| John
I’m loathe to continue on this point, but as it so important to you:
--On Friday, October 7, 2022 15:32 -0400 Theodore Ts'o<tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Jay Daley wrote:
Would you care to restate it in terms of his actions and
behavior rather than his intentions?
My statement above is indeed a statement of actions and
behaviour. It is an objective fact that his post had no
content that was not ridicule. My statement is therefore, to
use a phrase from your postscript, based solely on observable
behaviour and nothing else.
You or others might wish to speculate on a motive not
inherent in the text that somehow alters the seriousness of
that post, but I don't think that would be appropriate for
me to do when making moderation decisions.
I have to agree with Jay here. If someone introduces race
into a discussion about masking, that should be raising all
sorts of red flags. Whether it is because that person doesn't
have the awareness about why that might not be a good thing to
do, or was doing it with malice aforethought, IMHO, doesn't
matter. It has the potential of being highly divisive, and
trolling, and again, if someone can't figure that out, then
maybe their ability to post should be restricted for a time,
until they can figure that out.
Then I think you missed the point I was trying to make andprobably Jay did too.
I very much understood the point you are trying to make. See below. I certainly agree about the red flags andthe rest of the above, including the "doesn't matter" point.And...--On Friday, October 7, 2022 15:37 -0400 Joel Halpern<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:And, as occurred in this case, they should be talked to about
whether they understand the problem and are willing to change
their behavior. If not, and if they demonstrate they are
unwilling to modify their behavior, then we as a community are
obliged to take explicit steps to prevent the bad behavior.
Yes. Agree with that too.But Jay's original comment was not, e.g., either of "He introduced race into a discussion that previously had nothing to do with it and..."or "Regardless of his motivations, the comment could not serve as a genuine contribution to any serious debate and could only be interpreted by reasonable readers as belittling and ridiculing the discussion" those statements would be about behavior and impact on thecommunity. The original,Dan however did not introduce it for any serious debate or
other genuine contribution, he did so solely for the purpose
of belittling and ridiculing it.
was about Dan's intent and goals.
You are assuming that the word "purpose" can only mean "intended purpose" but that is not the only meaning available. As I tried to explain previously, I meant "demonstrated purpose", i.e. an after-the-fact statement that is nothing to do with intent. Or to put it another way, if you look at that post and ask "What purpose did the introduction of this third party view serve?" then there is only one conclusion. No mind-reading of any kind involved.
Jay
And, Richard, I don't consider that distinction a philosophical
discussion. The examples above and the statement that Ted made
are about specific behavior with impact of the community (and
hence justification for a PR-action. It is possible for those
statements to be incorrect although I don't, personally, think
they are. A statement about Dan's intent or motivation requires
a certain amount of mind reading (even if the mind reader
believes the conclusions are obvious) and, as I believe others
have pointed out, is not very much different from a personal
attack.
john
|
