The document is very long and I don't really get the structure. It's very hard to make anything of it really. It somewhat makes me suspicious, even. I would write exactly like this if I knew how to do this and had to sidestep an issue. Long, hard to follow stuff filled with words.
Is there a clear summary, an easy-to-follow timeline? (of course these are always going to be presented from one side)
Also,
> Simultaneously, this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism combined with an abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance
- What is the myth of fascism?
- What is the abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance?
I get the paradox of tolerance is that you can't really tolerate intolerance or else you'll be eaten. [1]
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them
When there's stuff like this going on, I don't think it's helpful to try and do a full review of who did what wrong, or what the hypothetical motivations of any of these groups of people are, but instead to just review the actual proposed policy changes.