Re: [tor-talk] CULT OF THE DEAD COW Statement on Jacob Appelbaum / ioerror

[Zenaan Harkness <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:23:52PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:16:24AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > I agree with you. Some say "naming and shaming" is the way - I say naming
> > bad behaviour, publicly, is not shaming.
> > 
> > Naming simply says "Hang on, that's threatening, are you serious or
> > letting your words preceed you?" or "That's agressive and likely hurtful
> > communication, do you care to rephrase or retract?"
> 
> Er, that's not exactly what I meant. Just because you "define" it to not
> be shaming doesn't mean you can't keep the person you are "naming" from
> feeling shamed and therefore, like most adults, go into defense and fire
> back mode rather than accepting criticism.
> 
> I was suggesting to interact in private, work out the contents of the
> posting together. Certainly complicated by mail, but it is kind of feasible
> with recent forum softwares such as Discourse.

This is a valid approach. Where you have an individual receptive to your
position that you put privately, it may be "successful". If not, others
may be able to assist. If not, involve the whole community. If there's
unanimity against your view, find another community.

These are valid pathways of course.


> > For those who care, I think this discussion you are spearheading is very
> > good.
> 
> Thanks a lot. We've been discussing this in the Italian pirate community

Wow, I did not realise that pirates were not limited to South Cape and
Somalians. Or perhaps you refer to copyright infringement community?

Or PiratParty community?


> > > That is natural, and it is sociologically a losing game.
> > 
> > I completely disagree. It's only a losing game when one of the individuals
> > involved is repressed. When all parties are not in the slightest repressed
> > by the vehemence, vitriol or other intesity of the 'conversation', then
> > the conversation is great entertainment.
> 
> Oh you mean if the debate is intense in the contents but respectful
> of the contendants? Yes ok, then ideally it becomes a winning game.  :)

Winning game yes.

Respect? Sort of - even disrespect/ vitriol can be brushed off as "oh
that's just his way of communicating" or "wow, intense, I feel sorry for
you if you really feel that way" or...


> > Neither you, SJWs, nor anyone, will ever convince me otherwise. There are
> > actually people in this world who will take verbal blows from any and all,
> > in order to learn how to joust, in order to cut to the chase, in order to
> > (try to) identify bullshit as quickly as humanly possible.
> > 
> > It's a very useful skill to be able to go hammer and tong for a few
> > rounds, then turn around in the few minutes and discuss technical details
> > of some computer program - with the same person. That's liberating. That's
> > a sign of being able to handle your emotions.
> 
> Oh.. hm.. well it causes damage by looking like a serious fight to third
> parties.

If you're ever unsure as an onlooker, I suggest actually asking the
jousters.

They may even find your interjection useful you know :)


> Would you be able to take it private or does it need an audience
> to be enjoyable?

Let's say you, and someone you are on generally agreeably vehement and
vitriolic communication terms, have a verbal jihad against one another.

Right. So, if you do that privately, I don't get to watch and enjoy it do
I? That's what I'm sayin...


> Aren't you a bit egoistic if you're more focused on your
> joy than on the general progress of the project?

Probably. I hope my subtlety precedes me - you know, like the 'Dalai Lama
takes humility lessons from me' kind of subtlety...


> And how can you be sure 
> the other side indeed never gets hurt by your words? In digital words, 
> there's no recognizable difference, or is there?

Case by case, but I've been talking mostly about me as an onlooker. Though
I have been one to leap in (often to my superficial detriment by the way).


> Wouldn't it be better in most cases if a vibes watcher kept you guys
> from getting personal and made you stick to a fact-oriented debate?
> Doesn't mean you can't hammer out strong statements - just cut out the
> hurting.

F*iretr*uck no! And no, it's not about hurting.

Think boxing - verbal jousting is less painful than physical boxing. I
take it you would not be one to choose to train and be a physical boxer?

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the boxers, who go to a match, like a
Fight Club match, and you decide to go there and teach them all how
fighting is so yesterday, and can we be robustly firm with a bit of arm
wrestling since blood and bruises really are too personal and
fact-oriented ok so just all you stop now ok and stick to arm wrestling
cause you know that's the type of jousting which is ok.

Comprende?


> > Sure, some people, perhaps most, are not there yet. And warm cosy
> > comfortable 'communities' are just what the doctor ordered for those who
> > are unwilling to stretch such personal boundaries.
> 
> I think the debate produces better output,

Good for you! Great to hear your view, position, belief, and even any
vehemence you might have about that. Say, even feel free to throw some
verbal knock outs my way if you wish :)

YOU may have, by the click of a few buttons ANY type of forum and
moderation you choose.

Deal with it, do it, or ignore it, but I suggest you stop pushing your
religion of "warm cozy politically correct communication where even
onlookers feel warm and cozy is the only true way".

You didn't hear me above (I spoke of being an onlooker and the
entertainment factor of that), and have agreed to the many and varied
pathways of dispute resolution.

Now go practice them.


> if you're not throwing your
> emotional weight on top of your argumentations. And since many cultures
> do so by default, it is a learning process for many, to cut out the
> rethoric, the fallacies, the attacks.. and stick to the facts.

Many learning pathways and experiences. Enjoy those you choose and stop
pushing your requirements onto me. I have absolutely no doubt you will
find huge numbers of enthusiastic supporters for your particular way.


> Italy is an interesting case study in fact. After 20 years of Berlusconi
> it seems to be the default to decorate each legitimate argumentation with
> at least three logical fallacies and one funny ad-hominem attack. Then
> telling people not to do that stuff is like denying them to be humorous.
> Oh, and thanks to Berlusconi nobody ever fact-checks their argumentations
> before throwing them in the ring.

Sounds like I'd fit right in if I moved to Italy. Sounds enjoyable.


> > > Systems need to
> > > be designed around humans *as they are*, not try to change the behaviour
> > > of all involved humans, then find out it doesn't work.
> > 
> > I heartily agree - and some people enjoy "vigorous" communication, they
> > consider vigorous communication not only "does work", but "works very
> > well, thank you very much, and by god I'll verbally crucify you should
> > dare to take my entertainment away from me".
> 
> Haha. Well you can always go to a public Retroshare or Bitmessage forum if
> you want to enjoy some unredacted anarcho-nazicapitalist scumbag bullshit.  :)

Great. I think I'll pass, and leave you to the task of encouraging them to
change their wayward ways, hey?


> > And we have these incredible devices called computers and programs where
> > with the click of a few buttons, a whole new forum with rules, moderators,
> > mechanisms for joining and giving the boot etc can be had. That's amazing.
> > Anyone can create whatever genre of online "community" they think will
> > save the world (or at least meet their personal expectations of a healthy
> > community). This is an amazing system. It is available to everyone. Make
> > good use of it if existing "communities" do not satisfy.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> > > It is also proven that your community will suffer damage because third
> > > parties watching the litigation will quietly turn away. You will lose
> > > participation.
> > 
> > And some people are totally ok with that. We cannot have all people on
> > this earth in one community - there's too many people, and most of them
> > want things just right --acording to their own idea of right--.
> > 
> > This idea that each "community" should be "comfortable" for everyone who
> > comes across it by chance or invitation, is a total firetrucking fallacy.
> 
> But it would be useful to be able to distinguish oligarchic communities,
> democratic communities and civil-rights-free zones. Instead most people
> only find out when the going gets rough. I guess most mailing lists fall
> under the moderated-far-too-late category. Somebody has the de-facto power
> to act, but was brought up thinking that intervention is worse than
> harrassment.

Thank firetruck there are others in the world who maintain online mailing
lists they refuse to moderate at any stage!

Really, you need to start practicing what you preach.

It's even in Genesis: "and on the fifth day God created man, saw that he
was wanting of careful moderation of his speech with his fellow man, and
thus God said to man 'man go forth, create thee thy moderated forum, and
moderate!', and man did, and God was happy for the misguided but hopefully
fruitful learning experience and decided to have a day of rest to
contemplate the wonders of man's exercise of his allegedly free will".

...
> > > If a community is so cool that it gets big, then it refuses to provide
> > > a system of justice, then it will slowly degenerate into a sucky
> > > community. I guess this is what the originator of the "Tor RIP" thread
> > > is afraid of. The wider Tor community will get shitty if it doesn't 
> > > introduce justice, and, possibly, democracy. And it will be subject to
> > > whatever outside forces like JTRIG want to do to it.
> > 
> > It is so easy to be blinded within myself as to other people's ideas of
> > justice, appropriate or useful communication, etc.
> 
> Have an assembly at CCC, elect say seven trustworthy people to be
> in the court of arbitration, then have them figure out what by their
> common sense is the right way to do things. Chances are good they

s/do things/speak/


> will produce something many in the community would regard as justice -

So saith the sooth sayer.


> given victims and culprits confide in them, which they can do if their
> rights to privacy is respected, not if there is an obligation to
> make private affairs public (a frequent misinterpretation of the
> concept of political transparency, btw).

So many assumptions of certainty, faithful adherence to the ideal of
justice, the gospel of privacy, trust in those who by guile and or good
intention seize the seats of authority for the good of others, to only
may be discover after a decade of tyrrany the folly of their own false
assumptions.


Regards and, seriously, good luck - you may need it.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk