| 4 Nov 2021 |
 GallantChef | Almost everyone in the room has been arguing against you exclusively | 15:53:54 |
 joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | GallantChef: okay, I'm going to have to be a bit more blunt here to make my point clear: what you are arguing for, is to give equal value to oppressive and fascist ideology, as to inclusive and empathic ideology. in other words, to "make room for fascism". and yes, I can decidedly say that regardless of implementation details, this will lead to a toxic community. | 15:54:37 |
 piegames | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Almost everyone in the room has been arguing against you exclusively You clearly don't know how many people are just reading the conversation, and silently shaking their head at every of your messages. | 15:54:56 |
| GallantChef | The only toxicity I've ever seen in this community, is somebody pushing for the ability to ban anyone they don't agree with | 15:55:03 |
 Domen Koลพar | The current unknown membership status of 98 doesn't signal trust and thus leaves room for speculation for such questions as why are the members hidden of they are neutral | 15:55:08 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | I am open to discussion on a lot of details regarding community management, but "fascism and bigotry are undesirable and we should be empathic and inclusive instead" is a position that I will not, under any circumstances, deviate from | 15:55:20 |
| Domen Koลพar | * The current unknown membership status of 98 doesn't signal trust and thus leaves room for speculation for such questions as why are the members hidden if they are neutral | 15:55:25 |
| Domen Koลพar | joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ fascism is not a defined term | 15:56:27 |
 Jonas Chevalier | This whole Alt-left vs Alt-right is irrelevant to NixOS. Why are we even talking about that | 15:56:51 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | it's actually fairly well-defined, even if adherence to the definition is... not great | 15:56:52 |
| Domen Koลพar | How do you define it then? | 15:57:17 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | but feel free to replace it with "oppressive authoritarianism" if you prefer, for the purpose of this conversation they're mostly interchangeable | 15:57:31 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | and that's maybe a bit more of a "says it on the tin" term for it | 15:57:58 |
| Jonas Chevalier | You can be alt-right or alt-left and contribute to nixpkgs. Just don't come talk or try to impose your political views. | 15:58:01 |
 jonringer | I would really like to remove the political labels from the discussion. They have charged meaning, and are likely more disruptive to the conversation than productive | 15:58:24 |
| Jonas Chevalier | We are beings with multiple dimensions | 15:58:27 |
| Jonas Chevalier | We can have a productive conversation, and have different views of the world | 15:58:43 |
| GallantChef | I've legit been losing sleep over this, so I'm going to leave the community for now. I legitimately wish you all well, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that together you come to a solution that works for everyone | 15:59:08 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
So it's allowed to be prejudiced based ona sum of identify but not on a sum of deliberate choices? anyway, I was going to ask: I'm not entirely sure what you mean with this, can you clarify? | 15:59:10 |
| jonringer | RFC 98 is about enacting a moderation team, the discussion should related to the content; without too much extra | 15:59:26 |
| GallantChef | I bear no one any enmity, not even joepie. I apologize if my speech sounded accusative or rude. Thank you for your patience | 15:59:38 |
| GallantChef left the room. | 15:59:49 |
| Domen Koลพar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
but feel free to replace it with "oppressive authoritarianism" if you prefer, for the purpose of this conversation they're mostly interchangeable Can we then replace it with that term, as I think it's less vague? | 16:04:36 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | jonringer: also, did you understand what I meant with the point about sometimes needing 'policy shortcuts' for effective moderation? as that topic kinda got interrupted :p | 16:04:38 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
Can we then replace it with that term, as I think it's less vague? a term like that or similar sounds like it would be a good idea, yeah | 16:05:04 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | there's probably a more exact term that I can't immediately think of | 16:05:14 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | but I'd personally consider that a reasonable change request | 16:05:37 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | (of course I am neither the author nor a shepherd of the RFC, so it's not really my decision :p but I would expect the responsible people to not have any issues with a clarification like this either) | 16:06:26 |
| Domen Koลพar | I would go into details of oppressive authoritarianism, but I don't want to derail the discussion more than I did already :) | 16:10:58 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: also, did you understand what I meant with the point about sometimes needing 'policy shortcuts' for effective moderation? as that topic kinda got interrupted :p In my moderation RFC was going to define a banning process where people could be banned for 48hrs to 72hrs before making a longer more official one | 16:10:59 |
