| 4 Nov 2021 |
|  Irenes joined the room. | 04:05:03 |
| Irenes | ah | 04:06:29 |
| Irenes | there is a lot of scrollback | 04:06:32 |
| Irenes | I strongly believe that long-form discussion media lead to much calmer discussions, on controversial topics | 04:07:08 |
| Irenes | and I think a Discourse thread would be the ideal place to do this | 04:07:15 |
| Irenes | there's too much that got said today for me to really catch up on | 04:07:30 |
| Irenes | I'll try to stay tuned in going forward | 04:07:36 |
|  @jkarlson:kapsi.fi joined the room. | 08:32:39 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
Would that be a reasonable way to think about what reaches the level of harassment/abuse? If it can be reasonably ignored? If it can, then it is not - and vice versa? IMO the better metric is "is this going to affect new users who have not yet built up social ties?" -- a personality clash between two people doesn't meet that bar, and so an ignore is fine there. but as soon as it might make new people uncomfortable, that is a sign that ignores simply cannot address the problem, because you would essentially create a situation where someone needs to tell every new person "hey you should ignore this and that person if you feel uncomfortable", which a) runs afoul of the 'free emotional labour' thing described above, and b) is going to drive away a lot of people before you even have a chance to talk to them because there's some sort of toxic behaviour in the community that nobody is visibly acting against | 09:21:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and in practice, in my experience almost every situation of conflict in a community is of the latter variety, not the former | 09:22:20 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
And generally they are just an individual acting out. Not some greater plot of privileged individuals to oppress a minority this is not relevant. the impact of discriminatory and otherwise toxic behaviour is equally bad regardless of whether there is a 'greater plot', and so if an individual is unwilling to adjust themselves on that point, they can not be a productive part of the community | 09:23:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I'm just, tired of all the drama around people wanting a safe place. But only seeing the same people be responsible for the most inflammatory comments and dialouge. you need to consider that the person speaking the loudest is not necessarily the aggressor - in many cases they will be the person who is speaking out about something that is toxic and undesirable, but that is not blatant enough to stand out to anyone other than those who are directly affected by it. the drama is 'caused' by those behaving intolerantly (or otherwise against community interests), not by those calling it out. | 09:25:29 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | what looks like 'drama' to you, may well be someone finally collecting enough confidence to call out someone's abusive behaviour that has persisted for months or years | 09:26:29 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
I think if the original proposal was Rust CoC this would all have gone a lot smoother. that may well be, but that doesn't mean that it's also the better option from a community health perspective. | 09:27:48 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | realistically, sorting out community health in an existing community properly is always going to be messy and involve conflict, because a lot of implicit views and disagreements are being surfaced, and there are always going to be a handful of people who feel that anything that inconveniences their ability to speak without thought is automatically oppressive without considering the broader community's interests | 09:29:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * realistically, sorting out community health in an existing community properly is always going to be messy and involve conflict, because a lot of implicit previously-unspoken views and disagreements are being surfaced, and there are always going to be a handful of people who feel that anything that inconveniences their ability to speak without thought is automatically oppressive without considering the broader community's interests | 09:29:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and a handful of said people + widespread misbeliefs in the tech world about how moderation should be 'objective' = guaranteed conflict | 09:29:50 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | or to put it differently: the conflict ("drama") caused by this is an indicator that there are problems boiling under the surface that need to be addressed. taking the 'easy conflict-free route' basically just means that you're ignoring those issues, sweeping them under the carpet and just sorta hoping they don't come to a head - which is unlikely to be a successful strategy, in the long term, though most likely that will just manifest as marginalized folks quietly leaving | 09:32:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I believe RFC98 even explicitly mentions this, the "this is necessary conflict" point | 09:33:33 |
|  @zimbatm:numtide.com joined the room. | 09:33:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's very explicitly intended to bring these problems to the surface, discuss them, and ultimately resolve them | 09:33:53 |
| Irenes | thanks so much, @joepie91 <3 | 09:43:34 |
| Irenes | yeah - I take it for granted sometimes that people know how this stuff goes, because I've just seen it all too many times | 09:44:07 |
| Irenes | but this is the time to explain it all, for people who haven't | 09:44:15 |
| Irenes | I don't want hostility | 09:44:21 |
| Irenes | I've tried my best to meet hostility with love, and I will continue doing that | 09:44:40 |
| Irenes | but at some point in any community's history, this stuff has to be talked about so that a shared understanding of it can become the status quo | 09:45:20 |
| Irenes | I do think the discussions have identified some weaknesses in the RFC as it's written | 09:45:38 |
| Irenes | some of which we've addressed, some of which we're still working on | 09:45:45 |
| Irenes | and it will be better for that | 09:45:49 |
