Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 12:39:37 +0100, a ecrit: > It is defeatist because it departs from the basic idea you’ll *have* to > exclude someone at some point. No solution will ever be found.
Yes. Been there a few times, had to resort to it, I remember a case where it was after a couple of *years* trying with others to find a solution. > And rather than taking the risk of not reacting immediately > (“tolerance zero”, another right wing thing) I never said reaction had to be immediate. > you prefer to “aknowledge” this “will have to be done at some > point”. Is if there wasn’t any middle ground for compromision > there. Sometimes you can't find any. > The idea of shared kill/blacklist or /ignore have been already proposed. > That solves it. Not necessarily for less strong people. Just leaving out is simpler than having to yet again set up some filters and everything. > It is paternalist because it assumes *the chiefs* have to take care for > “uncomfort” and “stuff people couldn’t stand”. In my book, parts of chiefs' role is making sure people are comfortable, yes. > It always will be, because “excluding” these “toxic” people won’t make > them disappear away, they always will be somewhere. Possibly, unfortunately. That said, sometimes some people are only toxic in a given situation, and just excluding them from it avoids the issue. > Now, in the previous case, with no exclusions, these people who learnt to > stand anything could, as soon as there is no official exclusion, participate > in anything, that is good. Sure. But not everybody can (I'm not sure anybody can really in all situations). Samuel