[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       python-list
Subject:    Re: To whoever hacked into my Database
From:       Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon () rece ! vub ! ac ! be>
Date:       2013-11-13 9:08:47
Message-ID: 5283419F.5030509 () rece ! vub ! ac ! be
[Download RAW message or body]

Op 12-11-13 22:26, Ian Kelly schreef:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> Op 12-11-13 14:02, Ian Kelly schreef:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Antoon Pardon
>>> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>>> So you are complaining about people being human. Yes that is
>>>> how people tend to react when they continualy are frustrated
>>>> by someone who refuses to show the slightest cooperation.
>>>> So no rejecting such responses, particullarly by the person
>>>> who caused them is not right. It is defelecting the blame from
>>>> the primal cause.
>>>
>>> As you say you're a human, not a sheep, so stop pointing at the
>>> behavior of others to justify your own.
>>
>> No, because often enough what is justifiable and what is not
>> depends on the context and what happened before. Morals are
>> generally not absolute so that a particular action would be
>> either right or wrong no matter what the circumstances.
> 
> I never claimed that they are.

What you said suggested it strongly enough to treat it as such.

> That doesn't mean that when somebody
> misbehaves, you can do whatever you want in retaliation without regard
> for others who might be involved.

But I didn't do whatever. What I did was similar in what others
had been doing before. And while those others were doing it
they received very little reaction. So why the reaction now?

>>> "But he started it" wasn't an
>>> excuse in kindergarten, and it still isn't one now.
>>
>> Then that kindergarten teacher was lousy at her job and would
>> probably let the bullies maninupulate her in punishing their
>> victems. That is what you get if you unconditionally tell
>> people that "he started it" can't be an excuse.
> 
> Yes, when one kid is yelling at another kid because the second kid
> pulled the first kid's hair, the teacher should just ignore the
> yelling because, after all, "he started it."  I'm sure that won't
> cause any disruption in the classroom at all, and having one kid
> yelling probably isn't going to set any of the others off, is it?

Thank you for making my point. You are concentrating completely
on the yelling and ignoring that somebody pulled the yellers hair.
So you have no problem with the teacher telling the yeller to stop
it, while ignoring that the hair puller is largely ignored in this.

> As for letting the "bullies" (which I'll take as a metaphor for
> trolls, since I've not once seen Nikos act like a bully) get away with
> things, none of these threads have been about pursuing any sort of
> justice, so don't try to frame the discussion as if they are.

No I'm just pointing out, that "he started it", can at times be
important enough to at least create some understanding for why someone
behaved in the way he did.

>> Not my problem. Why do you come to me? I didn't contribute to this
>> thread for about two days. That is two days of various contributors
>> that didn't accept their responsibility and whom you left alone.
>> If it wasn't a problem then that the positive feedback loop was
>> maintained, then why is it a problem now? I'll start taking you
>> seriously when I see you tackling the specific behaviour in a
>> consistent manner instead of you tackling specific contributors.
> 
> My apologies then for implying that you have been actively feeding the
> troll; I have not been paying attention to who is or isn't doing that.
>  I replied to you because you've been very vocal on the topic, and
> because you wrote things that I wanted to respond to, not to single
> you out as the problem.  I'm not going to individually address every
> single person who I think is contributing to the problem, because
> that's not my job and I don't have time for it.  If you think that's
> not being fair, then that's tough, but this mailing list is not a
> kindergarten.  We're all adults here, and I expect that others who are
> feeding the troll will have the maturity and self-awareness to
> recognize that what I wrote applies to them without me having to
> repeat myself a dozen times.

Well you can expect all you want. It is not going to happen. Your
expectations are completely unrealistic and the way you react will
be perceived by a number of people as just an attempt to getting those
that are frustrated silenced without much care about what caused those
frustrations.

>> If you leave a thread alone for four days while various contributors
>> maintain a positive feedback loop then you are implicitly saying
>> that such behaviour is not a big problem. So don't come complaining
>> now.
> 
> I've spoken up on this issue before.  I'm not going to repetitively
> respond to every single post or even every single thread that I think
> is problematic.  If I did that, then I would be part of the problem.
> As I said above, I chose to speak up now because you wrote things that
> I specifically wanted to respond to.  For the most part however I
> prefer silence in the knowledge that making noise just invites more
> noise.  For that reason you can expect that I will drop out of this
> thread again shortly, likely after this post.

If you mostly keep silent, then the specific choice of message you
choose to respond to, can be a very powerful if implicit message in
itself.

So if you choose to ignore the spoon feeders and others who blow life
into a thread and make it flourish but then choose to react to those
who later started to contribute after some time out of frustration or
boredom with yet another of Nikos threads, you are sending a clear
message that you don't have much of a problem with the first but you do
have a big problem with the latter. You may not intend it, but that is
what happens anyway.

>>> By expecting others to be rational and mature I show my
>>> respect for them, and so perhaps they will see fit to behave in a way
>>> to maintain that respect.
>>
>> No you are not showing respect that way. You are more likely unable
>> to empathise with the frustrations those people experience and are feeling
>> smug because you can handle it in such a "rational and mature" way.
> 
> This has nothing to do with empathy.  I can understand why others are
> frustrated and yet still expect them to control themselves.
> 
> In my world, treating somebody like an adult is a mark of respect, and
> treating them otherwise is not.

It looks like in your world you have a very limited idea of how adults
behave. Expecting the others to behave like adults has often enough
been the strategy of the priveledged to ignore justified frustration.
It is a win either way. If the frustration is uttered in an adult,
mature way it doesn't cause much discomfort and is easily ignored. So
when those who are frustrated see that being adult and mature doesn't
get them much and start reacting a bit less adultly and maturely the
frustration can now be dismissed as not being done in an adult and
mature way.

That is your goal here too. You are not interested in the frustrations
of a number of people. You just want to be able to ignore there are
frustrated people on the news group.

> Part of treating somebody like an
> adult is expecting them to take responsibility for themselves.  If you
> don't see things that way, then I think we have very different
> outlooks on life in general.

Part of treating somebody like an adult, is taking them seriously.
Talking about taking responsibility as a code for demanding them
to behave in a way that doesn't discomfort you is not treating
somebody as an adult.

-- 
Antoon Pardon
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]