On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:55:05 +0200 Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Simon, I would suggest to take a step back as you said and consider whether what you are doing is in fact tone-policing here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing > A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at > the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to > dismiss a person's argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a > tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This > is a logical fallacy because a person can be angry while still being > rational. Nonetheless, a tone argument may be useful when responding to a > statement that itself does not have rational content, such as an appeal to > emotion. I will elaborate below. > Hi MSavoritias, > > This message is not to cut any discussion but maybe it could be helpful > or a bit saner if you refrain to rehash again and again the same to all > messages, replying the same (or almost) to each person expressing > different opinions. Its not really different tho is it? In the sense that since the beginning of this thread there has been 2 opinions. The one for consent was supressed pretty fast with arguments appealing on "ethics" and "you just don't understand free software is all the rules we have" both of them bad faith arguments of course. So if you look at the thread actually its the people that have already phrased their support have stopped replying, and I am the one replying to one opinion. I invite you to think about 3 things: 1. Why did you felt to point it out to me instead of the same bad faith argument been written again and again? 2. What happened to the people that wanted consent but now don't reply anymore. 3. Does that a culture like this stop more voices from coming forward? > No blame, and I also include myself: being very enthusiastic to defend > ideas and values. However, a storm of replies is maybe not the best > mean to achieve such defense. :-) > > I think people got your points and your opinion, quickly summarized as: > > 1. SWH broke “implicit social rules”, > 2. Because of that, Guix must make a clear public “pressure” against SWH. > > > Let look how the thread looks like: > > https://yhetil.org/guix/87a5jfjoey....@gmail.com/T/#rc72a0743026006ee9d4758cfa794df42a9964a55 > (or this other one: https://yhetil.org/guix/87il1mupco.fsf@meson/#r) Again see above. > Then, for what my humble point of view is worth here, I think that your > opinion is maybe not the consensus. Obviously, the discussion is still > open and your opinion is welcome – yeah obviously welcome! – but maybe > not by replying to all, each time. As mentioned above you probably missed the first few replies before this thread was taken over so please go read again the first few hours :) As another point please dont gaslight me :) I know how many people have replied in support both in this thread and in xmpp. So this thread being flooded by people who dont think CoC or consent or privacy matters doesn't really make me question if I am right. It makes me question that of course nobody else is going to reply to get storm of replies saying how "unethical" they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting > Gaslighting is a colloquialism, loosely defined as manipulating someone into > questioning their own perception of reality. > You are advocating for a safe place, right? From my eyes, when I see > the structure of the thread, it does not generate a safe place where > collaboration is encouraged. > > My feeling, when I do a step back and look to the structure of the > thread, is that some opinions are silent because it’s hard to have the > space to express them. Yes exactly. So lets see what opinions were expressed the first few hours of this thread. And what opinions have been expressed after mostly. And lets see what kind of arguments were against these initial points. (hint: its not good faith arguments most of them :) ) I do agree that the mailing list is not a safe space for a host of reasons that I already knew going in (and believe me its not easy try to write and persist) but that is an argument for another time. > Sometimes, a breath is helpful. Somehow, FWIW, I suggest you to let the > discussion aside, then some days later read again some messages, try to > differently understand what other peers are trying to express, and > comment to few on a fresh mindset. > > All opinions are very welcome. We are all here because we value Free > Software, community, people, etc. and not necessary in that order. And > that’s very important to be able to express all the diversity. If we value diversity then we need to ask: Where are the different opinions really and why did they left? Have you asked yourself that Simon? This is not meant of course to say that it is your fault. Its meant to be a wider discussion of: 1. Why did the moderation fail in this thread? 2. Where are the diversity of voices? 3. Why was the piling on of a single view point that is again the Guix CoC allowed in this thread? MSavoritias > Again, this message is not a mean to cut any discussion. Instead, this > message is a call to slow down. :-) > > WDYT? > > Cheers, > simon
