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 suffer

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.