That's a bald-faced lie - I never defended it. But thank you for this illustration of how you and the likes operate. You know that this is false, and that everybody can see it's false - after all, my comments are just above yours for everybody to see and it's obvious I never mentioned that matter and never defended it!
But you rely on the fact that your in-group would let you lie pass because you're attacking an enemy, and your out-group would be afraid to be associated with defending a racist - and if not, you'll just accuse them in racism too. This is not a good faith discussion.
> our frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
That's another bald-faced falsity - I never rejected idea of "basic civility". In fact, if anything, you are the one rejecting "basic civility" right now, by falsely accusing me instead of engaging in good faith and trying to impugn my motives instead of discussing the actual points raised.
Basic civility is great. But basic civility can be done in many ways, and this particular formulation of CoC is not the only one (in fact even having CoC is not the only one). Implying that anybody who opposes particular formulation of CoC and particular process of it's introduction is against "basic civility" is not telling the truth. And the events that surround it prove that the matter in question is way bigger than "basic civility" - there were numerous attempts under the guise of CoC to silence and remove from projects people that disagreed (even in outside fora having nothing to do with the project) with some views of people who often even not members of the community in question.
Hounding people out of working communities for a random comment and throwing around baseless accusations in not the way to do basic civility either. Yet somehow some people think if they say "we're for basic civility" they themselves are free from upholding basic civility. And that basic civility implies they can do anything, but their opponents better watch out.
> Because Newspeak and thought control
Yes, because speech and thought control is what it is all about. And, ultimately, power. You are not allowed to do crimethink, and if you do, you are an unperson. That's what you are trying to do here - you do not argue with ESR's article, you're trying to unperson him. And yes, stubborn refusal to listen and to actually know the position of somebody who you are supposedly criticize is the part of the deal - if you wanted to engage and refute the points, the minimum requirement would be to know what are you actually refuting. But if you want to unperson, the less you know the better.
That's a bald-faced lie - I never defended it. But thank you for this illustration of how you and the likes operate. You know that this is false, and that everybody can see it's false - after all, my comments are just above yours for everybody to see and it's obvious I never mentioned that matter and never defended it!
But you rely on the fact that your in-group would let you lie pass because you're attacking an enemy, and your out-group would be afraid to be associated with defending a racist - and if not, you'll just accuse them in racism too. This is not a good faith discussion.
> our frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
That's another bald-faced falsity - I never rejected idea of "basic civility". In fact, if anything, you are the one rejecting "basic civility" right now, by falsely accusing me instead of engaging in good faith and trying to impugn my motives instead of discussing the actual points raised.
Basic civility is great. But basic civility can be done in many ways, and this particular formulation of CoC is not the only one (in fact even having CoC is not the only one). Implying that anybody who opposes particular formulation of CoC and particular process of it's introduction is against "basic civility" is not telling the truth. And the events that surround it prove that the matter in question is way bigger than "basic civility" - there were numerous attempts under the guise of CoC to silence and remove from projects people that disagreed (even in outside fora having nothing to do with the project) with some views of people who often even not members of the community in question.
Hounding people out of working communities for a random comment and throwing around baseless accusations in not the way to do basic civility either. Yet somehow some people think if they say "we're for basic civility" they themselves are free from upholding basic civility. And that basic civility implies they can do anything, but their opponents better watch out.
> Because Newspeak and thought control
Yes, because speech and thought control is what it is all about. And, ultimately, power. You are not allowed to do crimethink, and if you do, you are an unperson. That's what you are trying to do here - you do not argue with ESR's article, you're trying to unperson him. And yes, stubborn refusal to listen and to actually know the position of somebody who you are supposedly criticize is the part of the deal - if you wanted to engage and refute the points, the minimum requirement would be to know what are you actually refuting. But if you want to unperson, the less you know the better.