In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(I'd rather not name them to prevent this discussion from becoming about a person rather than a broader concern, but I suspect that those who have been around on IRC know what I mean)

Emil Karlson: okay, so essentially they were doing the Just Asking Questions thing where they were framing things as a 'debate', while making hurtful and/or ignorant and/or bigoted comments in the process, or asking loaded 'questions' that were really just abusive statements masquerading behind a question mark.

this happened repeatedly, and it turned out to be very difficult to call out what they were doing, because the mere framing of it as a 'debate' almost magically excluded their behaviour from scrutiny from the perspective of a number of community members, who pattern-matched it as a "we should keep communicating and keep asking critical questions" argument (which would normally be a good thing), but who failed to recognize a) the bad-faith intentions behind it, and b) the impact that it was having on making the channel uncomfortable for others.

so when calling out their behaviour, instead of the discussion going towards "we should make sure to remain empathic and respectful and inclusive and this is what you can do to make the community a nicer place for others", it veered towards "but I have a right to freedom of speech", which incidentally is precisely what you see happening in the alt-right (including gab) - and more importantly, this pulled along some community members who are less familiar with the dynamics behind bigotry and who took the 'debate' and 'free speech' argument at face value

ryblade: GallantChef: I've just finally gotten around to reading the backlog. a couple of observations:

• you continuously complain about authoritarians. yet the whole explicit purpose of RFC98 being structured how it is, is to establish a non-authoritarian structure for maintaining community health. where, exactly, are you seeing 'authoritarianism' anywhere in here?
• your earlier seemingly completely unprompted "are we even allowed to say that anymore?!" and "damn SJWs"-style rants and ridiculing of inclusivity were wholly inappropriate and frankly surreal to witness - considering there wasn't even anyone else interacting with you - and I would have banned you for it had you tried this in a community I moderate. these sorts of rants serve no purpose other than to sow division and adopt a victim role just because you are expected to be empathic and actually consider the impact of your words on others. this sort of aggressive behaviour has zero place in this community as far as I'm concerned, either in the discussion of RFC98 here or anywhere else.
• in the discussion of the Rust CoC, you complained that it was too specific in the groups and such that it named, and instead it should be applied to 'everybody'. yet in the same breath you argue that RFC98 is "too vague and subjective", even though it is phrased vaguely precisely to avoid the problems with defining explicit behaviours and groups that you have already observed. so which is it?
• "the community should be about technology, not anything else" is a non-starter, and frankly a highly privileged position to take. as I had already pointed out yesterday, everything is fundamentally political, and that includes how the technology is built - not just from a "design choices" perspective, but also in who are made to feel welcome in the community that builds it and how their feedback and contributions are treated by others. trying to define behavioural rules in the NixOS community as "tech only" is functionally equivalent to "excluding marginalized groups and designing for dominant social groups" in practice, whether or not you personally recognize that from your position in society.