On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On September 3, 2014 10:23:14 AM EDT, Ian Jackson
> <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Piotr Ożarowski writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling
>>process"):
>>> yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we
>>> didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which
>>is
>>> not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times!
>>
>>Is it `censorship' that the DebConf CoC bans sexualised imagery in
>>slides ? My point being that the word `censorship' is just a way of
>>raising the political temperature. It doesn't add anything.
>>
>>And for the record, I'm not suggesting any of the extreme proposals
>>here and I think equating my email with them is offensive.
>
> I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer.
As are many. Emailing lists off of debian infrastructure have been
created and those who enjoy certain ... freedoms of expression ...
have migrated, at least partly.
> I've watched the entire video. There was nothing sexualized in what he says.
> I think you're doing a fine job of raising the temperature on your own.
>
> As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if
> he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be
> open to that.
>
> While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people
> from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with
> or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior.
Well put.
Can we provide some sort of system (eg ratings) to absolve speakers by
way of implied or explicit informed consent?
On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org>
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no
>>> idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and
>>we
>>> ought to be open to that.
>>
>>> While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects
>>> people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they
>>> disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of
>>> bad behavior.
One woman's opinion is another mans offensive speech.
This is the fundamental problem, not with the COC per se, but with the
doors it opens up, and why I believe so many spoke and voted against
it.
>> Often the difference between expressing an opinion in an
>> acceptable manner and expressing it unacceptably is indeed how one
>> phrases it, so the devil lies in the details
And indeed, some people find forced policitical correcteness in speech
to be (sometimes) bland, lacking in honesty, catering to a cotton wool
society where every self-indulgent weakness of personality must be
pampered, and in general soul destroying.
But what to do? as those with genuine fear and/ or fragility shall be
affected and shall here and there complain, and some individuals would
genuinely have an intention to cause grief or harm, and some would
genuinely do so unwittingly.
>> Having said that, I have just rewatched the talk, and I
>> personally was not offended. I do think calling people bigots is rude,
>>and in a way attacks their expression of their closely held opinions --
>> which is exactly what people here seem to want to defend.
>>
>> People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with
>> them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so
>> little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made.
Is it ever ok to speak an opinion which others may find offensive?
(I don't think this ought be in dispute - how can you know for sure,
you can't.)
> If I believe someone has lied to me, I can't envision a way to say that that
> won't offend them.
And if true, they deserve to be offended in this way!
How about offensive facts? Is it always ok to speak facts or stats,
which some may find offensive?
> No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were
> going to have a case of butt hurt over it.
>
> Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of
> those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free
> expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are
> conflicting, free expression has to win out.
Sad! Now you're already talking about valid restraining
of free expression.
The conversation is already here! Look where we've come.
How about the concept of informed consent to "creative" expressions
of a nature which may offend some?
How hard would it be to simply prefix every talk with a rating,
such as is used in the film industry:
G - general, suitable for all ages
PG - parents guidance recommended
R - restricted, may offend some
AO - adults only, contains expressions which may be found offensive
The only caveat is that R and AO talks would need to be in rooms,
so general passers by won't overhear and therefore be offended.
It might be a new way to boost interest in old subjects though :)
Let the feint of heart have their cotton wool pseudo reality.
Let the rest of us get on with our versions of adulthood.
Regards,
Zenaan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsrezlqgmdmqwugfhj_tfpc1tn1ugoh37jvj5zqmhd0...@mail.gmail.com
