| 6 Nov 2021 |
 hexa | you'd think they're enough of a generic concept that this would be a non-issue 😓 | 21:41:52 |
 Irenes | I did, naively, think that, but I should have known better, anything that touches on politics or ideology can be obfuscated by anyone who wants to politicize it | 21:42:29 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
admittedly i don't know why this bothers me so much. i think it's because it feels like a trojan horse, or something that can potentially be exploited by anyone with an agenda, since the definition is so vague while I'm taking a break from RFC stuff this weekend so I won't get around to reading it today, I'd like to extend the same invitation to you that I've also posted in the RFC thread, if you feel like it might help - feel free to DM me with an unfiltered expression of your concerns, without needing to be careful about what language you use to express them at all. we might be able to narrow down your concerns (and/or the reason for them) more precisely together | 21:42:39 |
| Irenes | that's the reality (even the simplest thing can always be politicized), and it doesn't help anyone to pretend it isn't | 21:42:56 |
| Irenes | thanks so much joepie, I really appreciate you stepping in for this stuff | 21:43:26 |
|  7c6f434c left the room. | 23:31:34 |
 abathur | I agree that some of this is just sloppy definition creep, but I do also wonder if some of this reaction is driven by cognitive dissonance around how the terms apply to the context | 23:58:16 |
| 7 Nov 2021 |
| abathur | I'm not sure I can expound on what I mean without making light of the current effort or fascism, but: I imagine a lot of people would raise an eyebrow if they followed up on a flier advertising woodworking classes and the website noted that the workshop opposed the spread of ideas rooted in communism | 00:12:31 |
| abathur | In that sense I'm not sure it's entirely unfounded for people who didn't already imagine the workshop as political or politicized, to see that statement as an indication that it would be | 00:17:13 |
| abathur | * In that sense I'm not sure it's entirely unfounded for people who didn't already imagine the workshop as political or politicized to see such a statement as an indication that it would be | 00:17:34 |
| Irenes | I'm sure there is cognitive dissonance, yeah | 01:09:38 |
| Irenes | we're going to have to do more of that work to explain this perspective | 01:09:44 |
| Irenes | it's nothing that hasn't been said before, but still | 01:09:50 |
| Irenes | like, so, I'm trans and have various pretty serious disabilities, and that doesn't go away, even though I am also wealthy and moderately well-known in queer tech circles and all that | 01:10:47 |
| Irenes | people from marginalized backgrounds experience the world differently | 01:10:59 |
| Irenes | we can't avoid being aware of certain things, that other people usually push away from their awareness | 01:11:18 |
| Irenes | or don't take seriously | 01:11:21 |
| Irenes | or underestimate | 01:11:25 |
| Irenes | we chose, when writing the RFC, to put this on the table, because otherwise we'd only be asked why we tried to hide it, you know? | 01:12:06 |
| Irenes | people would wonder what the agenda was | 01:12:29 |
| Irenes | and furthermore, in any sufficiently large group of people there's someone who actually supports fascism. I don't mean anyone in particular, I mean that it's a statistical certainty. | 01:13:33 |
| abathur | nod | 01:13:44 |
| Irenes | and we didn't want to create a risk that someone in that position could start casting aspersions about a hidden agenda | 01:13:47 |
| Irenes | and that everyone else would feel like there were two minority groups talking to each other and leaving the majority out of the conversation | 01:14:02 |
| Irenes | we wanted to make this stuff all visible so it can be discussed for real | 01:14:17 |
| Irenes | and yeah, I apologize that it scares people. I know that. I mean, it scares me, but it scares me all the time so I have learned to let go of the fear and just do the stuff I have to do. | 01:17:41 |
 tomberek | Irenes: The absence of that statement would have caused questions? By whom? | 01:26:34 |
| Irenes | by people who can sense that the RFC has some ideological position behind it (which is anyone with solid reading comprehension, I'd hope) but aren't sure what it is | 01:27:40 |
| tomberek | I'm not understanding. Was it to provide clarity about the ideological position of the proposal? I'm not sure what the questions would be. | 01:52:25 |
| Irenes | yes. | 01:56:12 |
