Patricia, That is a very fair thought.
What is desired is a reasonable way to express a distinction between this only an idiot could come up with this idea or the whole discussion smacks of cultural Marxism and should be rejected > without discussion versus something like what we have now. Take as an example for discussion: in spite of historical antipathy to the entire topic, I think we need to > moderate this list in the following way ... In the first two examples, the emotional reaction is practically the intent of the utterance. In the last of the three, the emotional reaction is an almost unavoidable side effect of the suggestion. In the first two, there is no constructive purpose other than eliciting a reaction or to try to make the opposing opinion appear extreme. How can this distinction be made reasonably if we want the first two to be rephrased before allowing them through but to allow the third? On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:29 PM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/21/2019 12:59 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd also like to comment on "Comment can reasonably be expected to > provoke an angry response from a significant portion of the people on the > list. ". > > > > I described this in else-thread as "offensive, ad hominem, triggering". > So it's not just angry but offended, scared, disgusted. Such as > descriptions of horrible acts committed by (euphemistically) war criminals, > perverts, and human rights abusers. > > > > Is this a different category from "provoke anger" or should it all be > rolled into one? > > I am very troubled by "provoke an angry response". Sometimes, things > need to be said that will anger a significant portion of people on the > list. > > For example, the whole targeted moderation plan could not have been > announced on any ASF list with that rule in effect. That announcement > clearly provoked an angry response, and could have reasonably been > expected to do so. >
