Re: Censorship in Debian

[Sam Hartman]

Might I suggest that Miles and the rest of us have had as much of a
meeting of minds as we can in the media of email and that this thread
has drifted into noise?  In my oopinion continuing would do more harm
than good.

--Sam

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/11/19 8:28 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:


Miles Fidelman  writes:


On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:

...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
and believe them.


It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go
way over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like
censorship & banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action
on their behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some)
women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to
other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.

A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following
paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise):

i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on
feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of
argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on
why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear
that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean
that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this
subject:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman

ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I
don't think you mean to accuse me of?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting



You, specifically:  I am not familiar enough with you, or your writings, 
to make such an accusation.


An awful lot of calls for censorship - here and elsewhere - yes.

Regards,

Miles


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> No.  I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf.  I
> find THAT offensive.

Then I won't do that for you.

But I'm sure you realize that your experience is not universal among all
of humanity, and some people *do* want other people minding on their
behalf in some situations, mostly because they're exhausted, sick to death
of having to fight this battle, and/or much more likely to get abuse and
harassment if they do speak up than I am.

I will continue to emphasize the voices of those people and push for
things that they care about in places where I'm fairly sure that's what
they want because that's what members of a community do for each other.
Hell, that's what *friends* do for each other.  They have each other's
backs.

If a friend of mine cares about something that impacts them personally,
that means that I probably should at least consider whether I should care
about it too.  For me, this is a core part of the *definition* of
friendship.  If I don't give a shit about things that hurt my friends, I'm
not much of a friend, am I?

Obviously, it's then on me to be *really* good at listening, and to not
jump into places where I'm *not* wanted.  And obviously it's not
completely blind; sometimes a friend is going to be hurt by something, and
on reflection I'm going to decide that whatever they were hurt by wasn't
out of line.  It's tricky.  I'm going to mess up occasionally and have to
readjust.  But that's okay; it's still a lot less tricky than having to
deal with constant harassment every time you express an opinion.  I'm
happy to do some of my part in supporting my friends.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Matthew Vernon]

Miles Fidelman  writes:

> On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>
>> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
>> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
>> want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
>> get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
>> and believe them.
>
>
> It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go
> way over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like
> censorship & banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action
> on their behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some)
> women's complaints about offensive language, while not listening to
> other women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.

A couple of things (which might as well have come after the following
paragraph, but I'm trying to keep this concise):

i) you appear to be arguing that as a man I shouldn't speak out on
feminist topics, shouldn't take action on behalf of women. This line of
argument was run when we had the weboob argument, and Miry commented on
why she doesn't often join in such arguments[0] - from which it's clear
that "no woman has complained about this particular thing" doesn't mean
that thing is inoffensive. The geek feminism wiki has an article on this
subject: 
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman

ii) "White Knighting" has a specific meaning in this context, which I
don't think you mean to accuse me of?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/White_knighting

Regards,

Matthew

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00364.html
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Censorship in Debian

[Miles Fidelman]

On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:

Miles Fidelman  writes:


At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just
the opposite, and, if anything, leaning toward taking so much offense,
at so much, as to be offensive for that.

The effect of this maxim is that if you're someone who isn't on the
receiving end of a lot of bad language or behaviour (because, for
example, you are a white male),


White JEWISH male, who's grandparents all came from Eastern Europe - 
we've been on the receiving end of LOTS of bad language & behavior.  
(And it seems to be coming back.)


Also, grew up in the 60s - not a good time to look Jewish, and have long 
hair (well, a bushy Jewfro) when traveling in large parts of the 
country.  ("Long haired hippy freak" could get you killed.)


And then, it wasn't always "age of the geek."



then it's easy to say "Oh, I don't mind
what people say about me, so no-one else should mind either". You're
speaking from a position of relatively high social position. When you
say that to someone who is often on the receiving end of abuse (because
they're queer, or black, or trans, or a woman), you're saying in effect
"if you want to stick around here, you'll have to accept the
racist/sexist/homophobic things people say to you - otherwise you're not
being liberal in what you accept".


No.  I may mind, but I sure don't want others minding on my behalf.  I 
find THAT offensive.


To keep it personal, I mind if someone calls me a "Jewboy" or a "Hebe" 
(unless, of course, it's me, or some other NY Jewboy - then it's just 
fine - I'm proud of being a "New York Jew," and a Yankees fan, now 
living in Red Sox Nation).


I appreciate it you don't use that kind of language, and more if you 
don't think that way, but I can fight my own battles thank you very much 
- I sure don't appreciate someone censoring discussion on my behalf.  
(Cops stopping violence, laws against broad-based discrimination, 
programs that balance the scales and redress previous grievances are one 
thing - but I'm with the ACLU on on speech, demonstrations, and so 
forth, or, as Lewis Brandeis put it, in a famous Supreme Court Decision, 
is "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" - 
though, strangely, in an opinion CONCURRING with suppression of speech).


I'm saying that there's a point at which one gives back as good as one 
gets, rather than crying for others to protect one's sensibilities.  And 
I sure don't want folks stepping in, who don't have a dog in the fight.


I don't want wannabee nazis (you know, the morons who march around in 
polo shirts, carrying tiki torches, chanting "Jews will not replace us," 
and generally making good targets of themselves) complaining about 
Internet censorship.  I want them afraid to rally, running home to 
momma, because they're afraid of the "scary liberals."  And maybe, just 
maybe, learning something from the experience.  (Have you noticed how 
few "free speech rallies" we've had lately?)




...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
want a broad range of people to feel welcome in our community. I don't
get to decide what is offensive to women[0], I get to listen to women
and believe them.



It's one thing to have some social norms, and jump on people who go way 
over the top.  It's quite another to have star-chamber like censorship & 
banning.  And even more for you (a male) to take action on their 
behalf.  It seems to be awfully arbitrary to listen to (some) women's 
complaints about offensive language, while not listening to other 
women's complaints about "white knight" behavior.




And I should then help ensure that language that is
offensive to women isn't used in Debian - it's not fair on women to have
to justify Every. Single. Time. why particular language is offensive or
offputting to women.



Maybe not.  And good for you to refrain from using such language. But 
who are you (male from your name) to be the one applying defense on 
their behalf - haven't you heard enough complaints about playing "white 
knight?"  Personally, I find it offensive to have privileged people 
whine & complain on behalf of the oppressed.  (Ever notice how often 
it's the white suburbanites who are quickest to take issue with 
"offensive language," preach political correctness, and jump in as 
social justice warriors?  We used to call them "limousine liberals.")  
Frankly, I don't want WASPs advocating against anti-Semitism.  And I 
prefer to either respond in kind, or kill-file people, than to have 
someone else call them out, or censor them in my name, thank you very much.


Censorship & banning are, in themselves, offensive behavior (to me).  
Calling some

Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions

[Richard Hartmann]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:48 AM Jonathan Wiltshire  wrote:

> I have the very highest regard for both Joerg's and Enrico's integrity. I
> hope that they would say likewise about me. We are trying hard to do the
> right thing and not the subvertible thing, so please have a little faith
> that we are not designing this appeals process purely so we can game it in
> our favour.

At least from my perspective, this is not about anyone's integrity;
your integrity is beyond doubt.

Yet, processes should be somewhat resilient. This is especially true
if they are executed seldomly, have extreme consequences, might
challenged, or are likely to face increased public scrutiny. In this
case, all of those apply.


Once again, thank you to all parties involved who took it upon
themselves to weather this mudslinging contest,
best,
Richard