Yes; there is evidently a core on which we agree. (I am not here for trolling, and appreciate you tolerating my "pushing." Oh—while I'm at it: agreeing does not imply "right.")
I have nothing against you contributing approaches to mediation.
One reason I have not answered this earlier question of yours as is, is because it is a fallacy (not implying intent, but bias):
> Is it better for every group to make entirely ad-hoc decisions, or is it better for there to be some degree of consistency?
No group makes "entirely ad-hoc" decisions. There is always "some degree of consistency," if only because the "leader" (there is often one; sometimes referred to as "dictator"—WTF?) has limited power to make themselves respected in the face of (real or perceived) unfairness.
This is why I kept asking you to define "community," "membership," etc.; we cannot possibly ourselves be consistent if we don't consider the solidity of the pillars of our reasoning—which is particularly negligent if we are discussing any kind of punitive measure.
To circle back to my original point: I am not questioning your motivations, only the method and vocabulary—and pointing out that you may be severely underestimating collateral damage. Some of the words you have been using can easily be interpreted as an attack by those who do not hold your views. In which case: congratulations—you now have two problems!
I hope that I, and perhaps some others, will still be able to enjoy your constructive insights without feeling like we are being drawn to totalitarian talk. And whether you mean those words or not does not matter as much as whether you project them; propaganda works.
Cheers, -D
P.-S. — There is still the largely-but-not-quite unrelated TPM subject: as briefly mentioned, I highly question your seemingly unrestrained enthusiasm and advocacy for the current crop of "solutions."
I do not wish to debate it here and now, but I believe the second- and higher-order effects of these systems is something which merits deep consideration, and hope to one day find an opportunity to express my concerns—preferably not prompted by an outrageous tweet!
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Date: 2017-12-23 11:52 am (UTC)I have nothing against you contributing approaches to mediation.
One reason I have not answered this earlier question of yours as is, is because it is a fallacy (not implying intent, but bias):
> Is it better for every group to make entirely ad-hoc decisions, or is it better for there to be some degree of consistency?
No group makes "entirely ad-hoc" decisions. There is always "some degree of consistency," if only because the "leader" (there is often one; sometimes referred to as "dictator"—WTF?) has limited power to make themselves respected in the face of (real or perceived) unfairness.
This is why I kept asking you to define "community," "membership," etc.; we cannot possibly ourselves be consistent if we don't consider the solidity of the pillars of our reasoning—which is particularly negligent if we are discussing any kind of punitive measure.
To circle back to my original point: I am not questioning your motivations, only the method and vocabulary—and pointing out that you may be severely underestimating collateral damage. Some of the words you have been using can easily be interpreted as an attack by those who do not hold your views. In which case: congratulations—you now have two problems!
I hope that I, and perhaps some others, will still be able to enjoy your constructive insights without feeling like we are being drawn to totalitarian talk. And whether you mean those words or not does not matter as much as whether you project them; propaganda works.
Cheers, -D
P.-S. — There is still the largely-but-not-quite unrelated TPM subject: as briefly mentioned, I highly question your seemingly unrestrained enthusiasm and advocacy for the current crop of "solutions."
I do not wish to debate it here and now, but I believe the second- and higher-order effects of these systems is something which merits deep consideration, and hope to one day find an opportunity to express my concerns—preferably not prompted by an outrageous tweet!