crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:

> We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see.

 no, i will not be waiting and seeing.   there is absolutely no
contest.  CoCs are, from the comprehensive analysis that i've done,
extremely dangerous and toxic documents.  i was not joking when i said
that each of the flaws in the concept of a CoC is so fundamental as to
*on their own* place them well beyond the possibility of deployment.
that i could find *six* such fundamental and fatal flaws makes a CoC
almost a joke.

> It hopefully will not ever matter.

 it will not ever matter.

>  I fear taking away too much of your time
> when you have more urgent things to do.
> But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement
> and/or possible misunderstandings:
> possible misunderstanding:
> A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be
> complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It
> is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the
> circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is
> needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of
> uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)
> possible misunderstanding:
> Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people
> and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

 then it is completely useless.  if it doesn't cover *all* cases, it's
utterly and completely useless.  it's like placing a series of gates
(with no walls) around your stash of gold.  now expand that to
multi-dimensional space.

> possible misunderstanding:
> A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in
> the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

 declaring that someone is "in the wrong" even before the analyisis
has been done *is* itself wrong.  what if it turns out, especially as
has happened with Julian Assange and with the Tor group that the
accusations - the "victims" - were outright liars, involved in

 having a code of conduct paints a huge target on a project, saying
"here's how you are GUARANTEED to disrupt this project" by having a
comprehensive and detailed list to work from, where you *know* that
they're going to treat the "victim" as being "in the right" no matter

 a code of conduct is a knee-jerk "no thought, analysis or compassion
required" reaction, florian.  they're DANGEROUS documents.

> disagreement:
> Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad
> things.

 oh yes it does.  you've probably never experienced that, but i have.
to give you an example: have you heard about when Mother Theresa was
invited to a "War Rally"?  do you know what her response was?   she
said, "no thanks.... but if you invite me to a PEACE Rally i'll be

 in other words, when you start talking about PROTESTING -ISMs, guess
what happens?  up pops aaalllll the people who want an opportunity to

 so NO.  there will be NO INVITATION TO ATTACK placed on ANY project
associated with EOMA.

> disagreement:
> More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always
> inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often
> victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim
> blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C.
> reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.

 please research the concept "victim mentality" more thoroughly.


arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to