zlacker

>>elikog+(OP)
Skimming the letter makes it look like another attempt at pushing through their Code of Conduct (RFC98) targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry", whatever that means. Now going a step further by erasing the people in charge.

>>sudden+ja
> targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry"

Is targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" a bad thing?

>>Pareto+Gb
Based on how these things have historically tuned out, yes. This is very problematic.

The root of the problem is that it is basically impossible to defend yourself against the accusation that you are secretly a fascist. If you say yes, you admit to being a fascist, if you say no, you're a lying fascist. If you question why the accusation is levied against someone else, you're defending a fascist, if you speak out against the proceedings, you're defending fascism.

The only way to prevent accusations of harboring secret fascist sympathies is to deflect the accusation by lashing out against others with the same sort of accusation, thus demonstrating that you are not secretly a fascist.

This is a dynamic that has repeated itself many times, it's the engine behind countless actual witch hunts, but also metaphorical ones such as the McCarthy-era red scare, the ideological persecution under Stalin.

>>margin+8g
I don't get how this follows; no-one needs to be a secret anything, and the aim isn't even personal. Targeting "ideas rooted in fascism and bigotry" means to oppose the discursive ideas and concepts as they are put forth in the community, and the resulting concrete actions, that come from fascism and bigotry – specifically not the people or private thoughts.

>>dwb+Dj
Even if you deal just with ideas and somehow separate them from the people who promote them, what mechanism do you propose to use to decide whether an idea is rooted in bigotry or fascism? The accusation is incredibly nebulous and can be used to derail almost any proposal.

For the sake of argument, let's say I put forward the charge that the policy itself is rooted in bigotry. Can you prove that it is not?

>>margin+7q
Of course not, but asking for a "proof" for a question like that is a category error. It will be decided by whatever the group decision process is, which would have to be present for all the other non-trivial, and yes, fuzzy things that have to be decided, both technical and social.