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

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:32:31PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> > Fistly, identify if someone is being bullied, and second, if the target of
> > the bully appears strong enough to handle the "bully".
> 
> Even if the target is strong enough, the constellation will still cause
> damage I believe.

In this world, you're stuck with humans, as you find them/ as they present
themselves to you. You can't get around this little thing called
reality...

> > If not, or if you are unsure, talk with the targetted one offlist and
> > check in to see if they're ok or would like any offlist ear to talk to.
> 
> That is a possible way a vibes watcher could go about it, but I would
> rather intercept any aggressive postings to appear in the original form,
> but rather send them back to the writer asking to clear up some aspects
> that may be misunderstandable or in plain disregard of the code of conduct.
> In the scenario I described earlier either I should have received a mail,
> explaining how my mail had a potential of being misunderstood and needed
> rephrasing, or the reply that attacked me as a reasonable human being 
> shouldn't have seen the light.

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?"

These types of public naming are very good, often useful, and I do
recommend them - should be on the list of standard possible responses I
agree.

> Unfortunately the work of vibes watching moderators is frequently confused
> with censorship, but that goes back to the fallacious understanding of
> freedom of expression that I mentioned in previous postings and which is
> also addressed in convivenza.

For those who care, I think this discussion you are spearheading is very
good.

In any particular "community", if there's not at least one other person
who 'cares', my default suggestion is move on, find another group.


> > For the one who is conscientious, such communication comes naturally and
> > hopefully contributes to a stronger, all around warmer community.
> > 
> > Those who just love to go at it hammer and tong at each other, well,
> > perhaps sit back and enjoy the view, and if the view is too personally
> > distressing to you, consider Ye Goode Olde Kille File - it's not that
> 
> Just a few mails ago I listed a bunch of links that elaborate how the
> "Don't Feed The Troll" maxime is fundamentally flawed and punishes the
> victims while letting the troll achieve their political aims.

I agree with you, and in hindsight I can see I failed to state the pathway
of naming the "bad behaviour" publicly - just make sure to not get sucked
in to your own ad-hom or other emotional type attacks, because then its
all over, you're in the gutter and no better than the purported bully.


> > hard to change the view. I personally find it difficult to restrain myself
> > from leaping into the fray on one side, then the other, rather than simply
> > sit back and enjoy the view. I personally really enjoy it when individuals
> 
> 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.

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.

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.


> 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".

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.


> One of the reasons
> why democracy kind of works is because it doesn't expect humans to be any
> less egoistic than they by nature are. Communism, anarchism and especially
> anarcho-capitalism are prone to that fallacy, if I understood them well.
> 
> > are strong enough to joust back and forth, and back, and forth, then do it
> > all again tomorrow. Can't get much better entertainment.
> 
> 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.

Humans are different, and value different modes of communication. Failure
to recognize this fact will almost certainly lead you into personal
emotional heartache.


> > Thirdly, if you feel that you personally are being targetted by a bully
> > and that you are finding it challenging, or really not coping, I suggest
> > saying less where possible and reasonable, and identifying one or more
> > individuals whom you consider would be receptive to you and listen to you
> > with empathy.
> 
> Especially if those people will then try to clear up any potential
> misunderstandings, or take consequences if a "crime" has indeed taken
> place. Thus acting as a court of arbitration. If all parties are well-
> intended, the chance of negotiating a form of peace exists. Too rarely 
> this path is pursued.

Some people are able to find peace in being able to receive an emotional
personal attack tirade, and ignore it as though nothing happened. And even
more still, be able to immediately have a constructive conversation with
that same person who just delivered that tirade - as I said, to reach such
a space is liberating, but it is certainly not for everyone!


> In the case of a person with a tendency of over-
> stepping boundaries you achieve much more in teaching them to not do so

Except for those who want the personal lesson of learning how to not react
to overstepped boundaries. Without teachers (those who overstep
boundaries, at least apparently in conversation) how can I ever learn how
to handle such shit?


> if you work with them quietly but with the necessary authority, rather
> than to shame them in public and ruin their potential as an otherwise
> constructive contributor. Plus igniting a war.

There are all sorts of people, and all sorts of communities which are
constructive, useful personally, productive and wanted by all sorts of
people. And we have the computer systems in place to make instigation of
such online communities essentially a trivial exercise.


> > NOW, if you are unable to identify such a receptive, empathetic individual
> > within your chosen community, you are going to find it tough going and I
> > don't have much more in the way of suggestions for you, other than to find
> > a community with like minded individuals. Forums are not so difficult to
> > create these days, and if ultimately your version of a warm and caring
> > community requires moderation, you may have to experience that pathway in
> > your own little online community to discover how that goes...
> 
> 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.

When a genuinely good intentioned individual is lynch mobbed out of a
community, notwithstanding that individual's personal failings, then we
all suffer a tyranny.

When the "negative" type of "SJW" takes the ousted one's seat of
authority, that community is surely on a death spiral.

Choose wisely how you speak.

Good luck