| 4 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | RFC 98, in its current state, is also enforcing a political narrative | 17:22:30 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so is RFC 114. | 17:22:45 |
| jonringer | how so | 17:22:53 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's just a political (or more accurately: ideological) view that aligns more with the status quo of the world in which NixOS exists | 17:23:02 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and therefore stands out less | 17:23:06 |
| jonringer | other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavior | 17:23:44 |
| jonringer | * other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavioral | 17:23:48 |
 Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I think it would be a superficial form of 'progress'; one that certainly reduces conflict in the short term, but whose outcome would be significantly worse than a whole-system analysis would produce, leaving too many conflicting/unspecified things that will produce conflict in the future This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. | 17:24:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact | 17:24:59 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | the difference in RFC 98 is that it states this ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * the difference in RFC 98 is that it states its ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:40 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | both of them are ideologically-motivated, and the same will be true for any proposal on moderation policy and social norms | 17:26:05 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. I described this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. * I explained this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact (I've bracketed "blatant" here because that was probably not the intention, but it is the real-world result of this type of policy; anything that isn't blatant is near impossible to argue under it) | 17:27:37 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I feel like we're back to square one | 17:27:39 |
| jonringer | Again, if we are forcing people to abide by someone's definition of "social norms", "fascism", and "bigotry". I'm leaving the community | 17:27:39 |
| Jonas Chevalier | joepie91 🏳️🌈: is there an agenda that you are not sharing with us | 17:28:20 |
