12
13

Proposal: Ban /u/reaganveg for trolling. (self.metanarchism)

Vindalfr が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]reaganveg -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

/u/reaganveg has stated in the past that they believe a block mean a vendetta toward the group, not that they are willing to leave.

This is a lie.

The fact that you have to lie does not speak well for your case.

Okay . . . so consensus 101: traditionally a participant blocks if they are willing to leave the group if a proposal passes.

Frankly you're not qualified to teach consensus 101.

The idea behind consensus is that there is a group whose actions require 100% consent. So, within this context you can have votes where everyone expresses their preference but also has the option of not consenting. "Leaving the group" means not acting as part of the group's actions. It does not, and cannot (without totally destroying the entire concept of consent) imply any obligation on the person who is blocking, because they are withdrawing consent. The absence of consent cannot require any obligation. The person who "blocks" reverts to the status of someone who has not offered their consent (whatever status that would be).

An obligation not to speak is especially ridiculous. To say that merely speaking (not even voting) is some kind of implied consent just does not make sense. This is not reasoning that would be accepted if it weren't a pretext for attacking me, specifically. But in order to accomplish that petty goal, a horrible precedent is set. An anarchist community that officially recognizes an absurd distortion of what "consensus" and "consent" mean just because it was a convenient way to castigate an internal critic one time.

[–]RRRRRK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (18子コメント)

/u/boilerpunx

Blocks are explicitly a promise to leave the group, everywhere.

/u/reaganveg

Nope. It doesn't make sense. Once you are no longer operating on a consensus level with a group, you don't owe them anything. You could even be declaring war on them. You're not promising something to someone when you withhold consent, that is totally contrary to the theory of consensus.

https://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/2irriy/proposal_add_a_section_about_concern_trolling_to/cl6equ7

[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Yes, much better. Stick to quoting my words. (Notice: "a block mean[s] a vendetta" was not among my words.)

[–]RRRRRK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Okay, a block could mean "declaring war" not vendetta. I edited the post above about the vendetta.

[–]reaganveg -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (12子コメント)

But not the "mean[s]" part.

Please, just edit the post to quote my words and not to try to rephrase them. Your rephrases are uncharitable.

[–]RRRRRK 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

But the could mean because oppose is the withdrawal of consent, whereas block is the active or passive obstruction of consensus.

[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Like I said, please just quote my words. You're not reflecting what I actually said with your rephrasing.

oppose is the withdrawal of consent

This is absolutely wrong. If "oppose" is withdrawal of consent, it's not a consensus process at all. It's just majority-rules voting.

EDIT: didn't see your other reply when I wrote this, just FYI. I'll still leave it though it may be moot.

[–]RRRRRK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

This is a total non-response because I'm not quoting you above. I'm stating:

Oppose is the withdrawal of consent, whereas block is the active or passive obstruction of consensus.

[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This is a total non-response because I'm not quoting you above.

OK, my memory of the context here is that we're talking about whether your rephrasing of what I said was uncharitable. Thus I took your last post as an attempt to defend your rephrasing.

EDIT: Looking back at the context, it still seems that way. You wrote "the could mean because [...]" as if to justify using the phrase "could mean." Please, just don't use that phrase, I don't agree with your phrasing so just don't say that I do or that I said that.

Oppose is the withdrawal of consent, whereas block is the active or passive obstruction of consensus.

OK, well, I did plainly assert the contrary. So I actually do think that's responsive on that issue.

[–]RRRRRK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

could mean is my defense, and after because is my argument against your use of the block.

[–]RRRRRK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What's the difference between a vendetta and a war?

[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's the difference between a vendetta and a war?

Well, there is definitely a big difference between a vendetta and a declaration of war.

However, that's not the most important difference between what I said, and what you claimed I said. The most importance difference is that between the phrases "if X, then you could even be Y" and "X means Y."

I.e., the difference is between these two phrases:

  • could even be

  • means

For example, consider the following two phrases:

  • Leaving the Republican Party doesn't necessarily mean becoming a Democrat. You could be joining the Green Party. You could even be joining the Communist Party!

  • Leaving the Republican Party means becoming a Communist.

See how the first one is absolutely true, but the second one is absolutely false? Changing around a few words like that -- in the exact way that you just did -- makes all the difference.

[–]RRRRRK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough.