| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Jonas Chevalier | my understanding is that Irenes' and ashkitten's goals is to have something in place | 15:34:08 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
especially if your disagreement is not with the fundamental values, I feel like it should be possible to raise and discuss these concerns in the context of the existing RFC, rather than needing to create a new one If you look at the discussion around the RFC, the political language was fiercely defended. And I think it's a crucial part of it's content | 15:34:30 |
 tomberek | "to have something in place" - That's the goal that I'd say almost everyone agrees on. It quickly diverges after that. | 15:34:46 |
| Jonas Chevalier | so let's start with something small, which we can all agree on | 15:35:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | this is not the last RFC that we will be writing :) | 15:35:25 |
 joepie91 π³οΈβπ | jonringer: so my views on this are... complicated. on the one hand, in a vacuum I would agree that this should not be necessary to mention and we should be able to focus on intent and empathy/inclusion and constructive outcomes alone. in practice, however, there are certain specific problematic ideologies whose adherents have gotten very good at packaging their ideology in faux rationalism, and explicitly calling out those ideologies as unwanted will provide a shortcut that makes moderation significantly less exhausting | 15:36:36 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we're having similar issues when we're talking about large features to change to nixpkgs. once we start interpolating the future, it creates too much uncertainty and unnecessary dissent | 15:37:08 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | for very similar reasons, I have instituted a blanket ban on alt-right ideology in PTIO - it's simply unworkable to defend against otherwise | 15:37:11 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | at least, if I want to have any energy left for things such as work and cooking :p | 15:37:31 |
| Jonas Chevalier | joepie91 π³οΈβπ: we trust that you will tell us when that will happen | 15:37:56 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | as that specific ideology exploits the well-known adage of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to produce it" | 15:38:21 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we have to trust our community as well | 15:38:26 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
joepie91 π³οΈβπ: we trust that you will tell us when that will happen I'm not entirely certain what "that" refers to here? | 15:38:53 |
| Jonas Chevalier | if you see alt-right ideology cropping up | 15:39:16 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | ah, right. I tend to call it out when I see it anyway :p | 15:39:38 |
 Domen KoΕΎar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
for very similar reasons, I have instituted a blanket ban on alt-right ideology in PTIO - it's simply unworkable to defend against otherwise I wonder though, isn't that bigotry? | 15:40:00 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I don't think so | 15:40:35 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | Jonas Chevalier: if you are interested in learning how to spot it and the abusive discussion patterns, I can strongly recommend the "Alt-Right Playbook" - I don't generally recommend videos, but these are very information-dense and incredibly informative and well-explained | 15:40:57 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | (the tactics are not unique to the alt-right, but they are most actively exploited by them currently) | 15:41:15 |
| Jonas Chevalier | right now, since we're not under direct threat, I think it's better to avoid that language and the sense of impending doom and suspicion to each-other that comes with it | 15:42:02 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
I wonder though, isn't that bigotry? it's not. "bigotry" and "exclusion" are two different things - the main determining factor is something along the lines of "is this one's fundamental identity, or is it a deliberate choice?" | 15:42:03 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | it's a bit more nuanced in reality (is 'being a murderer' always a choice? for example), but as a rule of thumb it works well enough to understand the distinction | 15:42:35 |
| Domen KoΕΎar | So it's allowed to be prejudiced based ona sum of identify but not on a sum of deliberate choices? | 15:43:46 |
 GallantChef | In my experience, it's the "if you don't subscribe to the belief of X then you're a bigot/racist/fascist/etc." that drives people to extremism, rather than rescues them from it | 15:43:55 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I think we all want to get back to a positive environment where we enjoy hacking on Nix. Being able to escape from the reality of the world is an important feature that I get from hacking on the project. | 15:43:57 |
| GallantChef | Enshrining something like that in writing would actually encourage extremism rather than combat it | 15:44:09 |
| Domen KoΕΎar | Our choices are limited by our own beliefs π€ | 15:44:38 |
| GallantChef | Further more, prescribing correct belief systems and incorrect ones isn't conducive towards forming a moderation team | 15:44:49 |
| GallantChef | This is a fundamentally non-partisan issue | 15:44:56 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | Domen KoΕΎar: in the case of alt-right ideology specifically, it is certainly a choice to express it outwardly - people generally have the option to not adhere to it, or at the very least treat it as "yes this is what I grew up in but I'm working on it", and so I consider it reasonable to hold people accountable for it. in the context of a decidedly harmful ideology, which means there's a threat to the community, the decision then becomes "this is not welcome here" | 15:45:11 |
