6 ms·

> What would you propose as an alternative to people who just… constantly fill mailing lists with attacks on people or the like? ignore them on the client side

> What would you propose as an alternative to people who just… constantly fill mailing lists with attacks on people or the like? ignore them on the client side. it's easy. there's a field called FROM. Someone else might be interested in reading what these people have to say. Who knows. > Reasonable people don’t need to have such harsh actions applied of course Define reasonable in a global way. I think maybe you were looking for "people who do not engage in heated discussions" Right or wrong, it's unreasonable to think that everyone will always be in absolute control. It's simply words, there's nothing slightly alarming in what I've read. For example: where you have been called out for communicating disrespectfully, you counter by stating what you said is a fact. While in many cases it is truly a fact, the way in which you convey these facts has not been appropriate Maybe if you don't acknowledge facts and focus on wording, people will get upset. You can't actually know if you're talking to a Tourette Syndrome patient, but you can totally know if what they are saying makes some sense or not. Besides, are we kids in church that should be schooled? But the most alarming bits are No interactions in any official Thunderbird channels, as well as external or unofficial channels like social media (Twitter, Facebook, Telegram). No attendance at Thunderbird events during this period (virtual or physical) WHAT? Are they kidding?

p4bl0 4y ago
> ignore them on the client side. it's easy. there's a field called FROM. Do you realize that your discourse politically implies a very individualistic views of how such problems should be dealt with? I don't know the situation here, but let's take it aside and consider another example: some one in an organization is constantly harassing other members (e.g., a guy being heavy with women). If the organization follows what you suggest, it means it doesn't deal with the problem has a collective, and rather let everyone deal with it on their own. You're telling the victims of the bully that they're all alone, you don't consider them. This is probably the best way to have them leave and be left with the bullies only in the end. I truly believe this cannot be the right approach to such behavioral issues. Rather, the collective approach at the organization level is the good one: it sends the right message to everyone, both the bully (now you stop), the potential bullies (we don't tolerate such behaviors here), the victims (we heard you, we're stand together, our organization culture is based on respect and you count as much as everyone else), and the potential victims (we do out best to make our organization a safe place). You have nothing to fear in this if you don't want to be on the bully side.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  They could just inform the police. They could even help victims to inform the police. The problem with the "collective" approach is that it often creates unaccountable positions of authority. Guess where bullies will gather? I ain't ever seen a vote to ban on a ML.
  - p4bl0 4y ago
    Not every wrongdoing to a community is illegal per se. The police has nothing to do with it. And concerning illegal things that the police could act on, the situation in real life is much more complex than you seem to think. First, a legal procedure can take time and as a collective you may want to protect the victims and your organization in the meantime. Second, you can encourage but never force a victim to go to the police and through a legal procedure that may requires them to go through their trauma again and again, especially since the justice system does not exist outside of our societies and so has the same biases that makes many forms of harassment possible in the first place, making the procedure outcome not always favorable to the victims, who you may want to protect at your organization level nonetheless. The way you see the collective approach has nothing collective if it is the doing of a few individuals. When I say "collective" I mean that word, not "the unaccountable head of the organization" as you seem to think.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Right, then I believe you'll agree there's a difference between "the community" and "we who claim to speak for the community." At first look, this seems like the latter.
      - p4bl0 4y ago
        > I believe you'll agree there's a difference between "the community" and "we who claim to speak for the community." Indeed.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago

p4bl0 4y ago

> ignore them on the client side. it's easy. there's a field called FROM. Do you realize that your discourse politically implies a very individualistic views of how such problems should be dealt with? I don't know the situation here, but let's take it aside and consider another example: some one in an organization is constantly harassing other members (e.g., a guy being heavy with women). If the organization follows what you suggest, it means it doesn't deal with the problem has a collective, and rather let everyone deal with it on their own. You're telling the victims of the bully that they're all alone, you don't consider them. This is probably the best way to have them leave and be left with the bullies only in the end. I truly believe this cannot be the right approach to such behavioral issues. Rather, the collective approach at the organization level is the good one: it sends the right message to everyone, both the bully (now you stop), the potential bullies (we don't tolerate such behaviors here), the victims (we heard you, we're stand together, our organization culture is based on respect and you count as much as everyone else), and the potential victims (we do out best to make our organization a safe place). You have nothing to fear in this if you don't want to be on the bully side.

FeepingCreature 4y ago
They could just inform the police. They could even help victims to inform the police. The problem with the "collective" approach is that it often creates unaccountable positions of authority. Guess where bullies will gather? I ain't ever seen a vote to ban on a ML.
- p4bl0 4y ago
  Not every wrongdoing to a community is illegal per se. The police has nothing to do with it. And concerning illegal things that the police could act on, the situation in real life is much more complex than you seem to think. First, a legal procedure can take time and as a collective you may want to protect the victims and your organization in the meantime. Second, you can encourage but never force a victim to go to the police and through a legal procedure that may requires them to go through their trauma again and again, especially since the justice system does not exist outside of our societies and so has the same biases that makes many forms of harassment possible in the first place, making the procedure outcome not always favorable to the victims, who you may want to protect at your organization level nonetheless. The way you see the collective approach has nothing collective if it is the doing of a few individuals. When I say "collective" I mean that word, not "the unaccountable head of the organization" as you seem to think.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Right, then I believe you'll agree there's a difference between "the community" and "we who claim to speak for the community." At first look, this seems like the latter.
    - p4bl0 4y ago
      > I believe you'll agree there's a difference between "the community" and "we who claim to speak for the community." Indeed.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago