On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 elvis wrote:
On 25/6/20 1:31 pm, davidson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
Dear users,
In the past days we saw multiple emails discussing about non
Debian-related things and infringing the Code of Conduct[0] of the
Project in the same time.
Oh, crap. I think I know what this is about. Sorry everybody.
The Community Team would like to remind you that this Code of
Conduct is to be followed when communicating on any Debian
Discussion Medium, even by non Debian Members.
Following the CoC guidelines isn't hard, it's essentially about not
being unrespectful to other people,
Oh god. Look, this is about my signature, isn't it?
It's a joke, man. A reductio ad absurdum, if you will.
and it helps avoiding situations where any form of official
moderation would be needed.
Woah, slow down. If you really think it's a problem, I can change the
sig. All you gotta do is ask.
Anybody of course may have an opinion, but voicing it in
disrespectful ways can't be accepted, as it could drive other
members of the Community away.
Look, for the last time, it's not *my* opinion. It is (allegedly)
Horatio Nelson's. And the whole point is that it is a very, very DUMB
opinion. Held by nobody but chauvinist troglodytes that need to be
excluded from polite society for the good of all.
??? I guess you can hold that opinion
For the record, I do not. That was satire.
The extent which putative communities and the sanction of banishment
seem to co-occur alarms me. In my small corner of the world, I sense
that "community" the term, and banishment the sanction, are
increasingly overapplied.
It almost seems as if the less felicitous it is, to call the group in
question a community, the more frequent are the calls for banishment.
if you have never studied or read about the period to put it in
context.
Indeed I have not. I did once attempt David Webber's Honor Harrington
series of science fiction novels (space opera subgenre), whose
protagonist is reportedly based on Nelson. But I did not know this at
the time, and I did not get very far.
I would be grateful for any book recommendation that you think might
improve a patient reader's understanding of the historical context.
To a student of the period it holds a subtle humour and is just a
product of its times.
Thank you for this.
To me, oblivious to its original context, it sums up an authoritarian
syllogism, saying the "quiet part out loud":
1. Firstly, you must always implicitly obey orders, without
attempting to form any opinion of your own respecting their
propriety.
[South Park's Cartman voice:] Obey mah authoritah!
A would-be authority that begins and ends here will fail. Such a state
of affairs must first be constructed. ("Firstly" is a lie. "Lastly"
would be the truth.)
2. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill
of your king;
$king is just a variable, a placeholder for some sacred postulate, any
questioning of which is immediately met with overwhelming force.
3. and thirdly, you must hate a Frenchman, as you do the devil.
$Frenchman is the placeholder for a handy quotidien scapegoat, used to
misdirect the mob's inherent resentment of authority.
$devil of course stands for the eternal (ie, imaginary/ideal)
scapegoat, useful to have around when no real $Frenchman will
plausibly serve.
--
What do you want to take off? [hrzF or ?*] F
You were wearing a +0 robe. The frost giant turns to flee.
