| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | (the tactics are not unique to the alt-right, but they are most actively exploited by them currently) | 15:41:15 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | 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:pixie.town | 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:pixie.town | 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 |
 @domenkozar:matrix.org | So it's allowed to be prejudiced based ona sum of identify but not on a sum of deliberate choices? | 15:43:46 |
 @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | 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 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | 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:matrix.foxears.life | Enshrining something like that in writing would actually encourage extremism rather than combat it | 15:44:09 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | Our choices are limited by our own beliefs 🤔 | 15:44:38 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Further more, prescribing correct belief systems and incorrect ones isn't conducive towards forming a moderation team | 15:44:49 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | This is a fundamentally non-partisan issue | 15:44:56 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Domen Kožar: 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 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | one "metric" I often use is "does this person's presence in the community constitute a net positive or a net negative effect on that community?" | 15:45:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | folks who unabashedly adhere to alt-right ideology fall far on the "net negative" side of that spectrum almost without exception | 15:46:23 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (almost always also in ways that are not directly connectable to "alt-right ideology", like a general unwillingness to consider other people's point of view in technical discussions for example) | 15:47:13 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | I'm asking in good faith, just as you demonize the alt-right, can we demonize AuthLeft? | 15:47:22 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Fundamentally that's what the reaction against RFC0098 is, a reaction against AuthLeft | 15:47:49 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | I want to see a moderate, non-partisan solution to moderation | 15:48:05 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | GallantChef: I am personally strongly opposed to the authoritarian "left" (though I do not really consider them "left" personally) - however, considering that they are not a dominant social or political force, they are pretty much irrelevant from a community management perspective | 15:48:06 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | this does not apply to the alt-right | 15:48:17 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | That's interesting | 15:48:29 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
one "metric" I often use is "does this person's presence in the community constitute a net positive or a net negative effect on that community?" This. I noticed that many of the more vocal and hostile actors in all those heated discussions aren't actually that involved in the community. However in the other direction that's far more difficult: just because a person is invaluable to the community doesn't allow them to be a total ass. | 15:48:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | who, especially in privacy/security circles, come rolling in at a ridiculous rate | 15:48:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | also, to be clear, I am not suggesting a blanket ban on alt-right ideology in the NixOS community - I have not yet seen a reason to need to do so | 15:49:06 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I'm just bringing it up as an example of a past situation where a 'policy shortcut' was necessary to keep moderation workable | 15:49:29 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Talking about bans on ideologies is inherently auth. Defending language such as "fascism, bigotry, etc." is inherently AuthLeft | 15:49:50 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | If that's not your intention, then I can respect that. | 15:50:03 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | But please, let's try and keep it moderate | 15:50:10 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | You consider someone net negative based on judging their morals, that's how humans work | 15:50:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Talking about bans on ideologies is inherently auth. Defending language such as "fascism, bigotry, etc." is inherently AuthLeft it is very much not, and this is decidedly diverging from the actual conversation topic of this room. I've answered your question regarding the authoritarian left in good faith, but that was not an invitation to start trying to redefine the term and steer the conversation towards party politics | 15:50:51 |
