Comment by YuukiRey
1 year ago
On the one hand I am not a fan of commenting on documents without having read them in their entirety, but on the other hand it would probably take weeks to dive into the details of the discussion threads about the various PRs and initiatives linked here.
What really caught my eye was this discussion thread on the RFC98 PR (https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98#discussion_r683938993) where one of the signatories of this open letter kept arguing for why fascism should be included, in the sense of:
Do not allow the Nix community to be a place for spreading ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry
It seems to me, based on my reading of that discussion so far, that at least some of the signatories of this letter have a very specific agenda and are just as unwilling to compromise as the accused on the other side. Instead of being slightly more pragmatic and accepting less controversial language they then decide to die on that hill and divide people over an unnecessary question.
To me this whole thing exemplifies the worst aspects of the "code of conduct" initiatives you see in various projects. Ostensibly a reasonable idea that could really improve the participation experience especially for people from, as they call it, marginalized communities, but with the end result being that it back fires and makes people come across as radical ideologists.
> makes people come across as radical ideologists
Indeed I think the majority of people who seem to try to push hard for CoC inclusion end up just using the maintainer's either inaction or refusal to do so as some kind of grounds to go to war against them. I've been downvoted to oblivion across several sites for saying this but I think it really warrants saying it without sugarcoating... this is exactly what a terrorist does.
> I think it really warrants saying it without sugarcoating... this is exactly what a terrorist does.
What about this situation made you think it warrants saying that? What is your definition of a terrorist? I thought a terrorist was a person that spread terror by acts of violence. Which is not what's happening here.
This is part of a much larger culture war currently going on. There has already been violence used by these people against anyone who disagrees with them. The 'summer of love' of 2020 is one example.
Never mind the constant attacks and attempts to silence opposition, both online and off.
If you don't want to call them terrorists for weaponizing politically motivated terror, then radical extremists is another option.
2 replies →
[flagged]
I'm assuming you've been down voted (multiple times) less because you're wrong, but more because you're using the "wrong" words to describe your meaning. 'Terrorist' attempt to gain control through fear, but that's not the defining characteristic of a terrorist. It's hurting people. I upvoted you for your candor, but not for agreement. Arguing for what you think is better isn't what a terrorist does. Arguing, exposing rhetoric, that's ethical. It's objectively wrong to call that terrorism. Name calling, insults, idle threats. That's what children do, call them children. Active and continued harassment, that's what immature teenagers do. Specific actionable threats to people directly involved, that's what dangerous unstable people do. Direct threats against people not directly involved, that's terrorism. And no one actually sees the latter.
Call it what it is, people who weren't loved enough as children, meaning they're still childish. Or psychotic individuals needing direct intervention. But save terrorism for people directly hurting people who aren't involved.
Not gonna lie, I did not expect where this was going. Lol.
I think you should read a bit about actual terrorism. You are getting downvoted for inflationary using a term like 'terrorist' to frame someone you don't agree with.