[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 132, Issue 4
From: |
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton |
Subject: |
Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 132, Issue 4 |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Apr 2021 18:17:08 +0100 |
On Sunday, April 4, 2021, Danny Spitzberg <[1]stationaery@gmail.com>
wrote:
Luke, you say “the” purpose of a code of conduct is to destroy
communities.
i apologise: to clarify: the intent may be to create a safe and
welcoming environment.
(i did not say having NO code is recommended, again, sorry if i gave
that impression)
the *effect* on the other hand of toxic CoCs is to blast and smash
people psychologically, at the very first moment that they enter the
environment, with such a god-awful list that the only thing it achieves
is to create an undercurrent of fear and unease.
everyone treads on eggshells, interacting with others in constant fear
that their actions and words are going to be misunderstood.
you may have heard the story that when the EU mandated that anyone on
scaffolding had to be harnessed in to rails: the result was that there
were *more accidents and deaths*.
it is simply a fact of psychology that if you focus on fear and
discrimination, you get.... fear and discrimination.
*whatever* you focus your attention on, that is what you get.
I say, there are many purposes- and one of them is to prevent
harassment and harm.
great. then that's *all* that needs to be said!
in fact, even the word "harassment" may be left out because it is
redundant. if someone is "harassed", in 100% of cases it may
categorically be deduced that they have been "harmed", yes? therefore
why state it twice??
there is however one thing missing from that innocuously simple
declaration: a corresponding *positive* statement.
a positive statement encourages positive behaviour.
paradoxically: a negative statement *actually encourages negative
behaviour* because that's what's on everyone's minds.
don't think of a pink elephant.
i would like to see a code that very simply invites people to:
a) do good, and
b) never do harm.
this basically assumes AND TRUSTS, fundamentally, that people know the
difference between what is right and what is wrong.
the interesting thing is that by them engaging with a community that
has such a simple compact it gives you, the other participants, the
right - the RIGHT - as well as the RESPONSIBILITY - to explain it to
people for whom, it turns out, do not actually know.
(that right and resonsibility extends to ALL participants.
categorically including those subjected *to* "harm". and all those
*witnessing* such "harm" occurring)
all of that WITHOUT poisoning the entire community with some
proscriptive behaviours that literally terrorise and poison all
participants including those who dreamed up the toxic list.
l.
--
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware:
[2]https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
References
1. mailto:stationaery@gmail.com
2. https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68