On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) > <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: >> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and >> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective >> harm. The bill of rights is against harm. > > not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth, > creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same > underlying concept). that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm". > > to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth > when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset? can that > be called "harm"? (it can). thus, telling someone the truth may > actually cause them "harm"! >
Well, yes. I oversimplified. >> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real >> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps >> not. > > you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong > with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it. > It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the “Social Justice Warriors”. > anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct", > *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something > that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of > achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative. if > the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of > -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical. > > however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism > neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to > not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and > become bogged down in defining them. in quantum mechanics tunneling > terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum > well. only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can > it escape the trap. > > When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about bad decisions. Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more experience, see [2]. As I said, I don’t think adopting a CoC is useful if there is a single decision maker though. Regards, Florian Pelz [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk