| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Jonas Chevalier | so when we have people reacting against the "woke" it's really a reaction against the most extremist positions | 14:44:17 |
| Jonas Chevalier | this then feeds back as an attack against the group, and creates a never-ending feedback loop | 14:44:58 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and with 'expertise imbalance' I mean the thing that I'm sure all of you have experienced at some point, where you are experienced in some (technical) topic and know why the naive solutions won't work, and so when someone inexperienced engages with you in discussion and suggests that naive solution, you already know that it cannot work and why, and if this happens enough then they will necessarily perceive you as 'impossible to argue with' | 14:45:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | for me, one of those topics is social/community dynamics | 14:45:30 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
so when we have people reacting against the "woke" it's really a reaction against the most extremist positions the problem with the "woke" thing specifically is that it's a strawman; a degree of extremist ideology is ascribed to people that they do not actually adhere to, and that (for the most part) doesn't exist anywhere outside of the narratives of 'opponents' | 14:46:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | there are very, very few people that you could genuinely call "left extremists". they exist, I have met some of them, I have argued with them, but they are rare and not remotely controlling the conversation | 14:47:20 |
 tomberek | That sounds a lot like, “I have all the answers and won’t listen to people I perceive as being uninformed.” Can you see how that behavior is not helping here? It’s counter productive to your own goals it seems. | 14:47:24 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: I don't "have all the answers". but if someone brings up an excessively naive view of social dynamics that's demonstrably wrong, and I can explain in detail why it is wrong and where it fails, what would you expect me to do? pretend to listen and pretend to consider something that I have considered and evaluated years ago already? I would consider that dishonest | 14:48:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would much rather dive into the topic, explain in an accessible way why it wouldn't work, and hopefully get more people actively involved in the topic and give them the tools to dive into it further - even if that's at the risk of people considering me personally an insufferable asshole | 14:49:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is really just 'teaching' | 14:50:03 |
| tomberek | You may be completely right, but acting in that manner is not helping. It is clearly hurting. | 14:50:11 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it just happens to be on a frequently contentious topic | 14:50:19 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I think a good example was nrxdp's post, which I viewed mostly as an expression of frustration. It wasn't necessary to cherry-pick a wrong item | 14:51:22 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Anyways, I feel like we're getting to a shared understanding of the world position | 14:52:06 |
 jonringer | Why is left or right entering the conversation. I don't know how this relates to moderating disruptive behavior. | 14:52:11 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I'd personally prefer to stay away from left vs. right, but "woke" was brought up and I felt I had to correct that :p | 14:53:02 |
 Jan Tojnar | the focus on community rather than the individual is traditionally left | 14:53:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's immaterial to the moderation topic, really | 14:53:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jan Tojnar: in practice it's unfortunately not that consistent, but that's a discussion that definitely veers away from the topic of this room | 14:53:44 |
| tomberek | So…. where are we? Did we make any progress? | 14:54:09 |
| Jonas Chevalier | IMO this happened because most of the participants in favour of the RFC are LGBT-related. | 14:54:43 |
| tomberek | There is a similar thing with 111. | 14:55:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | It's really unfortunate that we have camps like that | 14:55:36 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | also, I want to highlight one thing here: the reason I am talking about 'good faith' vs. 'bad faith' is two-fold:
- it's not strongly tied to any particular political or personal identities, it is entirely about how an individual chooses to engage with a community, and
- because it is about a choice of engagement, it is not immutable; as long as you think in behavioural choices rather than 'bad' identities, there is always a path towards resolution, towards understanding other people's experiences better and working out differences
| 14:56:06 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and while there are specific political identities and groups which are strongly driven by deliberate bad-faith behaviour, the topic of moderation can be discussed without focusing on those groups specifically | 14:56:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so I would much, much prefer not to turn this into a left vs. right vs. whatever debate :) | 14:57:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | One criteria I like to use is whenever a conversation is productive or not | 14:57:15 |
| tomberek | Jon is proposing an alternative approach to CoC. Thoughts? | 14:57:32 |
| Jonas Chevalier | It's subjective but also falls into "good faith" "bad faith" | 14:57:37 |
| jonringer | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
Jon is proposing an alternative approach to CoC. Thoughts? RFC 114 is an CoC. It just has very different wording | 14:57:57 |
