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
eelco here is not accused of behaving in a facist or bigoted manner though. The accusation is two steps away already, specifically not being sufficiently supportive of the means of a process which has prevention of facist or bigoted behaviour as one of its goals.

>>Macha+vt
Indeed. Is that not a valid complaint?

>>dwb+1x
Not every policy claiming to prevent (insert something heinous here) is a good one.

The PATRIOT Act is a terrible law. Opposing it doesn't make you a terrorist. But you would've been accused of being one nonetheless if you opposed it in 2001.

It's easy to see why many people wouldn't want to actively get into such a controversy. But even that is being used as grounds for kicking someone out.

>>sorami+3X1
I disagree that this is comparable to American politics in 2001, and that Eelco isn't actively involved.

>>dwb+3B2
Active involvement? No evidence of Eelco encouraging fascism or bigotry has been presented so far. It's all rhetoric, ad hominems, and insinuations.

Also, I brought up the PATRIOT Act because it's so strikingly similar. Any rule that is broad and vague can and will get abused. Any prior assurances otherwise have zero effect. Yet, looking at discussions in RFC 98, there was strong opposition to making the rules clear and well-defined in scope. It's no wonder the community was unable to reach an agreement. Also no wonder that the whole thing is blowing up even further because the moderation is effectively operating in this way regardless.