4 ms·

> Many people are opposed to the use of a tech forum to broadcast political messages. 'There are literally dozens of us!' Alas there probably are more maldevel

> Many people are opposed to the use of a tech forum to broadcast political messages. 'There are literally dozens of us!' Alas there probably are more maldeveloped, who insist on neutral spaces, that cannot handle basic decency & morality & solidarity for suffering people. > And these asides have each been posted as-is, with no justification behind them and no hint that a justification is even necessary or wanted. Solidarity for the suffering & basic humam rights are pretty obvious causes to most. ot having your nation invaded is a pretty obvious cause. Not being persecuted by religious morality police is pretty obvious cause. > There’s a clear disconnect in the community: for some people, these messages are so self-evident that they shouldn’t even be considered political. For some people, they reflect a worldview that they don’t necessarily agree with, and when they don’t, still don’t want to be pushed without their input in the name of a community they’re participating in. These absolutely are political messages, and thats not denied or suppressed. Its politics against dictatorial control, against authoritarian regimes, against use of excess force by governments against the people. Open source communities are founded around a personal empowerment & right to explore, right to create, are created under conditions of peace not fear, personal growth & developmemt not suppression & regime. To find affinity between open source & these moral political causes against abominations is unsurprising. > Also, let’s stop mincing words for a second: a big part of the issue is that these messages are progressive, and reflect a progressive agenda. So is open source. It believes in progress, possibility, developmemt, furthering humanity. It shares liberally, believes strongly in the common good. Open source is political, and it's left. It's practically communist. > A lot of people in the Rust community aren’t progressive, or not progressive of the specific US flavor that dominates western social media, and so feel extremely threatened when the Rust blog makes these political statements. Write a shorter screed daying you disagree & collect some countersigners. That you are uncomfortable with a basic display of morality is, I generally feel, not a problem & ylI dont feel bad for you. But you have options (if you arent in Iran, if you arent in Russia, if you are not being persecuted by a local police force) & you can day so & if you really really cant stand morality happening in your presence you can fork & leave & vote eith your feet, because you are free to do so.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rektide 4y ago
Asks @luckylion: > Do you agree with the point about them being very selective what cases they choose to show basic decency, morality and solidarity for suffering people? The whole argument around selectivity, so far, rests on these examples: > The blog has had an aside on the death of Mahsa Amini in Iran, but not on the brutal murder of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi by US ally Saudi Arabia. More recently, the blog had nothing to say about the political persecution and extradition of Julian Assange to the US. The blog hasn’t mentioned the criminal murder of Shireen Abu Akleh by the Israeli military. These individual incidents are all worrying & indicative of a greater larger bad pattern. They're not good. But they are still far cries from the systematic, broadscale injustices that the three current callouts have said. Im fine with there being some kind of process, but rather than it bring a process of rules & requirements & checks & balances, a 60% majority on any proposed declarations would probably serve better. I fear that making a set of heuristics that any proposal can flow through will lead to systems abuse, with low quality biased proposals of support that arent representative of the larger community, and at great cost of debate over how authenticatable the claims really are. And reciprocally it would give the stick in the mud anti-* crowd a chance to rules lawyer & stomp their feet & throw mud over whether something that everyone else agrees qualifies really does qualify. Process is exploitable. Jamming the system or draining everyones energy is incredibly easy, owing to the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. The author seems to be asking for a very exploitable, easy to jam, very slow process, one that could let fringe views have outsized voices. Im not opposed to some process... I think a holding of votes eould make sense. But the author's ask sounds like a bad faoth ask to make the system exploitable, to armor it, but in such a way that there will be more obvious chinks in the armor that those with enormous energy & time to drive counter-politics, to generate discord, to resist basic goodness would exploit. Right now I think Rust has done a fine job. They dont need guidelines now. They have commented about broadscale, large issues with mass impact on populations, that are involved in active & sizable conflict that hurts people. I think there's room to consider other cases here, but none of the authors listed examples frel anywhere near this level of tension, and that seems self-evident & obvious. So I'd prefer we let it ride as is with no change, given the good job the Rust blog has been doing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rektide 4y ago

Asks @luckylion: > Do you agree with the point about them being very selective what cases they choose to show basic decency, morality and solidarity for suffering people? The whole argument around selectivity, so far, rests on these examples: > The blog has had an aside on the death of Mahsa Amini in Iran, but not on the brutal murder of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi by US ally Saudi Arabia. More recently, the blog had nothing to say about the political persecution and extradition of Julian Assange to the US. The blog hasn’t mentioned the criminal murder of Shireen Abu Akleh by the Israeli military. These individual incidents are all worrying & indicative of a greater larger bad pattern. They're not good. But they are still far cries from the systematic, broadscale injustices that the three current callouts have said. Im fine with there being some kind of process, but rather than it bring a process of rules & requirements & checks & balances, a 60% majority on any proposed declarations would probably serve better. I fear that making a set of heuristics that any proposal can flow through will lead to systems abuse, with low quality biased proposals of support that arent representative of the larger community, and at great cost of debate over how authenticatable the claims really are. And reciprocally it would give the stick in the mud anti-* crowd a chance to rules lawyer & stomp their feet & throw mud over whether something that everyone else agrees qualifies really does qualify. Process is exploitable. Jamming the system or draining everyones energy is incredibly easy, owing to the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. The author seems to be asking for a very exploitable, easy to jam, very slow process, one that could let fringe views have outsized voices. Im not opposed to some process... I think a holding of votes eould make sense. But the author's ask sounds like a bad faoth ask to make the system exploitable, to armor it, but in such a way that there will be more obvious chinks in the armor that those with enormous energy & time to drive counter-politics, to generate discord, to resist basic goodness would exploit. Right now I think Rust has done a fine job. They dont need guidelines now. They have commented about broadscale, large issues with mass impact on populations, that are involved in active & sizable conflict that hurts people. I think there's room to consider other cases here, but none of the authors listed examples frel anywhere near this level of tension, and that seems self-evident & obvious. So I'd prefer we let it ride as is with no change, given the good job the Rust blog has been doing.