[pp.int.general] Communication Plan

[carlo von lynX]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:22:52PM -0600, Ray Jenson wrote:
> As a serious response to Zbigniew Łukasiak, please allow me to propose the
> following:
> 
> 1. No voice should be more than any other, where relevant. If someone is
> seriously proposing something, we should give it consideration, regardless
> of who it is that proposes it. If we can't take it seriously, or we can't
> support it, we should ignore it (e.g., "don't feed the trolls") or respond

Please don't propose proven dysfunctional social strategies.
Try to google "don't feed the trolls" - you'll find dozens of
blogs and even papers disproving its efficacy. Not one that
has provided evidence in favor.

> with something that seems more acceptable. Given that this is not a verbal
> forum, and that all subjects can be accessed and discussed openly, it
> shouldn't require hierarchical mayhem to consider serious proposals.

Again, consult those documents. None have been able to work out a
solution that doesn't involve the word moderation. Please be scientific
and take failed 1968 ideology to the attic.

> However, a consensus in the majority should determine support. If it's

How do you measure a consensus on a mailing list?

> close, discussion might clear it up or it might not, but in any case,
> tabling something that might be useful in the future is harmful.

"tabling"? What is tabling and what does it take to happen?

> 2. The educational systems are geared to favor the wealthy, the politically
> connected, and those being groomed for such things in the future. They are
> operated by government, for government aims, within a government-approved
> structure. Thus, correct and understandable grammar may not be possible for
> everyone. We need to encourage these things, for certain, and help to
> improve it through education. But we should understand just how atrocious
> the system actually is before we bitch too loudly.

This is entirely off-topic, right? Nobody is going to moderate anyone
for speling or problems grammar.

> 3. I'm opposed to this. I can filter out or include whatever rubbish I want

Yes it is frequent that those that have no experience in the field of
sociology are ideologically against measures that help social co-existence.

> to. And occasionally, the trolls actually spark an idea with their

If they can act decently, they can still spark ideas.

> always rebel against it until they become the older generations, and

They should rebel on political issues, not by hitting below the belt.

> If you delay the emails from going back out, you weaken the system and open
> up a vulnerability.

Yeah, nettime-l is super vulnerable.

> The only solution is to grow thicker skin.

That is an ideological statement which has been proven wrong over and over.

> This means we simply have to tolerate what is protected as free speech,

This is a false application of the notion of free speech.
It's poisonous false interpretation has caused the crisis of the
pirate movement.

> Mahatma Gandhi's words come to mind: "First they ignore you, then they
> laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." (No, Trump didn't
> originate that, in spite of what he thinks.)

First they let you speak freely, then they moderate you, then you
fail to contribute anything useful while the others get work done.
You try to get angry at everyone, but since noone hears your anger
you only have a choice of acting civil or be gone.