| 5 Nov 2021 |
 danielle | but yeah - I think from what i've seen of this discussion so far, I think those kinds of cases are something we'd handle if someone who was an active member of the community started doing | 23:30:53 |
| danielle | not necessarily by banning, but by focusing on what we do here, and keeping that kind of behaviour away | 23:31:16 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems I agree. Although there are cases where I'd block persons that don't deserve being blocked. My example above may be il-chosen. | 23:31:17 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems * I agree. Although there are cases where I'd block persons that don't deserve being blocked. My example above may be il-chosen. A better example might be cross-community issues, where somebody is blocked for their actions on an unrelated repository. | 23:33:53 |
| danielle | Cross community stuff is trickier for sure. This is part of why I'm sometimes glad a lot of what I touch for work falls under the CNCF, where bans are not-quite-but-mostly-global and fortunately quite rare, bc folks tend to be explicitly inclusive | 23:35:19 |
| danielle | A lot that aren't tend to leave before they need to be pushed, because folks don't really tolerate asshattery | 23:35:40 |
| 6 Nov 2021 |
|  @test:boba.best joined the room. | 09:19:32 |
 @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | i'm still not convinced about how the word "fascism" is used in the RFC, especially after Irenes comments about what the word means for them | 18:06:35 |
| @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 | 18:07:23 |
 tomberek | It seems to have been acknowledged that the "socially charged" language in the RFC has caused a lot of the conflict. Then there was confusion if people were arguing about language or policy. | 18:12:55 |
 hexa | as a german I find it fascinating that the word "fascism" is supposed to have an unclear meaning. | 21:17:38 |
 Irenes | hexa, I would love to hear your thoughts on how to define it | 21:19:09 |
| Irenes | I honestly didn't realize it was subtle until I started trying to answer questions about it, I really thought it was quite obvious | 21:19:33 |
| Irenes | I regret how I answered that stuff, I think it obfuscated more than it helped. we'll certainly make sure that any mentions that are kept are as clear as we can manage. | 21:19:59 |
| hexa | basically Totalitarism | 21:21:15 |
| hexa |
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)[19]
| 21:21:16 |
| Irenes | makes sense. thanks. | 21:21:36 |
| hexa | but now that I went looking I found this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism | 21:22:02 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Fascinating. What the English Wikipedia says on it is described as "Neo-fascism" in the German article on the topic (and even then, the definition of the English article is more broad) | 21:22:16 |
| hexa | and it has >20 definitions, I didn't check how much they overlap | 21:22:18 |
| Irenes | anyway, from reading that it sounds like I was indeed incorrect in assuming the thread goes further back in history | 21:37:25 |
| hexa | * basically totalitarianism | 21:39:55 |
| Irenes | sure, yeah, but then you get into questions about is totalitarianism really the same thread as fascism, and so on | 21:41:19 |
| Irenes | I'm not sure it's in anyone's interests for the RFC to try to give historical analysis, neither author is a historian | 21:41:51 |
| 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 |
