consider | 18:19:05 |
 ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | thank you, that kind of feedback is very appreciated | 18:19:31 |
| ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | please convey my appreciation to jonringer if he's receptive | 18:19:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
if there's was ever a sign of oppressive authoritarianism in our community it's this kind of stuff happening on the very RFC that is saying to prevent it also, one note I want to make here: the problem we're running into here is kind of the community management equivalent of the self-hosting problem... we do not yet have structures in place for conflict resolution and/or intervention in unresolvable cases of disruptive behaviour, that's why this RFC exists, but that's also why it's extremely difficult to keep a high signal:noise ratio on the discussion of the RFC | 18:30:54 |
 Jonas Chevalier | I think this can be fixed by changing the wording in the RFC by the way | 18:31:02 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I believe so too | 18:31:10 |
| Jonas Chevalier | For example replacing many of the instances of "ideology" | 18:31:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | or well, less 'changing the wording' and more 'adding wording', I think | 18:31:38 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * For example replacing many of the instances of "ideology". (it gives me an impression that there is a hidden agenda) | 18:32:10 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as it needs to be broadly made clear, regardless of what the problematic behaviour is or what motivates it, that there should always be room for errors and adjustment | 18:32:27 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Just be more precise. If you say "values" then it's clear that it refers to the value statements. | 18:32:41 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Some words like that have a lot of baggage and we're seeing the projections that people do. | 18:33:33 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Unlike Irenes, I don't think that the negative comments should be dismissed. They should be taken very seriously and addressed. | 18:34:14 |
| Jonas Chevalier | As in: clarify | 18:34:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | however strange this may sound, there is unfortunately also 'baggage' of sorts to deliberately avoiding these words | 18:34:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | though the reason for that is a very complex and nuanced discussion that I'm not sure is useful to have here right now | 18:34:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I'm not disagreeing that there is baggage to using them, to be clear) | 18:35:32 |
