[pp.int.general] Communication Plan

Fri Aug 19 13:21:19 CEST 2016

What I would like to avoid is exactly this kind of back and forth
exchange like we have now here between Ray and Carlo. After their
first emails I have all I need to understand their position - the
subsequent exchange does not bring much new information.

I don't agree with Ray and I support Carlo - but in this exchange they
both post too much and too nitpicking.

Cheers,
Zbigniew

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Jay Emerson <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The mental circlejerk here is in preparation for them to change the rules
> suddenly  and declare it ookie cookie.  I, for one, will not be the last to
> shoot my load and be forced to eat it.
>
> Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2016 6:41 PM, "Ray Jenson" <ray.jenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>

-- 
Zbigniew Lukasiak
http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/