5 ms·

> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an excl

> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. > Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic)... The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. These two are insane. I'm almost speechless. The rest don't sound good, and would be enough for a suspension on their own if presented truthfully. So why put those first two? Why put them first? EDIT: Since no one has linked to it yet, this seems to be the discussion referenced. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, I admit, but what I read so far looks like one person in particular disagreeing with the prevailing opinion in a fairy respectful way: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed-bylaws-changes-to-improve-our-membership-experience/55696 https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...

esperent 2y ago
Maybe because they are less obviously bad but they were nonetheless the biggest issues. I've found this before with problematic individuals on forums. They rarely break "obviously bad" rules because they know they'll get the ban hammer and everyone will agree they they deserved it. Instead they cause just as much havoc and disruption by doing things that don't seem that bad when they are accused of them. Eventually they cross the line and get banned anyway, but the moderators have to struggle to explain why and if it leaks into another forum you'll get a ton of people defending the problematic person and saying the mods overreacted. When in reality everyone's probably been struggling to deal with this person's disruptions for months or even years.
- huhkerrf 2y ago
  That's fair, but those two things shouldn't come into play at all. Just leave them out. Is this group saying that if you disagree with the idea that only white people can be racist that you can't be a contributor? I'm honestly trying to find a good faith explanation that's better than that.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - huhkerrf 2y ago
      You say "OF COURSE" but it doesn't take long to encounter the argument that racism is "prejudice plus power." It's a classic motte and bailey. I know what you're trying to imply with your comment, but again, you can't have it both ways.
      - rowanG077 2y ago
        So only white people have power? I doubt that's true for most countries in the world. Hell the president of the United States was black not that long ago.
      - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
        > the argument that racism is "prejudice plus power. Is it difficult for you to understand that two people might mean different things by the same word? One might say "racism is discrimination based on race", and the other might say ".... But it's only relevant coming from those with actual power". The concept for two people talking past each other should be pretty intuitive to any adult, but when it comes to this specific topic it's like people dont understand it (or pretend not to)
        huhkerrf 2y ago
        That's the whole point. You can't say "OF COURSE" it means X, and then say, well, no, obviously it means different things to different people. The point here is that, it seems as if this group is only allowing a specific view of what this concept means that is wholly unnecessary. And this is the second time that you have implied that I'm either being racist or commenting in bad faith. It's not appreciated.
  - esperent 2y ago
    [flagged]
- a-french-anon 2y ago
  So, people manage to express dissent while following all the rules and this is somehow a bad thing? You can't just handwave people away by pretending to be a mind reader and proclaiming firm opposition is "obviously" trolling or arguing in bad faith.
nmstoker 2y ago
The accusation around the SNL sketch seems flawed owing to a clear misreading of what he was speaking of when he said "it" was genuinely funny.
- chmod775 2y ago
  Yes. He was referring to a python package called "slut". Instead of using that word he already self-censored - but still they twisted that in one of the most childish instances of disingenenuety, leaving out as much context as one could without being too obvious. They also referred to it with two bullet points, conveniently spaced to make it seem like separate incidents.
  - tsenko 2y ago
    [dead]
a-french-anon 2y ago
I really hope the sole comment in the original thread is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise I'll lose the little hope in society I didn't know I still had left.
commandersaki 2y ago
Although I rarely donate to highly visible projects, this one is one I'll explicitly avoid given the power tripping board.

esperent 2y ago

Maybe because they are less obviously bad but they were nonetheless the biggest issues. I've found this before with problematic individuals on forums. They rarely break "obviously bad" rules because they know they'll get the ban hammer and everyone will agree they they deserved it. Instead they cause just as much havoc and disruption by doing things that don't seem that bad when they are accused of them. Eventually they cross the line and get banned anyway, but the moderators have to struggle to explain why and if it leaks into another forum you'll get a ton of people defending the problematic person and saying the mods overreacted. When in reality everyone's probably been struggling to deal with this person's disruptions for months or even years.

huhkerrf 2y ago
That's fair, but those two things shouldn't come into play at all. Just leave them out. Is this group saying that if you disagree with the idea that only white people can be racist that you can't be a contributor? I'm honestly trying to find a good faith explanation that's better than that.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - huhkerrf 2y ago
    You say "OF COURSE" but it doesn't take long to encounter the argument that racism is "prejudice plus power." It's a classic motte and bailey. I know what you're trying to imply with your comment, but again, you can't have it both ways.
    - rowanG077 2y ago
      So only white people have power? I doubt that's true for most countries in the world. Hell the president of the United States was black not that long ago.
    - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      > the argument that racism is "prejudice plus power. Is it difficult for you to understand that two people might mean different things by the same word? One might say "racism is discrimination based on race", and the other might say ".... But it's only relevant coming from those with actual power". The concept for two people talking past each other should be pretty intuitive to any adult, but when it comes to this specific topic it's like people dont understand it (or pretend not to)
      - huhkerrf 2y ago
        That's the whole point. You can't say "OF COURSE" it means X, and then say, well, no, obviously it means different things to different people. The point here is that, it seems as if this group is only allowing a specific view of what this concept means that is wholly unnecessary. And this is the second time that you have implied that I'm either being racist or commenting in bad faith. It's not appreciated.
- esperent 2y ago
  [flagged]
a-french-anon 2y ago
So, people manage to express dissent while following all the rules and this is somehow a bad thing? You can't just handwave people away by pretending to be a mind reader and proclaiming firm opposition is "obviously" trolling or arguing in bad faith.

nmstoker 2y ago

The accusation around the SNL sketch seems flawed owing to a clear misreading of what he was speaking of when he said "it" was genuinely funny.

chmod775 2y ago
Yes. He was referring to a python package called "slut". Instead of using that word he already self-censored - but still they twisted that in one of the most childish instances of disingenenuety, leaving out as much context as one could without being too obvious. They also referred to it with two bullet points, conveniently spaced to make it seem like separate incidents.
- tsenko 2y ago
  [dead]

a-french-anon 2y ago

I really hope the sole comment in the original thread is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise I'll lose the little hope in society I didn't know I still had left.

commandersaki 2y ago

Although I rarely donate to highly visible projects, this one is one I'll explicitly avoid given the power tripping board.