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

[carlo von lynX]

> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:32:31PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> > 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.

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.

The person will probably still think you're an authoritarian nuisance,
but if noone in public took notice they are more likely to deal with it
and forget the incident. And what's best: they will try to avoid having
such an exchange with the moderator again - which means they will improve
their behaviors.

So they become better people not because they want to. Hardly anyone wants
to spend time fixing their bad habits. But if it means not having to
interact with the moderation authority, that will be an actual motivator.

So ideally the moderator won't have all that much work to keep the
community in positive moods all the time. This framing adds the missing
bit of basic social requirements that exist in real-life, and so a
community that runs under this rule should actually feel more "normal".

Yes, just not in public IMHO. Actually would be useful to have a study
to confirm this, but I guess it 

> > 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.

Thanks a lot. We've been discussing this in the Italian pirate community
for several years now. Last week we passed 'convivenza' into the party
regulations, so should anyone care about us again we have a better chance
of being able to deal with popularity. I am convinced the main issue that
made the German pirates implode was the absence of punishment for destructive
and harrassing behaviors.

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

Well, they also need to have the authority to exercise "care". And the
nerve to be a pre-emptive vibes-watching nuisance, ready to deal with
potential insults (at least they are in private, and you know they are
against your function, not your person).

> > 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.  :)

> 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. Would you be able to take it private or does it need an audience
to be enjoyable? Aren't you a bit egoistic if you're more focused on your
joy than on the general progress of the project? 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?

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.

> 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, 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.

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.

> > 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.  :)

> 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.

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

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


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/