We published a statement on our stance on neutrality of free software (and why we won't stay neutral in this case): https://f-droid.org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html
You seem to believe that Gab is wholly composed of harassers. This is simply false.
The majority of Gab users are nothing like that. AND harassers exist on every platform.
Singling out Gab like this is silly.
The reason Gab has been seized upon is because it's popular with Trump supporters, and a lot of Trump opponents are desperate to do anything they can to prevent Trump 2020.
@phoe @jhol @fdroidorg and here's the answer from an instance administrator: "Not in my server lmao". https://mobile.twitter.com/Malevolent_USB/status/1129174745411477505
I'd need to take a look at the *original* posts - the post(s) where the action is said to have taken place.
The words like "insults", "supposedly", "hypothetical" already tells me that this post is very subjective when it comes to evaluating and qualifying the situation that happened. Furthermore, the tone of the reporting post is highly emotional, which means that my own interpretation of it will be highly skewed. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco @jhol @fdroidorg To elaborate, based on this source, it's easy for me to throw a verdict that "this makes 100% sense" or "this is 100% nonsense" and both of them will be equally valid, since I'd need to fill in the missing context with my own assumptions, and these are almost sure to be wrong. Therefore the principle of Pseudo-Scotus applies, and everything can be proved off a set of false assumptions. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco @jhol @fdroidorg And the context that I consider to be missing is, among others: What is the original poster like? What exactly have they posted? What have they been posting previously? What is the black woman like? How did she interpret his post? What exactly has she posted? What exactly in the man's post made them react like that? How was her reaction interpreted by the man? Etc.. [>>]
When you have severely incomplete information, verifying situations is both almost always trivial and almost always producing wrong results. And you literally can't get some of that information without some empathetic insight, and perhaps a little bit of practice in reading people. (And even then, some blanks usually remain.)
That is one of the most frustrating things I have ever encountered, personally. Literally: if only the world was simpler to read, understand, work with, and figure out.
But instead it isn't, and it very much is holy fucking *not*. Even a virtually simple interpersonal situation usually has many subtleties that need to be taken into account to produce a decent model of it. [>>]
I sometimes wish reality was as simple as "shout at someone → pay $200 fine", but it never is. That's also why law has so many lawyers and judges, and why the whole law system is such a pile of complex junk.
Ultimately, mathematical logic is a very good tool to me, but only when used locally, on a problem that is graspable by that logic. As much as my brain would love to use it to describe everything, it doesn't have the capacity to.
If you need an actual case, here's this answer I got in the same conversation: "shut up, asshole. go cry more that your white male life didn't turn out as well as your daddy told you it would."
Is that hate speech? https://mobile.twitter.com/baronnarcveldt/status/1129044232138874883
@elsacodelcoco @jhol @fdroidorg I think the issue in question comes mainly from the issue at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6sokxZWwAApyYS?format=jpg&name=orig
I see it, and I'll post back at you tomorrow* about my understanding of that thing. The conversation I've had with all the other people today was exhausting, and I don't think I can give you good and consistent responses with my current headache.
*I think I'll remember to do that
Thanks. I'm up for describing that with some detail - I just need some more time and energy for that. Discussions and debates like these take considerable effort, since such a discussion means literally elaborating on how I see and view things, along with responding to questions along the way, and the questions can be arbitrarily complex and inquisitive.
As for the first sentence, I don't consider that to be "playing". For some people in some places, that issue *does* mean life or death for them and/or their close ones. That's one of the worst symptoms of the issue and why I've decided to spend some of my own time on working on it.
I'm a white male, I haven't encountered much racism or sexism in my own life, and I therefore have something that is sometimes called "privilege". [>>]
I've spent a while to actually figure out what "privilege" means, and I've realized that it's not an insult of any kind, nor even an expression of envy and jealousy. I simply got some relatively better dice rolls during character creation when I appeared here, and I have some supplies that allow me to make others' lives better without impacting my own. [>>]
Since I do not have to spend my energy on defending me and my close ones from racism, sexism, xenophobia and/or other calamities, I have some extra energy compared to the ones who actually get hit by those. And I've decided to actually spend that energy on understanding why, how and when the above calamities happen and how my own behaviour can influence them. That's a decision I've made via using my empathy. [>>]
The logical mind is important there, too - it actually figures out what and how to act in order to have the most effect. And I've figured out that the thing that helps the most in direct contact is calm discussion - and that is possible *because* I have the spoons to commit to such calm discussion.
Not everyone has them, and that's normal and expected due to how varied the world is.
So, huh, it's kinda like teaching, except you're also learning along the way, and there are no exams for anyone, rather than life itself.
And the concept of debating itself is also a sensitive topic somewhere, since not everyone is willing to pick it up due to lack of energy or being tired of performing such in excess previously.
It's complex to explain and the listeners are complex, too. Explaining it isn't trivial.
@elsacodelcoco OK, I'll be ready in a while. Let me drink my tea, get into the mindset, and get some of the life stuff done first.
@elsacodelcoco OK. Probably won't be getting as elaborate as the last time, since I've already established some context in that discussion, and my focus is worse today due to work and dizziness.
Previously, among other images, you've posted the image at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6sokxZWwAApyYS?format=jpg&name=orig - let me focus on this one for a bit. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco I'll focus on the inner post for now and work on mastoproject's response afterwards.
I've been thinking about a similar thing for a longer while now. My own cultural context is that I come from Poland, which nowadays a very homogenous contry - inherently white, Catholic environment. Due to that, I haven't really been introduced to the context of races and racism during my immediate life, though sexism was and is a topic that I am well-aware of. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco At least my story in the beginning was - when I encountered posts like these, my response came from using the logical part of my mind.
According to the simple logical definition that I then used, racism/sexism is treating someone worse due to their race/sex.
So, my logic then concluded that this definition should simply apply regardless of what race or sex we apply it to. Boom, problem solved, right? [>>]
@elsacodelcoco About that time I also joined the Fediverse and became exposed to stuff posted by a lot of people from other cultural contexts, most of which were alien compared to my own white-Catholic-rural upbringing model. And, while following people and reading things they posted, the definition from up above got quite a test. Seriously, I thought back then, if things were so simple, why were there online flamewars over it and thousands of posts exchanged both ways? [>>]
@elsacodelcoco Let me focus on sexism for now, because that's the topic that I've observed the most, especially outside the Internet. In the naïve definition that I've mentioned before, sexism is treating someone worse due to their sex. It sounded pretty obvious to me then.
Except that's when someone asked me, what *exactly* was meant by "treating", what *exactly* was meant by "worse", and if worse, then worse than "what"? [>>]
@elsacodelcoco The definition I personally used turned out to be based on some stuff that I haven't even really thought about - not only I didn't know what exactly I meant when I thought "treating", I didn't even have a baseline for the "worse" treatment that I used to do. The naïve answer I had was "not equally". Fine! What did "equally" mean, concretely, in this directly appliable context? [>>]
@elsacodelcoco One option for defining equality is to define some kind of standard, and then judge everything and everyone based on it. That's an option utilized in the Catholic church, for example - there is a general set of principles and permissions for every Catholic Christian that treats them equally. (I mention the church because of my personal convenience - I was brought up very close to it, so I have had some experience with it.) [>>]
@elsacodelcoco That's a direct example of natural law, where one assumes that a set of rules is completely external and must be followed without exceptions - because exceptions, via the definition, break the natural law.
For instance, a person who is married legally in Poland but has not had a Catholic marriage is forbidden from participating in the Holy Communion during Catholic masses. No exceptions.
That's natural law in action. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco But I digress now; the issues with natural law are important, but I'll come back to them later. Basically, this approach sets some kind of definition for equality, and then universally applies it to the whole known world.
Obviously, this is just an idea - some solution for the problem "what is equal and what is not equal". [>>]
@elsacodelcoco Does a given definition solve my problem though? Back to the original question: once I figure out a definition for equality, how the hell do I even know if it works?
People who follow natural law usually do not face that kind of issue: the definition of equality came from "God, nature, or reason", so it must work, end of proof. They most often assume that it works without any doubt (doubt is usually forbidden by natural law to ensure its self-preservation without changes). [>>]
@elsacodelcoco That's where we come to the other extreme - laws and rules that are made on the fly and are most applicable to the given moment, according to what the self-proclaimed judge decides to be proper according to their own personal preference. (If you played D&D, that's exactly what could be called Lawful vs Chaotic.) What's equal? Depends on what I think is equal at the moment. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco This definition can freely adapt to what is happening at the moment, which is a thing that natural law is absolutely unable to do. It is however limited by the capabilities of person who becomes the impromptu judge, and it doesn't scale in the slightest - if you have two people thinking on a problem, you have at least three ideas that compete against one another. And if these two people end up arguing with each other, they'll deadlock, and their verdict will not be stable. [>>]
They're the sources of what my belief system was composed on back in the day, formed mostly from the thoughts and beliefs of my family: money, Catholic Church, family and bloodlines at the center of everything. They're the sources of what I consider to be *obvious* - something that's called "bias" in general. [>>]
@elsacodelcoco If I have some beliefs, I'd better actually figure them out and make them conscious rather than let them rot in the area where I'm not even aware of them. Without realizing all of that, I only have some instinctive definition of what *seems* "equal" for me, without any actual awareness of why exactly it seems equal. [>>]