Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project

[Taylan Kammer]

On 12.10.2019 01:04, Jelle Licht wrote:
> Taylan Kammer <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> [snip]
>>
>> All other political conflicts should IMO be decided on a case by case
>> basis with the goal of reaching mutual compromise within the confines of
>> the communication channels of the GNU project.  That is, 1. no favorites
>> on who gets to silence who and 2. the silencing shall be limited to the
>> project's communication channels.  For example let's take homosexuality
>> and religion.  A gay community member could request another member to
>> refrain from expressing religious views critical of homosexuality within
>> the project's communication channels, as it offends her or him.  On the
>> flip side, a religious person could request another member to refrain
>> from expressing political views in support of normalizing homosexuality
>> within society, because that in turn offends them.
> 
> The difference being that in this example, the bigotry can have
> disastrous effects on the safety of the individuals in question, sadly
> still in many places in the world.
> 
> This is in no shape or way comparable to simply "being offended". To
> equate it to a simple difference of opinion does a great injustice to
> those who struggle, and have struggled in the past for the right to
> simply exist as they are.
> 
> I understand this is simply an example, and will give you the benefit of
> the doubt that you only meant to illustrate different perspectives on
> the interactions that can exist between individuals. I respectfully
> disagree with it being a good example though :-)

Going by this logic, we could ban support of communism based on things
done by the Soviet or things currently done by the People's Republic of
China or North Korea.

There are many religious people who think homosexuality is "wrong" but
strongly disagree with violence, and rather feel "worried for" gay
people who they also try to treat with love.  I think they are very
wrong about homosexuality, but I find it commendable that they don't
tolerate violence, and could not in good conscience call them evil and
request them to be silenced.  In fact, I would not enjoy contributing to
a community that does so.

IMO the tabooing of world views based on harms they may cause, or harms
they do cause in various parts of the world, is a slippery slope.
Almost every ideology has peaceful moderates and militant extremists.

The GNU project should publish a list of ideologies that are officially
banned from its channels so people know what they're in for.  All other
topics should be treated neutrally so long as nobody is using slurs or a
bullying attitude.  Codes of conduct should clarify whether a rule such
as "no homophobia" simply means no homophobic slurs/bullying, or whether
it means that certain ideologies are banned and others favored.


(I've been using religion and homophobia as an arbitrary example.
Should anyone feel upset by this choice of example, please tell me in
private or otherwise so I can switch to another example.  Although I
don't wish to write much more on this off-topic topic...)


- Taylan