[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: State of the GNUnion 2020
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:55:04 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)

Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 12:39:37 +0100, a ecrit:
> It is defeatist because it departs from the basic idea you’ll *have* to 
> exclude someone at some point.  No solution will ever be found.

Yes.  Been there a few times, had to resort to it, I remember a case
where it was after a couple of *years* trying with others to find a

> And rather than taking the risk of not reacting immediately
> (“tolerance zero”, another right wing thing)

I never said reaction had to be immediate.

> you prefer to “aknowledge” this “will have to be done at some
> point”.  Is if there wasn’t any middle ground for compromision
> there.

Sometimes you can't find any.

> The idea of shared kill/blacklist or /ignore have been already proposed.  
> That solves it.

Not necessarily for less strong people. Just leaving out is simpler than
having to yet again set up some filters and everything.

> It is paternalist because it assumes *the chiefs* have to take care for 
> “uncomfort” and “stuff people couldn’t stand”.

In my book, parts of chiefs' role is making sure people are comfortable,

> It always will be, because “excluding” these “toxic” people won’t make 
> them disappear away, they always will be somewhere.

Possibly, unfortunately. That said, sometimes some people are only toxic
in a given situation, and just excluding them from it avoids the issue.

> Now, in the previous case, with no exclusions, these people who learnt to 
> stand anything could, as soon as there is no official exclusion, participate 
> in anything, that is good.

Sure. But not everybody can (I'm not sure anybody can really in all


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]