| |
|
I'm disagreeing the lock, Flowers, because... well, because it's silly, frankly. The thread is not offtopic, it is not a duplicate (well, it's one of three topics currently involved with this argument, but they have each flourished in sequence) nor is it degenerating into flaming. There is no reason to lock - if anything the discussion is calming down - and you are being frankly overeager to exert what few powers moderators have.
However, you are right that we don't really need another scrap with Glenn. So, Glenn, treating you as an adult with a worthwhile contribution to make:
I do not believe that at any point I have said that the content of the PM is problematic, although if you think that I have you are of course at liberty to point out where that was said. The situation in which Peter cites it is problematic, but only because I cleave to a more confidentiality-friendly treatment of private messages where I do not like reproducing content that is not harassing without the consent of the other party. Other people have different levels of sensitivity, and so, for example, Peter might not mind having the text reproduced at all, or he might mind quite a bit. I'd like to establish that.
The reasons for wishing to establish that are twofold. First, because I find it difficult that the PM and its content is being cited by Peter, when I do not know if he would object to my citing it. Second, because I think that what Peter put in the private message was interesting and relevant to some of the arguments that are going on here, and opens up some possible avenues for reconciliation.
At present we have a series of entrenched positions - to wit, at one end Mister Disco has called Peter a neonazi troll, although he has revised his statement to credit him with an ideology rather than membership of a particular group. At the other end, we have the phase Peter went through when he was likening those who disagreed with him to Nazis - although he feels that the fact that he did not directly say to anyone "you are a Nazi" is a telling difference. I'd say that neither of these positions - or this one, "you are a Nazi" position - is likely to result in profitable discourse.
In the fudgy middle, roughly, we have Peter saying, in paraphrasis, that he has apologised for the wording that might have given people the impression that he was making a racist statement, but he reserves the right to respond angrily and at some length to any suggestion that he is a racist. Fair dos. We then have Zippy saying, broadly, that people identifying racism in your behaviours or utterances is an opportunity to look at the way that existing power structures have constructed one's viewpoint, and should be if not welcomed then at least examined for positive outcomes. Within that pulpy center, I think there are opportunities to form a consensus that will not simply put the behaviours that led to this outburst-heavy period on hold until the next time - as you can see above, in this case "the next time" lasted the distance between Evil Scientist's post and the post directly above it - an hour and ten minutes.
However, it was only a suggestion. We can always leave this one to simmer instead. |
|
|
