Hi Christoph! On 20 January 2014 00:12, "Christoph Schäfer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > First of all, I want to let you know that cutting out your reply is due to > two reasons: > One, your message wasn't in plain text, which, I think, is still a standard > for > Open Source mailing lists (correct me if I am wrong).
Kindly, you are wrong. Where is this standard drafted and ratified? Still, I'll use plain text to accommodate you. > Second: You don't actually expect a rational discussion on the > issues you raised, do you? I'm sorry that this sounds like you're avoiding the issue. You asked some very simple questions, which I'll repeat with my answers: > > - Define who's being threatened. > > People with less privilege. > > > - Who's the threat? > > People with privilege. > > > - What's the threat? > > There are 2 classes of threats: > > 1. Soft threats - abuses of privilege > > 2. Hard threads - violence, and threats thereof. > > >- Who's the safeguard against threats? > > Instead of the de facto escalation chain being > > person -> friends -> cops > > an Event CoC provisions a incident response team which is known to everyone > at the event, so the chain multiplies: > > person -> incident response team -> cops > friends -> incident response team -> cops > strangers -> incident response team -> cops > > The incident response team might span event regulars, to committee members, > to organizers, to the location's regular staff, to the location's security > staff. > > >- If a threat can't be identified with a single person > > or a group, > > Since every human has the potential to cause an incident... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29#.22We_have_met_the_enemy_and_he_is_us..22 > > > please define what else should be > > considered a threat and how a CoC can "help (to) > > keep people safe" other than law enforcement > > or civic common sense. Would you mind answering me? No answer so far. As to my other questions, you cavalierly ignored them, so let me repeat them, one by one: 1. I am curious if either of you would agree you were using an ethnocentric definition of 'unsafe'? 2. Your meaning of 'safe' implies a 'hard threat' of violence. But neither article describing incidents at events like LGM involve any violence. Yet both use the word 'safe.' Why is that? > I refuse to discuss this issue with you, Ah, that's a pity. I honestly did think that you were seeking understanding on this topic. > because it would yield the same result as discussing the weaknesses > of Psychoanalysis or Creationism with their respective supporters. > It's futile, because critical questions only reinforce their dogmas. If you have undergone some training in formal logic, you should also be able to see where your trail of reasoning went off-rails (hint: at the first ad hominem c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ). Your Psychoanalysis example is pretty weak, btw. > Getting back to LGM and a CoC: If your fundamentalist perception of > society as a whole, your prejudices, your false assumptions, your dogmas > and LGM in particular have any chance to become a foundation of an > event, I suggest removing "Libre" and replace it with "Righteous" > (RGM), because nothing of the original "Libre" will be left. That sounds very righteous of you :) -- Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
