| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | the difference in RFC 98 is that it states this ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the difference in RFC 98 is that it states its ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | both of them are ideologically-motivated, and the same will be true for any proposal on moderation policy and social norms | 17:26:05 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. I described this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. * I explained this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact (I've bracketed "blatant" here because that was probably not the intention, but it is the real-world result of this type of policy; anything that isn't blatant is near impossible to argue under it) | 17:27:37 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | I feel like we're back to square one | 17:27:39 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | Again, if we are forcing people to abide by someone's definition of "social norms", "fascism", and "bigotry". I'm leaving the community | 17:27:39 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | joepie91 🏳️🌈: is there an agenda that you are not sharing with us | 17:28:20 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | jonringer: there's honestly nothing I can do with that comment, other than be concerned about what you mean with that. I don't feel like you're engaging with my point above | 17:28:22 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | There's a difference between moderation, and enforcing behaviors | 17:28:22 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: "agenda" is a strange choice of words, but I've been pretty explicit about my intentions; I can repeat them explicitly though. I want the NixOS community to be a welcoming, inclusive and productive community, in which there is no tolerance for things like bigotry. | 17:29:36 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | We should stop using terms like "ideologies" which are too loaded. Having a set of principles we can follow to work together is not an ideology. | 17:29:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | this is absolutely ideological, and I reject the notion that it isn't, because that only ever ends up being used to present some "rational" and "neutral" option that's actually just popular ideology masquerading as rationality | 17:30:44 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Jonas Chevalier: "agenda" is a strange choice of words, but I've been pretty explicit about my intentions; I can repeat them explicitly though. I want the NixOS community to be a welcoming, inclusive and productive community, in which there is no tolerance for things like bigotry. Whenever I see terms like that, I get a very specific sense of "diversity", that is drawn along very specific lines | 17:30:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: it is. that is why I mentioned the paradox of tolerance very early on, for example. | 17:31:11 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | eg. I do not believe that people have a right to be a bigot | 17:31:22 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | this is the core of the disagreement I feel | 17:31:28 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | it comes down to how we view diversity, and what form it will take | 17:31:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | but to be clear, these specifically drawn lines are chosen to maximize diversity in a 'quantifiable' sense | 17:32:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | hold on, I am not wording this well | 17:32:36 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | whenever you say things like that, it feels exactly what people would denounce of being alt-left | 17:32:57 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | I think this is the last know to untie | 17:33:26 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * I think this is the last knot to untie | 17:33:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | so let's try defining that again:
what I care about as the end goal, is diversity in the sense that the community is a welcoming and productive place for people of as many different backgrounds, experiences, worldviews, and identities as possible.
what I see as an indispensable part of that, and this is where my lines are drawn, is not tolerating ideologies and behaviour which actively aim to oppose (rather than advance) that goal - and that includes bigotry, and a couple of other ideologies that are founded specifically on exclusion of anyone outside of a very specific identity
| 17:36:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | you cannot have a functioning community (at scale) with both diversity and 'anti-diverse' ideology in coexistence, so one needs to go; and my choice for what needs to go is very definitively on the side of 'anti-diverse ideology' | 17:38:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | my 'agenda', if you want to call it that, is that | 17:38:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (and I hope that it's clear that "anti-diverse" does not include "anti-anti-diverse" as a subset) | 17:39:17 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | At least in the US, a "bigot" is already just used as a "someone who doesn't agree with me" term | 17:39:22 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that is not the definition that I am using | 17:39:41 |
