[pp.int.general] Communication Plan

[Ray Jenson]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM, carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org
> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:13:17PM -0600, Ray Jenson wrote:
> > You claim to have secured my failure, yet you do nothing to propose a
> good
> > solution.
>
> I just realized I already mentioned several years of research
> in a post two weeks ago. Sheds a light on how intensely people
> read the mails of a thread they are responding to.
>

And....?



>
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Google is your friend. You might try looking up the term "consensus
> > process".
>
> Consensus fails if any individual has an interest in making it fail.
> We tried it several times, even with advanced tools such as VgtA,
> but we always had to go back to liquid feedback.
>

Tools are only tools. Consensus fails if people are disinterested in
listening to a group.

Advanced tools? Try talking. Try actually getting to know your fellow
pirates. Try actually having a consensus.



>
> > People do. The term "grammar nazi" is common.
>
> That is not something a moderator would do. It is a behaviour
> that the moderator would moderate.
>

Nice twist of the intent, there.



>
> > I find the whole line of reasoning to be off-topic, truly.
>
> Probably since you've not read the thread.
>

I only respond to what I have read.



>
> > Decency has nothing to do with it. I've had people openly attacking me
> give
> > me a solution to something else entirely without meaning to.
>
> This implies other fallacies that are described in convivenza
> and other documents. Anyway, the assembly decision was taken
> and your feedback was heard.
>

So there is consensus after all? Or is it steering? Or is it simply lip
service? I can't tell.



>
> > > Yeah, nettime-l is super vulnerable.
> >
> > More like a social weakness, rather than a technical one.
>
> Empirical data?
>

Give me empirical data that you are conscious. Observation is the reality
in politics. Perception is. Influence is. Look at the Trump/Clinton mess.
Neither of those two really use empirical data. And people still listen.
Why do you think that is?



>
> > The computer merely conveys it. The problem isn't with the computer, or
> the
> > software. The problem is in how we, as human beings, handles it.
>
> That is another popular mistake. Sociology has proven that the
> medium is an important factor. Sources are listed in convivenza.
>

Medium is only a conveyance. Minds are still what need to work.



>
> You assert things as facts which are scientifically wrong.
> How does it make you feel?
>

Science has no place in politics. Just ask any voter, especially those who
support either Clinton or Trump. If you want science, look into the
Scientific Method sometime, and tell me where observation fits. If it's an
observation, does that guarantee scientific assertion? Of course not. So
what you say is sociologically inept and socially wrong.

How does that make YOU feel?



>
> > > > The only solution is to grow thicker skin.
> > >
> > > That is an ideological statement which has been proven wrong over and
> over.
> >
> > Yet you don't propose a superior one.
>
> I did. You didn't bother to read.
>

I read. There was no superior proposal.



> > > This is a false application of the notion of free speech.
> > > It's poisonous false interpretation has caused the crisis of the
> > > pirate movement.
> >
> > Indecency is not protected by free speech. Trolling, however, often is.
> > This is a matter of law.
>
> Freedom of speech is your right to make your website and proclaim
> what you think within certain civil boundaries, but it doesn't mean
> that we have to give you a forum. Further elaboration in the usual
> document and its references.
>

So, your true colors are revealed, and you and everyone else are diverting
from the pirate ideology. That makes my decisions in the future quite a bit
simpler.




> > "Thicker skin" works just fine. Look at the two main US Presidential
> > candidates as a prime example. And look at any Presidential race since
> the
> > 1780s.
>
> Yes, I see how bad US democracy has become. We don't want to be
> like them, because then we don't need to make our own political
> party. We can just join them.
>

We agree on that, at least. But there are certain limitations we still have
to observe, because society behaves in a very predictably irrational way.




>
> > The crisis is because we're assholes to each other, not because the
> trolls
> > are doing anything in particular.
>
> Then please research in the list of references I suggested
> why we are assholes to each other.
>

Suggestion: Stop being an asshole to me.

Response: Let me explain why we're all being assholes...

Sorry, that doesn't work, from a viewpoint of reason, which is the
viewpoint I'm assuming here. But then, reason doesn't really work very well
for most people, I've found. You have to comprehend critical thinking and
why certain things are convincing, even when they're wrong.

See the subjective in what you're telling me?



>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly what a Pirate stands for... not. You're being a
> > hypocrite, here.
>
> You're being ideological. I am proposing something that works.
>

I sincerely hope so. Politics is all about ideology. It's about human
influence, and minds, and how all of that fits together. It's about
management of resources.

I fail to see how any of that is actually working. In fact, I can point out
well over 1000 ways that it's not. I won't, not even if you ask, because
it's a moot point. It's obvious that something is failing.

So do continue doing what is ineffective with the population entrenched in
its unreason. You're killing the ideology. That's the main thing that
brought people to the PP to begin with: the idea that media should be free
from the clutches of evil, unfeeling corporations and corporate types.
Ideology, like why we consider that necessarily evil.

Reason had little to do with it.

We need reason, for certain. But we also need to be able to forward the
human factors.



> If a Pirate stands for social forms that science has proven as
> being dysfunctional, than the Pirate movement is dying.
>

The pirate movement is dying. But science isn't its savior.

Reason might be, if we accept that within reason, people are inherently
unreasonable.

But science itself bows to politics, much to my chagrin. There is much that
would benefit if the two parted ways, or if at least political types were
to take a critical thinking class. Even so, our politicians in Europe were
largely effective considering the little amounts of influence they had.
That the system is corrupt is a moot point--that's the ideology of being a
pirate: fight the corruption. It's an impossible task unless we have minds.

Minds and thoughts and beliefs are all the realm of ideology, even in
science. What brings people isn't reason. If you're too reasonable, people
will wonder what you're hiding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20160818/75469ea8/attachment.html>