🇳🇱
@doot I think its important to include the full context here... the wording is specifically:
> No "hate speech", speech that nefariously expresses a form of prejudice or threatens a people of a protected characteristic (such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, religion, sex or sexuality - unpopular opinions
voiced respectfully is fine).
What is being said here is that no hate speech or attacks or anything of that sort are allowed against any of the protected and marginalized groups... **outside** of that if you have an opinion which is not an attack on one of these groups, but people just dont like it, then its fine.
Forcing people to only speak popular opinions and banning people for unpopular ones is highly problematic IMO. As long as you are respectful, and do not disenfranchize marcganialized groups I think not having fear of being banned just for being unpopular is a good thing.
I'd be happy to hear your opinions on why "you can only say popular things" would be a good thing?
I wasnt the one who wrote that, the air quotes were added later by an edit... I honestly cant imagine why it is in air quotes.. I will remove it now.
Sorry I didnt see your issue. The site is live, but the bylaws arent final. We first need to get instances and have a mechanism in place for voting, and only then can we finalize it from draft to published.
Anyway making that edit now.
:wales_flag:
>The site is live, but the bylaws arent final.
No corporation I have ever incorporated, no organisation I have ever founded, started with the notion that it needs more members before it can create its own bylaws.
I - for one - will wait until your bylaws are final before considering applying.
Literally every country has.. corporations are not democratic enttities that are formed by the comming together of independent enttiities.
In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.
PErsonally I think this is the right move, i think it would be in bad taste for me to dictate the bylaws to everyone and then expect people to follow it. This is supposed to be a democracy, the bylaws are a starting point, enttities join to try to help us create a good set of bylaws, those instnaces can leave if things head in the wrong direction.. and hopefully we get a good result in the end.
You are welcome to wait if you wish bylaws to be dictated to you rather than being a part of their creation, no worries, we arent going anywhere.
>In fact it is quite common to FIRST gather the members of an organization that wish to form a union, and THEN decide as a group what bylaws should exist that satisfied everyone.
I believed that was what was happening on your Gitlab.
Now that you are public, I have to assume this is either unwanted input or deemed not necessary for launch, either of which are anathema to my participation.
Yes it is what is happening on the gitlab.. people who are interested in the project and feel they are likely to want to be members (or even just want to provide input) are there trying to improve the wording..
The site is live to ensure we can get more people interested and tentatively wanting to join so we can get more heads on the gitlab and improve it.
What i dont want is a msall isolated group of people to decide for everyone... we get everyone involved who likes the basic idea, then we work on refining it as a group, then int he end see whos left.
I dont get why this seems to upset you,.
(ref: https://gitlab.com/ufoi/constitution/-/issues/17#note_1195337741 )
Hate speech is never an opinion. There is no hate speech that can be considered an opinion. They are mutually exclusive terms.
Adding this qualifier infers that some hate speech at least to you and your federation can sometimes be considered an opinion, and - apparently - an acceptable one.
Respectful bigotry, if such a thing exists, is still bigotry.
The air quotes int he proposal, constitution, and the website have all now been removed.
You misinterprited the intent, and if you have a better wording that prevents such miscommunication in the future I am welcome to hear it.
The point here is to say as long as you arent uttering hate speech or being nefarious to a protected group, then opinions which are not hateful or attacking but are just not popular are ok... how can we express that better?
>how can we
Remove the qualifying sentence.
Hate speech is hate speech. It cannot be qualified otherwise.
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."
End. Of.
There is no need, ever, to add an exception.
Thats fair.. iw as going to respond saying it is needed at least in a seperate section, but I agree with you, it isnt needed. Because if we say respectful opinions are allowed then that is forced upon all instance moderation, and frankly i think instances should have the flexibility to moderate locally.
Did you already create a MR for this? if not i can create one.. ill support it and I suspect the federation will approve your suggested wording.
imnsho, it's important to make a distinction between attacks against ideas, versus attacks against the people themselves.
all these negative -isms pretty much boil down to impugning a person based on biological characteristics over which they have no choice or ability to change (notwithstanding cosmetically). that's quite different from an idea, which a person can adopt or discard at whim.
a good example of this is religion. some people consider this a protected class, but I think that's gravely in err. it's just an idea, and often not a very good one. if challenging that idea causes people hurt feelings, tough luck. same with any other idea.
complexion, biological sex, natural sexual inclinations, on the other hand are not something a person can typically change (again, notwithstanding cosmetically), and so it's beyond the pale to denigrate someone on that basis.
there's no need to exhaustively list all the protected classes and marginalized whatever du jour. you just need to evaluate what is being said consistently and without fail on the basis of whether it attacks an idea, or a person.
@freemo @doot ngl, that rule reads really sinister to me
Like, "no hate speech" is a great rule. And adding a definition of hate speech is a great idea.
But why add "unpopular opinions are OK"? No reasonable person would think "no hate speech" will censor your magnum opus thread about why Jar-Jar is Good Actually, so the only way that addition makes any sense is if "unpopular opinions" means "shall we just discuss if scientific racists might have a point tho, just to check they don't ofc".
This seems like a huge leap in reasoning... it is not an exceptional clause, it is a qualifying clause.. that is, a clause which **explains** a thing, rather than providing an **exception** to a thing. This clause **explains** that outside of derogatory speech unpopular opinions that are not derogatory wont get you in trouble. I do agree this clause shouldnt be neccesary but sadly a large portion of admins are fairly abusive with how they block and so, it is.
@freemo @doot I raised this on your discussion system, but as there's no answer there and your site has gone live despite the numerous outstanding and unanswered discussions on your organisation's Gitlab I'll repeat it here. Of all the things that are prohibited, why is hate speech in air quotes?
Your Code of Ethics prohibits four things: hate speech; Calls to violence; intentionally circumventing blocks; and harassmnent [sic]
Only one of these things has air quotes.
Please explain.