[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
>> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
>> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
>> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
>> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
> 
>  don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
> 

India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which
is why I said so. It was not the best wording.

>> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
> 
>  stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
> or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
> "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
> 
> 
>> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
>> similar consequences.
> 
>  i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
> language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
> usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
> 
>  the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
> be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
> discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
> decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
> anybody i like that gets in my way".
> 

Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.

>  the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
> it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
> measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or
> not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
> 
>  that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
> 
> 
>> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
> 
>  ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
> impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
> responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
> that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
> exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
> definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
> 
>  *by definition*.
> 

You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. If there
were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.

> 
> 
>> Some people
>> apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.
> 
>  it's by definition.  an-archy *means* - by definition "without having
> any arch".
> 
>> For example, Wikipedia
>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
> 
>  if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
> *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
> 

With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance,
voluntary institutions etc., yes.

>> More
>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
> 
>  it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
> 

I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code
of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. Now, if you don’t
want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.

>> I don’t think our opinions are far apart.
> 
>  florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the
> different understandings that you have of certain words which are
> critical to the conversation.  with clarity of the understanding of
> words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions,
> even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we
> say.
> 
>  but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as
> many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard /
> measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than
> "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination
> and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer
> than i have time for, for which i apologise.
> 
> 

Yes, it is a problem with terms.

>> I am quite happy with
>> WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of
>> profit maximization or else I would not be here.
> 
>  can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world
> without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read,
> the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's
> almost overwhelming.
> 
> 

This is not the first time I heard of it. I will read it.

>>> do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which
>>> allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm)
>>> would be a good idea?  because i certainly don't!
>>>
>>> this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start,
>>> but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i
>>> am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible
>>> nightmare scenario.
>>>
>>> l.
>>>
>>
>> I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one
>> year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what
>> the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also
>> told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…
> 
>  thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most
> people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and
> copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric
> vehicle.
> 
>  utter insanity.  they're *literally* deluded.
> 
>  cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle.  got a design
> concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as
> "localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke
> engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).
> 
>  long story.  not relevant to this list.
> 
> l.
> 

Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be
“solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.