3 ms·

> to draw the line from the need for tolerance in itself to the necessary prescription that quiescence is the only way to be if you want to get things done I'm

> to draw the line from the need for tolerance in itself to the necessary prescription that quiescence is the only way to be if you want to get things done I'm not talking about tolerance, I'm talking about the lead dev actively shutting down negative reactions to their comments and justifying it under the banner of "good vibes". If the lead dev can't deal gracefully with criticism, that's going to be a problem. Too many people in this thread are treating criticism of this pattern of silencing dissent for not "vibing" right as though the critic is implicitly endorsing letting Nazis roam free. There's a middle ground between "good vibes only" and "fascists welcome" that lpil has explicitly said he's not interested in pursuing.

beepbooptheory 2y ago
Its totally fine and reasonable if this is just about how this particular person carries themselves, about them being a bad admin or whatever! It just then feels a little at odds with sweeping, principled profundity of the initial comment. Like why invoke the quote and all that at first if you're not actually standing by it now?
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't know where you get that I'm not standing by it—the quote isn't about tolerance, it's about engaging with difficult concepts and conflicts rather than dodging them. I didn't even realize your talking about tolerance was supposed to be engaging with the quote until this follow up. I guess "toleration" and "tolerance" do share a root, but the latter is so watered down at this point that I honestly didn't even connect them, so I misunderstood your comment to be about something very different than it was. I'm going back now to reread it to see if I can understand your point better. Edit: rather than deepening this subthread further, I posted a separate reply to your original comment based on my new understanding of your point.

beepbooptheory 2y ago

Its totally fine and reasonable if this is just about how this particular person carries themselves, about them being a bad admin or whatever! It just then feels a little at odds with sweeping, principled profundity of the initial comment. Like why invoke the quote and all that at first if you're not actually standing by it now?

lolinder 2y ago
I don't know where you get that I'm not standing by it—the quote isn't about tolerance, it's about engaging with difficult concepts and conflicts rather than dodging them. I didn't even realize your talking about tolerance was supposed to be engaging with the quote until this follow up. I guess "toleration" and "tolerance" do share a root, but the latter is so watered down at this point that I honestly didn't even connect them, so I misunderstood your comment to be about something very different than it was. I'm going back now to reread it to see if I can understand your point better. Edit: rather than deepening this subthread further, I posted a separate reply to your original comment based on my new understanding of your point.