From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: HiPhish Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:55:15 +0100 Message-ID: <5212617.ijJ0i6tFDm@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <2337848.8Py3U4Hz1U@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87va5ii4o2.fsf@fsfe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45326) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHru1-0004o3-Vq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:55:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHrtw-0007zZ-Pw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:55:25 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:55964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHrtw-0007uq-9r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:55:20 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85EB420F9D for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:55:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87va5ii4o2.fsf@fsfe.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Jelle Licht Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 15:14:53 CET you wrote: > This confused me. You mean collectives of people are made up of people, > and therefore associate with other people? More like "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" or "oh, I know just the right guy for the job". You let that happen often enough and you end up with several groups all being "in bed with each other" so to speak. This is not limited to feminism, it happens in all areas of life of course. > The problem is not only Steve making a stupid joke; the problem is the > environment that led to Steve thinking it is okay to make statements > like these in the first place. The only way to 'fix' this problem is to > change the environment so that people are less likely to slip up, and to > keep each other honest about (tiny) mistakes that everyone inevitably > makes. To be honest, your recurring statement about people being more or > less likely to slip up is not really coherent; I think we can all agree > that every on slips up sometimes. Agreed, but the punishment should also fit the crime. You can have a quick talk with Steve and then everyone shakes hands and is friends again. The problem is that there exist groups who want to exploit Steve's slip-up for their own gains by blowing it issue out of proportion. They cannot justify their existence and their bills if the issue can be sorted out with a short conversation, so Steve has to be punished properly. > This seems like a question to ask the researchers, but because you have > a concern regarding methodology does not invalidate the by now seemingly > irrefutable clues that these issues do exist. The issue exists, but how prevalent is it? Remember "manspreading"? Take a photo of a man taking up three seats in an almost empty subway, crop the photo so you cannot see that the subway is mostly empty, write an academic paper on the issue you created, sell the solution in the form of an awareness campaign, finance it with taxpayer money, and in the end people even get arrested because no matter how dumb the rules are, they have to be enforced. When my sister told me about manspreading she couldn't stop laughing, because even she sits like that when there is enough space. And why wouldn't she? I view the catcalling issue the same way: go through the bad part of town, make an issue out of it, sell the solution. I am confident if you were to do this experiment in an area closer to Belgian standard of living none of this would happen. > Your text seemingly goes from `ethnically diverse' -> `[lower] standard > of living' -> `bad part of town' -> `ghetto'. I will assume you acted, > and will continue acting in good faith, but I implore you to critically > have a look at your thought processes and see how incredibly rude this > might come across. If this was not your intention at all, then I > apologize and hope you can still take my comments as a constructive > critical note on parts of your writing style. I got carried away, I was not controlling my emotions enough I guess :) My problem is when people like Mr Sassmannshausen take accusations at face-value without any shred of scepticism. People have had their lives ruined by false accusations and this sort of injustice is what makes my blood boil. Listening and believing benefits neither the innocent nor the real victims, it only drives a wedge between people. Who profits? Those who thrive on conflict, creating problems and selling solutions. (I had a much more polemic response to the previous mail, but I deleted it, so I guess I still had some emotional control)