On 15/04/2021 10:40 am, Frosku wrote:
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have
favored those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with
the implied assumption being that their objections are reasonable. Given
the emergency of cancel culture, that assumption is no longer
automatically valid.
This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in
which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary
to inquire for what reason this should be done (and, perhaps, who is
pushing for it to be done). My suggestion is that this judgment can be
made by the community (via secret ballot), unless it is decided to
delegate that power to a smaller body, considered as trustees, or
whatever you choose to call them.
paul
I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree
with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban.
A little late to the party, but thought this was worth commenting on-
from my perspective, as long as there is some sort of consensus amongst
moderators about who is worth banning, as opposed to whether it can be
fixed by calling the person out on their ongoing behaviour, it's
probably worth doing. If that power is left to one mod, it's not a good
thing. 3 or a larger odd number of mods is best for avoiding stalemates,
and more is better.
As an example of a controversial mod choice and without wanting to
reopen wounds here, if I were a mod I could quite easily ban Nathan for
the dishonesty and divisiveness of his initial post (see below if you
require substantive talk around that), despite the fact that I have no
particular love for Stallman or any investment in the topic. But another
mod might see that contribution as 'the end justifying the means' in
terms of bringing in an inevitable debate around Stallman's offputting
personal manner, and whether that fits in today's society. Another mod
might have another opinion etc.
Two or three heads, are better than one, when it comes to behaviour
judgement - particularly when an international community is at stake.
And the more temperamentally/culturally diverse the mods are - the
better for decision-making overall.
=====
1. 'skeptical that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.’
stallman's own archives 2006-mar-jun I note that children are
*incapable* of consenting. That’s what the age of consent means.
He has recanted on this as of 2019
(https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong))
because people took the time to point out to him why his opinion was
wrong. Omitting his recantation is, by my standards, a lie by omission.
It doesn't make what he initially said any less terrible. But it
clarifies his actual position.
2. 'end censorship of “child pornography”’. Stallman's archives
2012-jul-oct.html Notice use of “quotes” to down play what is actually
being requested.
While I don't actually agree with Stallman in the slightest, his stated
objection is "it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos
with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for
this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted. "
That's very different from how it's been presented here - a lie by omission.
3. 'gentle expressions of attraction’ Stallman's archives >
2012-jul-oct.html Condoning a variant of the wolf-whistle. Unless
one’s talking to one’s lover, ‘gentle invitations for sex’ by a
stranger is *grooming* (be it child or of-age).
If you ever been to a bar, or an open-air event, or god forbid a party,
you are aware that this is an obvious lie (for adults).
Secondarily, nothing in Richard's text relates to wolf-whistling or
variants.
