On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Jonas Schäfer <jo...@wielicki.name> wrote:
> Concretely, I propose that we add to 2.4 Be respectful, the following
> items on
> the list of things to avoid:
>
> > - Use of racist, misogynistic, anti-trans, anti-gay, ableist slurs, or
> other
> > derogatory pejoratives for oppressed identity groups against such
> groups.
> >
> > - Blatantly racist, casteist, ableist, sexist, anti-trans, or otherwise
> > offensive and bigoted discourse.
>
>
I think this would belong in 2.3, actually, but in any case, I tried very
hard to avoid explicit lists of what is acceptable.
The research I did didn't give me a clear guide on this strategy - some
people wrote that you absolutely should list everything that's
unacceptable, but other people wrote that such a list essentially becomes a
licence to do anything not explicitly listed.
Loosely, I felt that anything in a CoC can and will be weaponized against
you, which is why everything is - mostly, anyway - written as broad
principles rather than lists of examples. (And yes, there is a school of
thought that says that the reverse strategy is more effective at
deweaponising). In addition, I tried to write section 2 in particular in a
friendly, calm, encouraging manner - rather that a stern list of rules
which one must not violate.
I actually think all your examples here are covered by 2.3 already, in as
much as "subjects and expressions that may offend" is deliberately broad;
and in common with the bit in 2.2 where if I accidentally used a castist
slur (I genuinely have no idea what those might be) someone points it out
and I take it as a learning experience and move on, I'd like to think we're
covered.
As a particular example, I avoided the term "anti-trans" because that
subject is heavily contentious; I did in 2.1 explicitly include "sexual
identity", which might well be the wrong term, but that's (part of) what
I'm aiming for there.
I don't think this needs debating here - the goal is presumably to ensure
that people from any and all backgrounds are equally welcome in this
community, with the sole proviso that they too must be welcoming to
everyone else. To wax philosophical for a moment, we are all bigots, but we
are exhorted in XEP-0458 to avoid showing it.
If you wanted to change or add to cover your concerns, I'd suggest doing so
in 2.1 in similar broad terms, rather than trying to police individual
phrases.
> In addition, before the list of things to avoid, I would like to add:
>
> > Respect others requests for space. That includes to disengage from a
> > discourse if your partner(s) indicate that they do not want to discuss a
> > topic any further. It is not easy to let someone be "wrong" on the
> internet,
> > but boundaries are there to be respected.
>
>
I think I understand what you're trying to achieve here, but I'm not sure
this is the way to do it.
If I understand correctly, you're trying to avoid someone aggressively
continuing a conversation when someone else is trying to disengage because
the discussion is making them uncomfortable. I get this, but "She should
have said if it made her uncomfortable", "Hey, they didn't say I should
stop", etc.
I do wish that I could have unilaterally stopped discussion of Carbons
several times, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean either.
Let me ask this question: Under what circumstances do you think a
discussion would enter the state that concerns you without having
transgressed some other guidance in XEP-0458?
> To section 2.5 ("Be friendly and supportive"), I would like to add after
> the
> first paragraph:
>
> > This includes being mindful of the abilities of others; nobody is born
> an
> > expert in anything and we all had to learn at some point. Be supportive
> of
> > newcomers and learners. Do not be patronizing or condescending.
>
I tried to capture this sentiment in the penultimate sentence of 2.1. Do
you think it needs more?
Dave.
