I wasn't wanting to suggest that *I* found the term "lynching" inappropriate, in that I understand the metaphore.
Also, I was guessing about what John was referring to. I think it would be better if he were more specific in his complaint. I also have strong ideas about what the real solution here is. I think the solution *is* a form a censorship, not of ideas but of *misunderstood* ideas. Take RMS's posts for example. I think when people were upset at his posts about Minsky, they should have had a tool that would immediately hide those posts (forums work better than email for this since you can't retract an email fully). The hiding tool would require them to carefully choose which community guideline(s) they felt were violated and offer a constructive *private* way to respond (perhaps anonymously). So, it's like pulling RMS aside and saying, "hey, I find that extremely offensive, are you defending sex with minors or defending Epstein??" and then he could have a second try at expressing his intended meaning. If there's an actual disagreement (RMS thinks 17 vs 18 is an irrelevant difference in this case, others defer to the legal definitions), it should be discussed as clearly as possible with adequate context, and in an appropriate place. The harms come from people misunderstanding someone and then *publicly* reacting to it, and then all the discussion is about who said or did what etc. all wrapped up with grotesque public signaling about what side you're on. If I ever post something that others find really inappropriate, I would like it to *disappear* from public record ASAP so that I can understand the reaction, reflect, and try again. I only want public discussion of *correct* understandings of my ideas. Nothing good comes from misunderstandings continuing to be presented — except in using them as case studies about misunderstanding (which should happen only with the consent of everyone involved). For example, Discourse has flagging where an *edit* to the flagged post clears the flag. That's the right direction, but I have ideas about how it should be done better. So, I don't prefer situations where a few moderators control the discussion. I want situations where everyone involved can flag one another *and* the ONLY consequence of being flagged is to fix the post and repost. Daniel, imagine if you could just understand that John objected to a particular language and you were explicitly *invited* to post again with just fixed language that addressed the concern. You might not feel censored since you still have, within that, the ability to find language that you feel expresses your points and to post your thoughts still. I see almost all of the personal attacks on all sides as *symptoms* of the communication medium being bad. If we were all in a room and trusted one another not to be recording the conversation, it would work fine to have a facilitator helping us not misunderstand one another. We wouldn't feel censored. All of us are working within very poor tools that don't have the functions I'm describing. On top of that, near-zero of us understand the problem and instead blame other participants in the discussion. Besides the bad tooling, it's the call-out-culture that is really at fault (along with potential bad actors who exploit it, but they aren't needed for things to go awry). If anyone reacts to an injustice from call-out-culture by focusing on other participants and doing call-outs of them, then that is part of the problem! Besides more private discussion, if you're going to do call-out and blaming, it's call-out culture itself that should get the focus. On 2019-09-23 1:28 p.m., Adrienne G. Thompson wrote: > Daniel is obviously using the term metaphorically: > > Definition of "lynch": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynch > "to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or > permission" > > RMS" FSF Presidency was "put to death" by constructive dismissal. > > Adrienne > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:00 PM Aaron Wolf <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I disagree completely with the hyperbolic description of John Sullivan. > Charging him with "gaslighting" or assuming some bad intentions on his > part is as bad or worse than his actions. > > Yes indeed, he was wrong to say (not quote) that you were bringing up > "murder" when you used the term "lynching". But it's not that different > from RMS emphasizing that "piracy" is stealing on the high seas etc. and > should never be used for sharing art and ideas with other people. > > John might not have said it right, but he was basically saying not to > use terms like "lynching" for this situation. That term refers to actual > murder. > > I have no reason to think John has any ill will toward RMS. > > Incidentally, I'm one of those people who thinks basically *all* the > blame should go toward the mob outrage and that RMS is basically > innocent. I still strongly respect and admire RMS, and I wish other > people had more capacity to have empathy, compassion, and patience with > his quirks (which is all they are, RMS has never actively sought to hurt > people). > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > > > -- > Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN! > > GNU C-Graph - http://www.gnu.org/software/c-graph > Code Art Now - http://codeartnow.com > Abertheid Campaign - http://www.abertheid.info > Follow me on Twitter @AdrienneGT @GNUcgraph > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion > _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
