request for comment re "contributor-covenant.org"

[Ted Smith]

Somewhat confusing threading here Cari.

I see a few possibilities as to what I could do here:

      * Be vigilant in calling out patriarchal, racist, and generally
        neoliberal or fascist ideas promoted by some of the more recent
        arrivals.
              * This would provided a benchmark on the list indicating
                that these ideas are not generally accepted.
              * This would also require me to argue with assholes on the
                Internet. As the say goes, pigs, mud, etc..
      * Filter these people out and try to maintain productive on-topic
        discussion.
              * This would be of limited usefulness since people who I
                generally find to be quality contributors continue to
                respond to the Stormfront-esque crowd.
      * Filter the whole list, comb through it periodically to see if
        there is any useful signal, and call out the most egregious
        offenses I can find.
              * This is what I've chosen to do since it is optimal from
                my time perspective.

I think this list is a lost cause at this point. Ever since around the
time it became more discoverable after the switch from al-qaeda.net to
cpunks.org, and some possibly overzealous cross-posting, the discourse
has shifted from actual cypherpunkery to white men complaining about
having their privilege eroded on other mailing lists. There are a number
of quality contributors that no longer post here, reducing the signal
and allowing more noise. I can't bring them back. But I can at least
remind anyone more moderate listening that the cypherpunks list wasn't
always a far-right discussion group, which I think is the reverence due
to the community that used to exist.

I'd appreciate any suggestions, onlist or offline, from anyone who
thinks similarly of the ideological drift of this list from generally
anti-authoritarian to crypto-white nationalism.

On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:37 +0100, Cari Machet wrote:
> Dear ted you are part of the community and you can work to make it
> better or just complain about yesteryear
> 
> On Feb 3, 2016 3:19 AM, "Cari Machet" <carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:
>         Code of conduct no but community agreements yes ... plus
>         social norms and social engineering is alive and well even
>         here on cypherpunks ... should we make a list?
>         
>         What is comming up here is restorative justice by subjects
>         that have no clue that there is such a concept 
>         
>         On Jan 27, 2016 5:50 PM, "Rayzer" <Rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:
>                 Zenaan Harkness replies to: 1/27/16, Peter Tonoli
>                 wrote::
>                 >> On the other hand, I can't see Cypherpunks agreeing
>                 to a 'code of
>                 >> > conduct', or adhering to it.
>                 > Come on ... surely you jest?!?
>                 
>                 When Abbie Hoffman was asked about the nature of the
>                 Chicago 7, 6, 8, 10
>                 'conspiracy' he replied:
>                 
>                 > "Conspiracy? We can't even agree on lunch."
>                 
>                 --
>                 RR
>                 
>                 "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to
>                 pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize
>                 them, neutralize them, neutralize them'
>                 
>                 

-- 
Sent from Ubuntu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160208/545e01dd/attachment-0002.sig>