on thread directions
Hi all Yes this is a lecture - deal with it. Some things need saying. When someone decides to unsub from a list, things tend to be well beyond problematic. It's not the time to argue with them over the validity of their move, or the semantics of what constitutes name calling and who did what. The atmosphere has gone sour and continuing to argue on whatever aspect of it merely indicates that you're not getting that point - which is possibly also the origin of the problem. Bianca Gibson is an awesome member of the open source community, and if she decides to make this moves you can be assured that various other less outspoken people have also disconnected (not don't go off checking the unsubs to nerd-argue with me, as that would again miss the point). Losing anyone from our community, particularly for these reasons, is a bad thing. It is very important we are inclusive and accepting as a group. If it's "just" luv-talk people unsub from rather than all of LUV, you may consider yourself lucky, and it'd be an opportunity for a second chance - show those people in the other lists and at live events that you're a sensible individual who positively contributes. Our community has people of many different skills and skill levels. Yes some of us spell better than others. You can offer suggestions and help, just don't bet a jerk about it. And in terms of politics... while overall we're probably more on the progressive end, there'll still be a wide range of viewpoints. Making sweeping statements about people in the context of a broader group tends to be fairly uncool as well as regarded as extremely unfair - so just don't do that. I think it's cool to discuss politics online, just remember that email and online communication lacks the instant feedback that tends to keep live chats within sensible boundaries - and politics are, particularly now, of course a hot topic. Everybody has very strong opinions, and that's not a bad thing. Even when you feel (or know!) you're right about something, if you tick off everybody in the group by you blatting them over the head with it, what's the use? If you tone it down a bit, you may have more and longer opportunity to interact with the people with whom you currently disagree - and perhaps, who knows, you might convince them later with your insights and thoughtful contributions. Stewart Smith and others have summarised these things very eloquently at talks: don't be a jerk. Cheers, Arjen. -- Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) MariaDB/MySQL services Sane business strategy explorations at http://upstarta.com.au Personal blog at http://lentz.com.au/blog/
On Mon, 19 May 2014 14:49:14 Arjen Lentz wrote:
Yes this is a lecture - deal with it. Some things need saying.
When someone decides to unsub from a list, things tend to be well beyond problematic. It's not the time to argue with them over the validity of their move, or the semantics of what constitutes name calling and who did what.
Who claimed that people shouldn't unsubscribe? I must have missed that. Was it in off-list discussion?
The atmosphere has gone sour and continuing to argue on whatever aspect of it merely indicates that you're not getting that point - which is possibly also the origin of the problem.
The idea that we should just stop the discussion when things "go sour" is wrong. Doing so means that people who want to promote homophobia, racism, misogyny, and joke about the Holocaust are free to do so because disagreeing with such people is always going to "go sour".
Losing anyone from our community, particularly for these reasons, is a bad thing. It is very important we are inclusive and accepting as a group. If it's "just" luv-talk people unsub from rather than all of LUV, you may consider yourself lucky, and it'd be an opportunity for a second chance - show those people in the other lists and at live events that you're a sensible individual who positively contributes.
There is no good option to be inclusive of people who want to exclude others. Here are the options for dealing with such situations: 1) Have a policy of quickly using moderation powers to stop people who attack minority groups. 2) Have a big argument with such people every time. 3) Have a de-facto policy of this list being only for straight white men because everyone who isn't will periodically face discrimination. The way things have worked in this list has varied between options 2 and 3.
Even when you feel (or know!) you're right about something, if you tick off everybody in the group by you blatting them over the head with it, what's the use? If you tone it down a bit, you may have more and longer opportunity to interact with the people with whom you currently disagree - and perhaps, who knows, you might convince them later with your insights and thoughtful contributions.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument Of course we get the tone argument. The Geek Feminism wiki has one of the better descriptions but it has a much wider scope. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
There is no good option to be inclusive of people who want to exclude others. Here are the options for dealing with such situations:
1) Have a policy of quickly using moderation powers to stop people who attack minority groups. 2) Have a big argument with such people every time. 3) Have a de-facto policy of this list being only for straight white men because everyone who isn't will periodically face discrimination.
4. Practice civility. Which does not of course 'stop people who attack minority groups', so if you're looking for a perfect remedy that roots out Intolerable Societal Injustice[tm] wherever it's found, keep looking. But, FWIW, it's what I aim at.
The way things have worked in this list has varied between options 2 and 3.
Even when you feel (or know!) you're right about something, if you tick off everybody in the group by you blatting them over the head with it, what's the use? If you tone it down a bit, you may have more and longer opportunity to interact with the people with whom you currently disagree - and perhaps, who knows, you might convince them later with your insights and thoughtful contributions.
This has been a fashionable page to cite in recent years. The page points to a genuine logical fallacy, but then does a waffle that conflates that real policy with a weird type of special pleading suggesting that it's wrong to tell people they might make a better impression by avoiding sounding batshit crazy, as so doing ignores the speaker's substantive argument and is a form of non-sequitur reasoning (that 'distracts' from that substantive argument). The real logical fallacy is where a critic suggests the speaker's arguments lack merit because he or she wasn't being nice. Valid point, always worth bearing in mind. The waffle comes from the suggestion that _all_ 'you might come across as less crazy if you tone down the rhetoric' responses are intended, or best understood, as non-sequitur distractions from the speaker's point. Speaking dismissively to Internet loons is, actually, seldom intended to address the speaker's points. More often, it's just a reflection of the listener having limited time and patience for ill-behaved chuckleheads and little interest in debating those persons, irrespective of the separate merits of substantive points within those persons' flamemails. And, sometimes, 'you might come across as less crazy if you tone down the rhetoric' merely means 'you might come across as less crazy if you tone down the rhetoric'. The cited page's notion that raising the criticism 'shuts down' the speaker is, of course, transparently false, but is a passive-aggressive classic.
participants (3)
-
Arjen Lentz -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker