| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | I really disagree with this line of thinking | 14:25:56 |
 tomberek | What group you want to exclude? | 14:26:07 |
| tomberek | Or that we should? | 14:26:43 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | tomberek: those who are unwilling to be empathic, baseline inclusive, and accepting of other people's experiences | 14:26:46 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | paradox of intolerance shouldn't be used as a leg-up to create more intolerance | 14:26:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (with "those who are unable to be empathic" being a special case that requires case-by-case consideration) | 14:27:14 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | exclusion is an unfortunate thing and should be exceptional | 14:27:22 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: I completely agree with that | 14:27:35 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | however, I do also recognize that not all exclusion is implicit, and that it is very easy to end up with a lot of implicit exclusion - the path towards "least exclusion" is not "define no social norms" | 14:28:22 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * however, I do also recognize that not all exclusion is explicit, and that it is very easy to end up with a lot of implicit exclusion - the path towards "least exclusion" is not "define no social norms" | 14:28:28 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | please tell me something you are unsure about | 14:28:39 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | what are open questions you have? | 14:28:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | how do you mean? | 14:29:01 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | I want to start this again, but from a place where we're open that we don't have all the answers | 14:29:58 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | I certainly don't have all the answers | 14:30:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | neither do I; I already mentioned one such case actually, people who cannot be empathic (eg. because of some sort of mental health condition) | 14:30:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that is a complicated thing where there is no clear good answer, because on the one hand you cannot allow one person to disrupt an entire community, but on the other hand it is likely a chronic condition and so on a societal scale they would get excluded from everywhere | 14:31:41 |
| tomberek | Disrupt the community? | 14:32:15 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * that is a complicated thing where there is no clear good answer, because on the one hand you cannot allow one person to disrupt an entire community, but on the other hand it is likely a chronic condition and so on a societal scale they would get excluded from everywhere, which is also undesirable | 14:32:43 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | generally speaking, my impression is that we can get quite far by acknowledging that we have differences. | 14:33:22 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | and by talking to people | 14:34:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: I agree with that in general, but with the caveat that this only applies when everybody involved is acting in good faith | 14:35:15 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | which is usually the case, but it often only takes one person who isn't acting in good faith to make things go bad very quickly | 14:35:33 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | even the people above that were labelled toxic, are just people. behind the words are legitimate fears | 14:35:49 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | we have to acknowledge that, and also john's concerns | 14:36:50 |
 Jan Tojnar | I guess we (libertarian types) have the tendency to always extrapolate the actions to the worst case scenario, even though we might be completely in agreement on specifics with the today’s well-meaning left, we do not know who will come after them. | 14:36:56 |
| tomberek | You are suggesting large disruptions are necessary to our community norms, in order to prevent large disruptions. Some are seeing this conversation as a disruption, one in which there has not been a lot of empathetic behavior, impacting newcomers. What gives this disruption the moral high ground to occur and not others? | 14:37:00 |
 GallantChef | The belief of righteousness is what justifies it, hence why our friend has almost nothing that they're uncertain about | 14:37:31 |
| GallantChef | When you're arguing from a position of already being correct, it's difficult to lose an argument | 14:37:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: I'm certainly aware of that - I don't think most people know this about me, but I have a long long history of helping people to 'deradicalize', functioning as an (albeit limited) support network for people trying to get out of abusive right-extremist communities and the like, mediating between them and communities they have been removed from in the past, and so on. but none of that can work until the person in question shows themselves open to genuine good-faith conversation | 14:38:30 |
