| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3137
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | To my mind, the elephant-in-the-room is that: developers are specifically selected for aptitude at what most consider an anti-social task.
As a group, they make a big deal about how they are only selected on technical merit (and ofc it shows.)
The Council is specifically mandated to deal only with technical matters, and then only by the developers themselves. |
And what's the problem?
Machines don't simply get offended. If the techies share some of those qualities (and also expect them from other people), what's wrong about that?
What would be better than selecting them on technical merit?
| Quote: |
Just quite how such a bunch of semi-functioning autists got the idea that they were cut out to be moderators, is perhaps worthy of a social-anthropology dissertation, but certainly an ongoing source of amusement round these parts.[1] |
Oh, so you want more social folks to police them? Why? And how is it going to help anyone?
Look, it doesn't matter what exactly the rules are, as long as the participants are more or less comfortable. Whether you consider it toxic or not is irrelevant.
Someone has created this playground and it became populated and those people are getting a lot of work done. It _works._ Why interfere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| szatox wrote: | | What would be better than selecting them on technical merit? |
For starters, actually measuring the technical merit they bring (e.g. mean delay in acknowledging bugs assigned to them) and evicting the ones that don't show any.
Rote memorisation of answers to a written test is no basis for a system of government.
---
Getting back on topic, that'd be a good way for the proctors to demonstrate some merit for their own existence. There's an ongoing spree of wiki.g.o vandalism from one user there (dumping stream-of-consciousness gibberish in major articles, edit warring over objectively wrong ways to format articles, airing dirty laundry and outright personal attacks - again on major articles) that's been going on for a month or two. Let's see how long it takes the proctors to do anything about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1052
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | Rote memorisation of answers to a written test is no basis for a system of government. |
Indeed. Strange women lying about in ponds distributing swords is the historical norm.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2021 is the year of the Linux Desktop! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3137
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ant P. you actually kinda backed my point with your answer, while seemingly trying to make it look otherwise. 
I'm all in for measuring their technical merit. I still think the most involved/interested people should handle it by themselves. They can decide what level of incompetence from other volunteers they are willing to tolerate.
| Quote: | | Rote memorisation of answers to a written test is no basis for a system of government. |
Self-organizing environments must remain self-organizing if the are to keep going. As soon as you start governing it, you kill whatever incentives the volunteers used to have to contribute.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Muso, is your post in latin?
It sounds cool, but I have no idea what it means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54244
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
szatox,
Its a reference to a myth about how King Arthur was selected to become king.
There are others too, like the Sword in the Stone
Its all related to choosing leaders.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| szatox wrote: | | Self-organizing environments must remain self-organizing if the are to keep going. As soon as you start governing it, you kill whatever incentives the volunteers used to have to contribute. |
szatox ... while scientific sounding you are establishing an inside/outside distinction so as to place the "self-organisng" as being "policed" and "governed" from somewhere outside. For this to be the case then you would need to explain how such governance is any different from the "volunteers" you've decided are "self-governing". Would (non-developer) proctors, not also be "volunteers", and also part of the system "self-organising"? You're creating an artificial distinction that only serves to preserve the status quo ... by making it seem like such a distinction is somehow natural, if only others within the community would stop interfering with the natural order.
| szatox wrote: | | If it ain't broke, don't fix it. |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
| Michael J. Glennon wrote: | | Legal systems work well when actors within the system are relatively equal in power. Future dealings are expected. Trust is high. A consensus exists concerning foundational values. The price of non-cooperation is steep. Individual and collective interests align. Underlying social norms reinforce legal norms. Free riders and transgressors are easily spotted and penalized ... Law’s force derives from underlying political conditions such as these. Absent such conditions, law goes dark. |
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3137
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Khayyam,
| Quote: | You're creating an artificial distinction that only serves to preserve the status quo .
|
The status quo got us here, which means it works. I refuse to accept a change just for sake of making a change. Changes always come at some cost, if it's not an obvious improvement, I don't want it.
Give me a reason to change my mind*
Regarding the distinction being artificial or not... Let me phrase the whole thing differently, starting with that brilliant quote from Michael J. Glennon.
I actually like that quote. It basically screams "the institution of government is inherently bad", and here's why:
The "law" is a predefined (written) set of rules that requires "law enforcement", which in reality means "the government" handles all the "policing" which is in direct opposition to "parties being equal in power". So, if you are the government -> you are far superior in power to any other party -> you enforce the law -> your slaves obey. You, being superior in power obey at your convenience.
It is my impression that this is roughly the scenario SteveL advocated for in his post. I am aware I probably extrapolate/exaggerate. Still, bringing people "with social skills" to work on developers' issues would be ridiculous if not for the damage it has done in many other areas of life. Let the men be men, the devs can sort out their problems by themselves
The rules in a self-organizing group is not a written codex. It is a pattern of behaviours. You can try to write it down, but whatever you come with will be either incomplete or outdated by the time you're done, because groups are dynamic being that evolve over time as they work out their issues and respond to external stimulus.
Look at the way children play: They all play together according to some rules. Neither of them knows all the rules, but the group as a whole has it collective mind which allows them to cooperate (and often compete at the same time).
The rules can change if players collectively chose to do so. Coming in with a pre-selected set of rules and telling everyone to obey breaks the game. This is the very part I have a problem with.
You want to change the rules? Fine. Join the group, contribute, and be the change you want to see. If the change is good, the others will follow. You can speed it up by bringing more new people in. The trick is, those people must:
1) tolerate the already existing rules (they are the ones joining the group)
2) contribute in a way that will give them credits from all those autistic anti-social jerk developers, who got us to the point where we are now (the group has to actually accept them)
If you want to write the rules up-front, there's nothing wrong with it. But then, once you have your law, you have to find people who will obey your law.
You can't just force it on an already existing group of people you are unable to control. Which means you can't do that to a group of volunteers. Volunteers have their own motivations, and I assure you being bossed around or policed is not one of them.
* Or don't. You are a volunteer too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| szatox wrote: | | The status quo got us here, which means it works. |
If you can call two politics-driven forks, the entire libav mess, entire QA teams burning out as “working”… |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 193
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It sounds to me as though some people who aren't doing the developing expect their demands to carry as much weight as those who are doing it. If I were a volunteer developer, and someone tried to force that on me, I'd just leave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
szatox ... that quote seems to have provided you a number of digressions, but ok, let me chase you down each and every rabbit hole ...
| khayyam wrote: | | You're creating an artificial distinction that only serves to preserve the status quo. |
| szatox wrote: | | The status quo got us here, which means it works. I refuse to accept a change just for sake of making a change. Changes always come at some cost, if it's not an obvious improvement, I don't want it. |
That is a separate question entirely, I'm speaking to your argument (re "self-organisation", who's included/excluded in your schema, etc). I used the term status quo in it's technical sense, an existing state of affairs, and so you have it topsy-turvy causality wise, the current state of affairs didn't "get us here", it is an outcome of what came prior. As for it "working", and "change", well, why do you think the proctors were introduced, because everything was working so well someone thought it was time for a change? By your argument change is something that happens only when you acknowledge it, or when it agrees with your sentiments, because you only seem to be saying that my argument for inclusion is "too much change", whereas other (I guess "self-organised") change is not. This is nothing more than arbitrariness, the point is, or was, what is the validity of the inside/outside distinction your argument implies, and what reason is there for someone necessarily being a developer to be eligible for the role of proctor?
| szatox wrote: | | Give me a reason to change my mind* |
Sure ... read the charter, it does not provide artificial distinctions between various members of our community. It doesn't say "developers shall govern ... and only developers can occupy governance, or administrative, roles".
| szatox wrote: | | Regarding the distinction being artificial or not... Let me phrase the whole thing differently, starting with that brilliant quote from Michael J. Glennon. |
I'd allow that, if you were using the opportunity to clarify your argument, but seen from here you're not.
| szatox wrote: | | I actually like that quote. It basically screams "the institution of government is inherently bad", and here's why: |
This is what I would call a "category error", if there is something (as you've posited) called "self-organisation", then there is something called "self-governance", you don't now get to define governance as something external, and exhibiting these "inherently bad" traits.
| szatox wrote: | | The "law" is a predefined (written) set of rules that requires "law enforcement", which in reality means "the government" handles all the "policing" which is in direct opposition to "parties being equal in power". So, if you are the government -> you are far superior in power to any other party -> you enforce the law -> your slaves obey. You, being superior in power obey at your convenience. |
No, that is another category error on your part. What do you think Glennon means by "underlying social norms reinforce legal norms", do you think he views the law in the manner in which you describe? If he does, then why even speak of "equal in power", "trust", "consensus", etc?
| szatox wrote: | | It is my impression that this is roughly the scenario SteveL advocated for in his post. I am aware I probably extrapolate/exaggerate. Still, bringing people "with social skills" to work on developers' issues would be ridiculous if not for the damage it has done in many other areas of life. |
I can not speak for steveL, but the way I read the crux of his argument is that developer status doesn't make one necessarily good at instituting rules, adjudicating disputes, etc, etc. So, unless you are arguing that it does, and that we'd best not interfere when its clear they don't, then I think you're off on some tangent ... which I'm inclined to think is the case due to you allusion to "the damage it has done in many other areas of life".
| szatox wrote: | | Let the men be men, the devs can sort out their problems by themselves |
Oh geez, no, they should be thoroughly feminised, by force if necessary. Again, see the charter ... it's not "their problems", they (that artificial distinction) are not the community.
| szatox wrote: | | The rules in a self-organizing group is not a written codex. It is a pattern of behaviours. You can try to write it down, but whatever you come with will be either incomplete or outdated by the time you're done, because groups are dynamic being that evolve over time as they work out their issues and respond to external stimulus. |
Again, all very scientific sounding, but you're all over the place ... what distinguishes these "rules" from the "predefined (written) set of rules" stated above, and what makes law (as per your definition) any different from such "pattern of behaviours" (specifically when considering Glennon's "[f]uture dealings", "consensus", "social norms reinforce legal norms", etc). I say "all over the place", but what I mean to say is that everything turns on arbitrary distinction.
| szatox wrote: | | Look at the way children play: They all play together according to some rules. Neither of them knows all the rules, but the group as a whole has it collective mind which allows them to cooperate (and often compete at the same time). The rules can change if players collectively chose to do so. Coming in with a pre-selected set of rules and telling everyone to obey breaks the game. This is the very part I have a problem with. |
I'm quite familiar with the concept of spontanious order, the question here is why you think this is any different from the type of relational exchange involved in the establishment of, and cooperation in, governance/law?
| szatox wrote: | You want to change the rules? Fine. Join the group, contribute, and be the change you want to see. If the change is good, the others will follow. You can speed it up by bringing more new people in. The trick is, those people must:
1) tolerate the already existing rules (they are the ones joining the group)
2) contribute in a way that will give them credits from all those autistic anti-social jerk developers, who got us to the point where we are now (the group has to actually accept them) |
Nope, I need not do anything, I'm a free agent, and I do not need join a group of which I'm already a member. I'm in total compliance with the "existing rules" ... those of the charter ... and that charter provides me with the right to do as I do ... without a barrier to entry.
| szatox wrote: | | If you want to write the rules up-front, there's nothing wrong with it. But then, once you have your law, you have to find people who will obey your law. You can't just force it on an already existing group of people you are unable to control. Which means you can't do that to a group of volunteers. Volunteers have their own motivations, and I assure you being bossed around or policed is not one of them. |
This is just you projecting ... why do you think I provided that quote from Glennon, what do you think I take "consensus", "cooperation", etc, to mean in relation to governance? Further, where are you getting this stuff, you flip-flop from "self-organisation", to Washingtonian "government is force" as though I'm a subject of your fantasy ... I'm not ... so unless you have evidence that this is what I'm advocating (all evidence to the contrary) then you're going to have provide it, because right now all I see is you projecting your fantasy on me, without one shred of that evidence ... let men be men, I guess.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duane wrote: | | It sounds to me as though some people who aren't doing the developing expect their demands to carry as much weight as those who are doing it. If I were a volunteer developer, and someone tried to force that on me, I'd just leave. |
duane ... so when members of the community make criticisms of the fact that role of proctor is closed to anyone not a developer this is making unwarranted, and unjustified, "demands". OK, fine, I won't be providing bug reports, doing user support on the forums, etc, etc, etc ... why should I provide my time/labour as a "volunteer" when I'm not given the same "weight"? I probably provide far more of my time than some currently listed as developers, but, hey, some people, entitlement, yadda-yadda.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 193
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | duane ... so when members of the community make criticisms of the fact that role of proctor is closed to anyone not a developer this is making unwarranted, and unjustified, "demands". |
No, that's not what I said. A criticism is an implied demand -- not necessarily unwarranted or unjustified, but you still can't expect it to carry the same weight. The people doing the actual development are in charge of the project by the very nature of the work they do. Since you're not paying them, you really have no say in what they work on. If you really need something done, your best bet would be to learn how to do it yourself -- the essence of any volunteer system.
| khayyam wrote: | | OK, fine, I won't be providing bug reports, doing user support on the forums, etc, etc, etc ... why should I provide my time/labour as a "volunteer" when I'm not given the same "weight"? |
The reason to help with the project is to take some of the load off the shoulders of the people who are actually making and distributing code. If you don't think you're getting any value in return, then maybe you should stop.
I'm not saying that anyone here is morally correct -- that's beside the point -- this is the way every volunteer software project works by the nature of human beings. The people who do the work that is most difficult are always going to be valued more highly because most of the rest of the community cannot (or in most cases will not) do what they do. So, yes, the average user is not equal to a developer. Democratic principles are not naturally a part of free software, and I seriously doubt if they would work very well since no one is required to be here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously no one, neither paid nor volunteer, can be compelled to do something they do not want to do. Monetary compensation may make it easier to do some drudgery they might otherwise choose not to do, but that is ultimately a choice ("it's worth the money.").
Additionally, as a volunteer or someone who receives compensation, an organization may have values which are not a good fit.
| Foundation:Main Page wrote: | Gentoo lives for the community, by the community
Gentoo strives to please its users. The Gentoo community is Gentoo's goal of life. Without community there is no Gentoo. To help Gentoo's development, the community provides a continuous stream of feedback and contributes to the various aspects of the Gentoo distribution. This cooperative model will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan. |
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | duane ... so when members of the community make criticisms of the fact that role of proctor is closed to anyone not a developer this is making unwarranted, and unjustified, "demands". |
| duane wrote: | | No, that's not what I said. A criticism is an implied demand -- not necessarily unwarranted or unjustified, but you still can't expect it to carry the same weight. The people doing the actual development are in charge of the project by the very nature of the work they do. Since you're not paying them, you really have no say in what they work on. If you really need something done, your best bet would be to learn how to do it yourself -- the essence of any volunteer system. |
duane ... the question is not about "what they work on", or or my needing "something done", but their making rules that effect the community ... when they have no mandate to do so. Your saying they are "in charge of the project" doesn't change that fact, we have a charter and the charter does not grant developers the right to govern, it states that gentoo is "for the community, by the community" ... and that community extends beyond those titled "developer".
| khayyam wrote: | | OK, fine, I won't be providing bug reports, doing user support on the forums, etc, etc, etc ... why should I provide my time/labour as a "volunteer" when I'm not given the same "weight"? |
| duane wrote: | | The reason to help with the project is to take some of the load off the shoulders of the people who are actually making and distributing code. If you don't think you're getting any value in return, then maybe you should stop. |
Nonsense, any of those tasks could be seen as as necessary as the other. If users were not doing Q&A, filing bug reports, supporting users, providing donations, etc, etc, then gentoo would cease to exist in no time at all. These are not supporting roles they are the very thing which makes the community function. Unfortunately people think that everything turns on developers, as though this role somehow has logical priority, but again "gentoo is a community based around a distribution", not the other way around.
| duane wrote: | | I'm not saying that anyone here is morally correct -- that's beside the point -- this is the way every volunteer software project works by the nature of human beings. The people who do the work that is most difficult are always going to be valued more highly because most of the rest of the community cannot (or in most cases will not) do what they do. So, yes, the average user is not equal to a developer. Democratic principles are not naturally a part of free software, and I seriously doubt if they would work very well since no one is required to be here. |
That argument is so loaded, and presumptuous, as to take more time than I'm willing to give it to unpack. All I'll say is that your appeal to human nature, and naturality, obscures the way in which socio-political communities function (ie, via reciprocity), it's not a hierarchy of high value providers, and other less valued contributors, it is an ecosystem where the various components are working together for common mutual benefit.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3137
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough khayyam, you do have some points.
| khayyam wrote: | | This is nothing more than arbitrariness, the point is, or was, what is the validity of the inside/outside distinction your argument implies, and what reason is there for someone necessarily being a developer to be eligible for the role of proctor? |
Inside/outside distinction is arbitrary, because I decide whom I consider an insider.
An example, look at these forums: there is a group of core members. They haven't been appointed or named in forum rules. They simply show up, more or less regularly, and they contribute. These, I consider "insiders", and yes, you are on that list.
Noobs are not, they come and go, and have to earn their reputation first. Neither was the chick that popped out of thin air and immediately started bitching about us being "not welcoming for her". Why should I take any crap from her?
Insiders are the people you recognize and value enough to label them as such, those you gave some power to bend your will.
My point is: "are the proctors even necessary", "why would I* want to involve them", and "how are they to gain enough respect to make me take their advice should someone else involve them to deal with me"?
If you answer "yes" to the first question, then an already recognized developer - being an insider from other developers' point of view - and also being familiar with the local culture - will find dealing with second and third questions much easier than anyone else.
Disciplinary actions - which basically translates to "punishments" - don't count towards gaining respect. This is institutionalized government dictating rules by force.
* -> replace "me" with "developer"
| Quote: | | szatox wrote: | | I actually like that quote. It basically screams "the institution of government is inherently bad", and here's why: |
This is what I would call a "category error", if there is something (as you've posited) called "self-organisation", then there is something called "self-governance", you don't now get to define governance as something external, and exhibiting these "inherently bad" traits.
|
Well, the word "institution" is the key. The institution is the entity that requires a written codex and ways to enforce the written rules.
Self-organizing systems don't need either. If "the trust is high, personal interests align with group interests and future interactions are expected", you can afford to handle conflicts case by case, without that written codex, the arbiter and the law enforcement. Oh, and without taxes.
| Quote: |
I can not speak for steveL, but the way I read the crux of his argument is that developer status doesn't make one necessarily good at instituting rules, adjudicating disputes, etc,
|
No, it doesn't make them good at instituting rules. But begin good at something is relative too. Since the focus was on the toxic developers, I say they should be allowed to handle their issues the way they see fit. They create their own environment that suits their needs. The fact that some people consider this environment toxic does not mean it is toxic for its denizens.
| Quote: |
I'm quite familiar with the concept of spontanious order, the question here is why you think this is any different from the type of relational exchange involved in the establishment of, and cooperation in, governance/law?
|
It's a matter of agency and causation. Following a barrel because you are pushing it somewhere based on your motivation is one thing. Following a barrel because it's dragging you is quite another.
Alternatively you can think of it in terms of a carrot and a stick. You join a group because it benefits you. Doesn't matter what motivation _exactly_ you have, you're essentially buying a carrot. Once you involve some sort of a government, you have to watch out for sticks, and then you'd rather be elsewhere.
| Quote: |
Nope, I need not do anything, I'm a free agent, and I do not need join a group of which I'm already a member. I'm in total compliance with the "existing rules" ... those of the charter ... and that charter provides me with the right to do as I do ... without a barrier to entry.
|
You are a free agent, just like any member of said group is. Do they recognize you as a member? Do they recognize the charter you base your claims on as it's foundation?
I recognize you as a forum member, based solely on our history here (in particular but not limited to: yours and mine). I consider myself a member, based on my interactions with other people here. Interactions imply receiving actual feedback.
| Quote: | | it's not a hierarchy of high value providers, and other less valued contributors, it is an ecosystem where the various components are working together for common mutual benefit. |
Actually, you are both right here. It is an ecosystem working together for mutual benefit.... And it is a hierarchy. Or multiple hierarchies in fact 
Any time you set a goal, that goal creates a hierarchy of things which benefit it.
Why do you find it so important to be equal? We are not interchangeable. We are all important in one way or another, but we are not equal. Community is not equal to developers. One developer is not equal to another developer. One community member is not equal to the other. So what?
We're doing different parts, why shouldn't we have the authority over different areas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | This is nothing more than arbitrariness, the point is, or was, what is the validity of the inside/outside distinction your argument implies, and what reason is there for someone necessarily being a developer to be eligible for the role of proctor? |
| szatox wrote: | | Inside/outside distinction is arbitrary, because I decide whom I consider an insider. |
szatox ... but where does this leave us if we're trying to grapple with the subject as a scientific discipline ... or is social science a science in name only? If it's not a science then what are these various disciplines doing when they make statements like that of Michael J. Glennon? That's what I'm looking at/to ... I want to understand the social field I'm embedded within, and how best to negotiate it, so I avoid harm, and preserve my being. So, being committed to a scientific methodology I can't accept arbitrary distinctions, they play havoc with our ability to settle belief (or in other words correct error), and so cooperate, make agreements, improve our understanding and actions, etc. I said it was arbitrary to cast our community as containing inside and outside elements because the category itself functions to level all such distinctions into something 'general' ... and general ideas are the materia from which distinction is drawn. Not everyone (on this planet) is a member of our community, but no one is excluded, and the barrier to entry is a low one ... all you need do is cross that gossamer line between the outside (where gentoo is not part of ones thought, or activity), to the inside (in which that crossing might consist of the question "is gentoo for me?"). That action places someone within our community, they may go on to become a developer, or a pain in the butt ... but it matters little, because by encompassing them we, and they, create the context in which one part of this wider interaction plays out. It's for this reason we are not a community of exclusion, we're a community of inclusion (where some of that inclusion might include the penalising of "free riders and transgressors" ... sure), and why we shouldn't place any one group of people (ie, developers) above any other, they are no different to the first time poster (who may go on to provide their time/labour ... should the community include, nurture, and develop them). That, I think, is an important socio-political distinction to make ... because what we are, first and foremost, is a community (by no means a perfect one, but a community none the less) and that community needs to include, nurture, develop, its most valuable asset ... no, not code, code is cheap ... community!
| szatox wrote: | | An example, look at these forums: there is a group of core members. They haven't been appointed or named in forum rules. They simply show up, more or less regularly, and they contribute. These, I consider "insiders", and yes, you are on that list. Noobs are not, they come and go, and have to earn their reputation first. Neither was the chick that popped out of thin air and immediately started bitching about us being "not welcoming for her". Why should I take any crap from her? Insiders are the people you recognize and value enough to label them as such, those you gave some power to bend your will. |
Reputation is one thing, inclusion is another ... how do you know what that "noob" is going to become, you can't possibly know, but you do know that these regulars come from somewhere, and that wherever that might be something attracted, and propelled them, to do what they do ... perhaps it was the response they got from their first post, or perhaps they read the charter, and though "that's something I want to be part of", as for those who end up being dead weight, well, so what, a robust community can afford waste, that's part of what robust systems are all about (recycling crap into compost).
| szatox wrote: | | My point is: "are the proctors even necessary", "why would I* want to involve them", and "how are they to gain enough respect to make me take their advice should someone else involve them to deal with me"? |
Necessary or not, they exist, and under a rule that means that only developers can occupy the role. That's was my point ... and that's how I came into the discussion.
| szatox wrote: | | If you answer "yes" to the first question, then an already recognized developer - being an insider from other developers' point of view - and also being familiar with the local culture - will find dealing with second and third questions much easier than anyone else. |
Not sure I really understand the question here, but let me answer with a question of my own, are moderators even necessary? If you answer yes, then what makes the role of proctor that different ... moderators also have the ability to "advise", and censure, users. It really comes down to who's doing what to whom, and for what reason. If the community is subject to censure, then the community should be able to occupy those roles ... no taxonomy without representonomy!!
| szatox wrote: | | Disciplinary actions - which basically translates to "punishments" - don't count towards gaining respect. This is institutionalized government dictating rules by force. |
They are dictating the rules, but the only issue I have with this, or with the use of force in general, is that its done without the inclusion of the community it claims to represent. There is every reason to have rules that outline censure, but these can not be imposed without taxonomy (the understanding of what these rules are for, how, if, and under what circumstances, they should be applied, etc, etc) and representonomy (that's a made up word BTW ;) ... the agreement of those subjecting themselves to those rules ... with the proviso that autonomy isn't unnecessarily subjected)
| szatox wrote: | | I actually like that quote. It basically screams "the institution of government is inherently bad", and here's why: |
| khayyam wrote: | | This is what I would call a "category error", if there is something (as you've posited) called "self-organisation", then there is something called "self-governance", you don't now get to define governance as something external, and exhibiting these "inherently bad" traits. |
| szatox wrote: | | Well, the word "institution" is the key. The institution is the entity that requires a written codex and ways to enforce the written rules. |
That seems to be a further category error, when you do anything you're "instituting" some pattern of behaviour, or rule of action, or habit.
| szatox wrote: | | Self-organizing systems don't need either. If "the trust is high, personal interests align with group interests and future interactions are expected", you can afford to handle conflicts case by case, without that written codex, the arbiter and the law enforcement. Oh, and without taxes. |
OK, and I agree in principle, but we've yet to establish how such "case by case" basis is anything other than law, or how "self-organisation" operates to exclude written anything, are you honestly saying that agreements (implicit, or explicit) are immanently expressed, and manifest themselves in complete isolation to other (prior, or accumulative) agreements, expressions, etc, etc ... and what about justice (the arc over which such activity is drawn)? To my mind (and after much mulling over the question) the concept of due process (however enacted) is very much tied to an accumulation of practice ... and that requires memory, and the ability to preserve that memory (ie, via codex). I think you're taking law to mean something brought down from the mountain etched in stone, when in reality law constantly has to account for itself, its history, and the socio-political landscape that engenders it. It's by this process law, and our idea of justice, refines itself (at least conceptually, if not in practice), it's hard for us (at least someone of any reasonable persuasion) to believe that slavery is voluntary ... but the roman's believed exactly that (and if philosophers are anything to be believed, the foundations of western legal systems are in essence roman).
| khayyam wrote: | | I can not speak for steveL, but the way I read the crux of his argument is that developer status doesn't make one necessarily good at instituting rules, adjudicating disputes, etc, |
| szatox wrote: | | No, it doesn't make them good at instituting rules. But begin good at something is relative too. Since the focus was on the toxic developers, I say they should be allowed to handle their issues the way they see fit. They create their own environment that suits their needs. The fact that some people consider this environment toxic does not mean it is toxic for its denizens. |
Would you make the same argument for slave states? How far does your sense of justice, or injustice for that matter, extend? Anyhow, again, I can't really speak for steveL's statements, and as none of that is from me, I shouldn't need to.
| khayyam wrote: | | I'm quite familiar with the concept of spontaneous order, the question here is why you think this is any different from the type of relational exchange involved in the establishment of, and cooperation in, governance/law? |
| szatox wrote: | | It's a matter of agency and causation. Following a barrel because you are pushing it somewhere based on your motivation is one thing. Following a barrel because it's dragging you is quite another. Alternatively you can think of it in terms of a carrot and a stick. You join a group because it benefits you. Doesn't matter what motivation _exactly_ you have, you're essentially buying a carrot. Once you involve some sort of a government, you have to watch out for sticks, and then you'd rather be elsewhere. |
You're avoiding the question ... we are agreed that within practically all groups some behaviour will cause others within that group to attempt to mitigate that behaviour, right? So when this is happening via the process of "self-organisation" what specifically makes these mitigation's different from those systems which have instituted regulations to these behaviours? When self-organising systems are adjudicating, are they coming to substantially different conclusions from one day to the next, and is there no memory involved ... a clean slate every day? Or, in the case of these "law" based systems you've posited, if 1+1 is placed as the crime, is the outcome always 2, what about mitigating circumstance, or what about societal changes in relation to how these crimes are understood, and punished? What about politics and the way in which politicians pump up their support by claims to be "tough on crime", or what about TV's obsession with crime? What effect do these, essentially non-juridical systems, have on "written law" as its enacted? Are these peripheral actors "self-organising", or what are they exactly, legal doctrines?
| khayyam wrote: | | Nope, I need not do anything, I'm a free agent, and I do not need join a group of which I'm already a member. I'm in total compliance with the "existing rules" ... those of the charter ... and that charter provides me with the right to do as I do ... without a barrier to entry. |
| szatox wrote: | | You are a free agent, just like any member of said group is. Do they recognize you as a member? Do they recognize the charter you base your claims on as it's foundation? I recognize you as a forum member, based solely on our history here (in particular but not limited to: yours and mine). I consider myself a member, based on my interactions with other people here. Interactions imply receiving actual feedback. |
You missed the qualifier: I'm a free agent within a community of which I'm a member ... and so don't need to "join" up as you'd suggested. As for the rest, recognition is not what I'm after. As I've said in the past, all I'm doing (mostly) in these discussions is upholding the principles of the charter ... if no one recognises why these principles are important, then the problem is far worse than I could possibly correct. That is possibly the case, but for me the issue is the truth of the matter, and so I couldn't care less if the heavens fall ... fiat justitia ruat caelum.
| szatox wrote: | | Why do you find it so important to be equal? We are not interchangeable. We are all important in one way or another, but we are not equal. Community is not equal to developers. One developer is not equal to another developer. One community member is not equal to the other. So what? We're doing different parts, why shouldn't we have the authority over different areas? |
Am I wandering into a bad faith argument? What sort of concept do you think equality is? ... well, you've provided a number of possible answers to that question, the non-interchangeability of subject/individual, the distinction between one subject group and another, and the relevance of authority in that regard. None of those touch on equality as a socio-political, or juridical, concept, equality is simply the recognition that everyone has the same basic status (socially, politically, juridically) as anyone else, and so should be guaranteed that status. That is not a difficult concept to validate ... if subject to arbitrariness, exclusion, coercion, extortion, etc, etc ... you would not want this an accepted state of affairs (not if you valued your life, liberty, etc). So, accepting this, you are required to afford others the same consideration (so as not to fall into arbitrariness, exclusion, etc).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 193
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | Your saying they are "in charge of the project" doesn't change that fact, we have a charter and the charter does not grant developers the right to govern, it states that gentoo is "for the community, by the community" ... and that community extends beyond those titled "developer". |
As my instructors used to say, "That's the difference between theory and reality."
| khayyam wrote: | | Nonsense, any of those tasks could be seen as as necessary as the other. |
Some tasks can be done by nearly anyone. Those who do them are going to be valued less because they're more commonly available. Some tasks require more knowledge/effort/precision, and the people doing them are more valuable because they're harder to replace. You really can't get around that. We don't pay fast food workers as much as geneticists, despite our democratic principles, because it doesn't work.
| khayyam wrote: | | That argument is so loaded, and presumptuous, as to take more time than I'm willing to give it to unpack. |
Really? Pot... meet kettle. 
| khayyam wrote: | | ...it's not a hierarchy of high value providers, and other less valued contributors... |
Human relations are always dominated by hierarchies. We're apes. You (and I) are not equal to all other members of the community, and unless we're willing to take on the responsibilities of the most valued members, including becoming their technical equals, we shouldn't expect to be. We should also expect to have less say in the running of gentoo.
Now, I'm not saying these complaints are unreasonable, but I think they'd be more convincing if they stuck to something like, "The only way to encourage more participation is to give everyone more say in what gets done." However, at some point you'll be trying to force volunteer (developers) to do something they don't necessarily want to do. Good luck with herding those cats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | Your saying they are "in charge of the project" doesn't change that fact, we have a charter and the charter does not grant developers the right to govern, it states that gentoo is "for the community, by the community" ... and that community extends beyond those titled "developer". |
| duane wrote: | | As my instructors used to say, "That's the difference between theory and reality." |
duane ... I see, so when you're subjected to arbitrary law, or some other injustice, you'll console your self with such platitudes?
| khayyam wrote: | | Nonsense, any of those tasks could be seen as as necessary as the other. |
| duane wrote: | | Some tasks can be done by nearly anyone. Those who do them are going to be valued less because they're more commonly available. Some tasks require more knowledge/effort/precision, and the people doing them are more valuable because they're harder to replace. You really can't get around that. We don't pay fast food workers as much as geneticists, despite our democratic principles, because it doesn't work. |
You've truncated the explanation that followed, but ok, works for whom exactly? How did fast food workers come to be fast food workers and not geneticists? Was it perhaps because their parents were fast food workers and so didn't have the disposable income available to pay for the kinds of education required to become geneticists? What is the epistemology of this, and what other factors are involved that are not accounted for in your value distinction? Are you aware of the slew of empirical studies that show that if the resources are available, and those resources are directed at such problems, then there is an increase in generalised knowledge (and so knowledge workers), and that decreasing the disparity of pay decreases the effects of social stratification (such as crime, drug abuse, suicide, etc, etc, ad infinatum). Are you going to naturalise such effect as simply unavoidable ignoring the social conditions that produce them? ... meaning, we have a good idea why they happen, and the beliefs that underscores their coming to be ... so not natural at all. Next you'll be arguing that someone needs to serve up fast food, or act as manservant to Lord Bucks, as though these roles came into existence via natural selection, and so confirm your social darwinism has no "democratic principles"? Is this another case of "the difference between theory and reality"?
| khayyam wrote: | | That argument is so loaded, and presumptuous, as to take more time than I'm willing to give it to unpack. |
| duane wrote: | | Really? Pot... meet kettle. :) |
How droll, but no ... how about I similarly resort to platitudes ... a bird in the hand is worth a gift horse in the mouth ... there you go, argument done and dusted.
| khayyam wrote: | | ...it's not a hierarchy of high value providers, and other less valued contributors... |
| duane wrote: | | Human relations are always dominated by hierarchies. We're apes. You (and I) are not equal to all other members of the community, and unless we're willing to take on the responsibilities of the most valued members, including becoming their technical equals, we shouldn't expect to be. We should also expect to have less say in the running of gentoo. |
More social darwinist claptrap ... you see, I have a PhD in the subject under discussion, I'm also a published author with a book and various papers in peer reviewed journals. So, obviously, I know more than you, its my specialist subject, and so therefore you should defer to my better judgement ... QED.
| duane wrote: | | Now, I'm not saying these complaints are unreasonable, but I think they'd be more convincing if they stuck to something like, "The only way to encourage more participation is to give everyone more say in what gets done." However, at some point you'll be trying to force volunteer (developers) to do something they don't necessarily want to do. Good luck with herding those cats. |
I seem to remember similar historical precedents involving the petitioning of kings for the relief from taxation ... didn't end well, though at the time those kings felt themselves ordained by god, and so similarly unwilling to do anything they didn't want to do.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | To my mind, the elephant-in-the-room is that: developers are specifically selected for aptitude at what most consider an anti-social task.
As a group, they make a big deal about how they are only selected on technical merit (and ofc it shows.)
The Council is specifically mandated to deal only with technical matters, and then only by the developers themselves. |
| szatox wrote: | | And what's the problem? |
The problem is that you're cutting into a point halfway-through, and then giving yourself a pat on the back for agreeing with my analysis, as if that (somehow) makes the point invalid.
| szatox wrote: | | Oh, so you want more social folks to police them? Why? And how is it going to help anyone? |
Oh, so you want to pretend to be clever, by agreeing with what everyone already knows to be true, and then turning the discussion on its head to argue with a point I never even made.
Why? How does your wilful evasion of the point help anyone?
This is our playground, our school, our city, and our planet.
Get over yourself, and try and reread to see what was actually being said, and how you completely talked past it.
Unless ofc that was your intent.
Perhaps you think this will help you "get in" with the numpties who think they have a mandate to moderate the users, which they do not, at all.
Maybe I'll feel like explaining the background (yet again) to just precisely why, whatever the developers label their latest clique, none of them has any mandate at all over users.
They could have had a mandate to moderate former developers, and can still argue for that; but they do not have such mandate, and never have.
IOW: the change you keep thinking is bad, is already in place in the minds of these folk.
We are not the ones arguing against the bad changes: we are the ones arguing that these malicious and pernicious changes should not proceed.
Further, I am pointing out that they never changed -- as Comrel, and more broadly the entire developer-base apart from forums moderators and IRC-ops, have zero "authority" over users, and certainly no "mandate" for any "proctors" or whatever name they want to appropriate (and we all thought that was a crap name at the time; funny how it appeals to a certain age of male, isn't it?)
But then you know all this, right, you're just poking the bares, and apparently pretending aw-shucks "stupidity" is charming, and not insulting.
What a waste of intellect.
In case it's not clear: szatox has essentially argued our case for us; he just hasn't realised it, yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duane wrote: | | As my instructors used to say, "That's the difference between theory and reality." |
What difference are you referring to, specifically?
ATM it reads like you're talking about the difference between bulshytt and actuality, and telling yourself that the former is the reality, because that's what you've been indoctrinated to do.
Bear in mind that "cognitive dissonance" is originally a term of the Propaganda^W Advertising "industry" to describe what they do; that's who funded the research: to see just what they could get away with, and just how to make people do what they never wanted to, even "better" than they did before. (cf: Bertrand Russell on advertising, wrt piano-sales in the 1920s.) | khayyam wrote: | | duane ... I see, so when you're subjected to arbitrary law, or some other injustice, you'll console your self with such platitudes? |
Perhaps duane will console oneself with the "knowledge" that the "social hierarchy" is necessary.. as s/he gets led to jail to meet the nice big men, whom the entire Criminal Justice shitstem threaten less well-off USians with on a routine basis.
"It might be cruel, but it's not unusual," (so that's all right then.) "U!S!A!" (and everyone stops thinking.) | khayyam wrote: | | Nonsense, any of those tasks could be seen as as necessary as the other. |
| duane wrote: | | Some tasks can be done by nearly anyone. Those who do them are going to be valued less because they're more commonly available. Some tasks require more knowledge/effort/precision, and the people doing them are more valuable because they're harder to replace. You really can't get around that. |
Mensch, you sound young to me.
You clearly haven't worked closely alongside many "executives".
IME, the higher up the hierarchy, the more incompetent the office-holder, and the more likely it is that they can be eliminated without loss of organisational competence, since they are not the ones who do the actual work; merely the overseers who keep the slaves in line, with everyone damn well aware that the situation is FUBAR'ed.
Human "organisation" (under Capitalism) is the polar opposite of Computing, where the higher the level, the quicker the bugfix, in general.
This is all according to plan: it keeps the oiks arguing amongst themselves about the specific crap they are going through, along with all the poisonous "media" owned by the same pederasts who have been buggering the oiks for millenia and relabelling "slavery" as "serfdom"^W "indentured labour"^W "mortgages" (on what is already all Ours) and now "student loans."
Rather than questioning just why we have so much "National Debt", and exactly where money actually comes from -- how it comes into being as "money" (by writing some numbers in a ledger, or nowadays clicking a button) -- nor ever knowing that the People pay interest on Our own currency, interest that can never be repaid, by definition and design: that is the point of the Mechanism.
But hey, that's the "reality" right? We couldn't possibly change reality simply by doing things differently.. even if it's just "social reality" (amongst one of billions of species that have lived on this planet, one of billions amongst billions of galaxies)
Oh wait. Yes, We Can. | Quote: | | We don't pay fast food workers as much as geneticists, despite our democratic principles, because it doesn't work. |
| khayyam wrote: | | You've truncated the explanation that followed, but ok, works for whom exactly? How did fast food workers come to be fast food workers and not geneticists? Was it perhaps because their parents were fast food workers and so didn't have the disposable income available to pay for the kinds of education required to become geneticists? What is the epistemology of this, and what other factors are involved that are not accounted for in your value distinction? Are you aware of the slew of empirical studies that show that if the resources are available, and those resources are directed at such problems, then there is an increase in generalised knowledge (and so knowledge workers), and that decreasing the disparity of pay decreases the effects of social stratification (such as crime, drug abuse, suicide, etc, etc, ad infinitum). Are you going to naturalise such effect as simply unavoidable ignoring the social conditions that produce them? ... meaning, we have a good idea why they happen, and the beliefs that underscores their coming to be ... so not natural at all. Next you'll be arguing that someone needs to serve up fast food, or act as manservant to Lord Bucks, as though these roles came into existence via natural selection, and so confirm your social darwinism has no "democratic principles"? Is this another case of "the difference between theory and reality"? |
Lul; I don't expect any rational discursive response to that from duane, as I am sure you do not. ;-)
Well put though; good to know someone actually knows the research in this area. | khayyam wrote: | | That argument is so loaded, and presumptuous, as to take more time than I'm willing to give it to unpack. |
| duane wrote: | | Really? Pot... meet kettle. :) |
| khayyam wrote: | | How droll, but no ... how about I similarly resort to platitudes ... a bird in the hand is worth a gift horse in the mouth ... there you go, argument done and dusted. |
LMAO.
Unfortunately, that is the level of the "debate" we are supposed to engage with, whilst kowtowing to the self-evidently incompetent fools spouting it (a quick "thank you masser" always helps. :roll:) | khayyam wrote: | | ...it's not a hierarchy of high value providers, and other less valued contributors... |
| duane wrote: | | Human relations are always dominated by hierarchies. We're apes. |
Tsk tsk. You've been listening to the "wolves" (the ones who wear "sheep's clothing")..
There's me thinking we were Human Beings. Ah well. | duane wrote: | | You (and I) are not equal to all other members of the community |
Whatever gave you that impression? Oh wait, it's the conditioning and prejudice you brought with you as baggage when you checked into Hotel Gentoo.
I'm only a "lowly bellhop" and all, but even I know that such smelly baggage cannot be allowed, so regardless of "the tip", I'll have to refuse to take that baggage upstairs. | duane wrote: | | and unless we're willing to take on the responsibilities of the most valued members |
WHAT "responsibilities"?
You've clearly never sat alongside as inept bash-scripters pontificate about how they have no responsibility, can do whatever they like, "the tree is our playground" (and not as any user knows, their machine), nor read any of the email discussions spelling out exactly the same thing, along with references to "documentation" which shows that they have no responsibility whatsoever.
That is the point of FLOSS: no one does anything they don't want to do.
The flipside is: we don't owe you anything for your work, which you did because you wanted to, of your own volition, independently of anyone else asking or paying you. You did not do it for me, nor for us: you did it for yourself. And good for you.
Just don't think that means we now owe you jack-sh1t. We don't. We all SHARE nicely. (or go back to Winbloze, Crapple and RedHatGooglePlex.) | duane wrote: | | including becoming their technical equals, we shouldn't expect to be. |
LMAO at whom you believe to be your technical "superiors".
Don't expect the rest of us, especially those of us who've been doing this since before the 1990s, to do anything other than laugh, even if we don't usually express it. It's natural for youngsters to be naive, so why bother.
| duane wrote: | | We should also expect to have less say in the running of gentoo. |
| khayyam wrote: | | More social darwinist claptrap ... you see, I have a PhD in the subject under discussion, I'm also a published author with a book and various papers in peer reviewed journals. So, obviously, I know more than you, its my specialist subject, and so therefore you should defer to my better judgement ... QED. |
Lul, zher logic is inescapable, indeed. ;-)
We might have less say individually, but collectively we are the only true decision-making body in Gentoo, when it comes to actuality in the real-world that duane likes to talk about so much. (Y'know the one where the Police routinely beat up on "scrotes" and murder the vulnerable, before shipping off the mentally-ill poor to be gang-raped.) | duane wrote: | | Now, I'm not saying these complaints are unreasonable, |
Yes, you are, and have been all through your incoherent diatribe, all the dissembling aside.
| duane wrote: | | but I think they'd be more convincing if they stuck to something like, "The only way to encourage more participation is to give everyone more say in what gets done." |
Ah, so from rhetoric to truism; a familiar path for the progandist.
Note I am not accusing you of anything other than repeating (or "acting out") the same nonsense you've heard from others.
You act it out because you know it to be wrong, and want some synchrony from others, to indicate "is this ok? or is this the nonsense I think it is?"
As you get older, you realise you don't need to act it out: asking the question gives the answer.
I realise you don't agree with me about this, so there's no need to pull it apart (though no doubt you can type what you want..); try coming back to it in a few years, and see if it makes any more sense then. | duane wrote: | | However, at some point you'll be trying to force volunteer (developers) to do something they don't necessarily want to do. Good luck with herding those cats. |
Ah so back to maxims that don't actually shed any light on anything whatsoever, but we've heard them before and it is a good metaphor, even if irrelevant, so let's stick it in, for that sheen of knowing-jargon.
However much you polish it, shit still ain't shinola.
| khayyam wrote: | | I seem to remember similar historical precedents involving the petitioning of kings for the relief from taxation ... didn't end well, though at the time those kings felt themselves ordained by god, and so similarly unwilling to do anything they didn't want to do. |
It's the same thing: ordination by cargo-cult, and because we all keep yakking the same thing, it "must be true" as "everybody knows" the same conditioning as a way of life, internalised to the max.
Only we're at the level of the parish bully who works for the squire, who works for the local "lord"..
Still, "it's good to be a slave" -- take as much shit as we can give you, and maybe you'll get a reward in the "next life".
Moishe, have you heard this crap? ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
