Aggressive language on python-list

Tue Oct 16 23:47:14 EDT 2012

As a casual observer of this list (and many others)

I can only say...

What the f**k!  I thought that subscribing to
a list would promote education, enlightenment,
and a shared communal effort to make things better
for things (python) related.

It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.

I will say that my perusal of this list has been
informative.  I also receive more email from this
list than any other I subscribe to.

Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
anything to do with python, it's promotion,
or resolving anything related to making it
one of the most exciting languages I have
ever seen since C?

Jeesh!
K

On 10/16/12 9:01 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>>>> dicks:
>>>
>>> No, I wrote about trolls.  "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
>>> totally subjective word
>>
>> As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
>>
>>
>>> that I would not use in a rational discussion.
>>
>> I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word
>> that most accurately describes their behaviour?
>>
>> I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be
>> bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be
>> trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative
>> statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be
>> making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to
>> genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe
>> often intoxicated way.
>>
>> So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a
>> meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
>>
>> Certainly not.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>>>>>> the same.
>> [...]
>>>>> How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>>>>> acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>>>>> nobody has anything to add"?
>>>
>>> Because you sent them private email telling them that?
>>
>> My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
>>
>> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
>> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
>>
>> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
>>    preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
>>    (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
>>    for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
>>
>> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
>>    that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
>>    or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
>>
>>
>> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
>> benefit:
>>
>> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
>>    have to be seen, preferably publicly.
>>
>> When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three,
>> just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>>>> If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>>>>> great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>>>>> you know to change your behaviour?
>>>
>>> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
>>> follow my advice.  Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
>>> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
>>> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
>>> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
>>> view (your's) is acceptable.
>>
>> As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I
>> follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
>>
>> We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad
>> behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>>
>>
>>> You would be bordering on delusional by
>>> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
>>
>> It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case,
>> it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
>> behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the
>> behaviour is unacceptable.
>>
>> The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from
>> following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than
>> trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but
>> trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have
>> the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful
>> posts.
>>
>>
>>> But even if you had a more rational response
>>
>> *raises eyebrow*
>>
>>> and saved that reaction for
>>> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
>>> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
>>> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
>>> trolls hope to elicit?  Did it help in the case I mentioned?
>>
>> As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is
>> merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has
>> changed his behaviour, at least for now.
>>
>> Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and
>> defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to
>> admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
>>
>> But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but
>> ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not
>> necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond
>> directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is
>> guarded and on sufferance.
>>
>> And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so
>> far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
>>
>>
>>>>> How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>>>
>>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
>>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>>> post.
>>
>> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
>> demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit
>> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
>> acceptable behaviour?
>>
>> The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all
>> white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like
>> me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian,
>> atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of
>> cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run
>> like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of
>> his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and
>> those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where
>> smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply
>> common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't;
>> cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an
>> act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a
>> thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military
>> service.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
>> repugnant without talking about it?
>>
>> I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them
>> -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who
>> consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms
>> others might prefer.
>>
>> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
>> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by
>> Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his
>> possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to
>> agree with me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there
>> is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the
>> time, against all people.
>>
>> [2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich
>> and the filthy poor.
>>
>> [3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to
>> indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven
>> --
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
> Bravo!...Encore, Encore!!!
>
>

-- 
This message is NOT encrypted
--------------------------------
Mr. Kristen J. Webb
Chief Technology Officer
Teradactyl LLC.
2301 Yale Blvd. SE.
Suite C7
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: 1-505-338-6000
Email: kwebb at teradactyl.com
Web: http://www.teradactyl.com

	Home of the

  True incremental Backup System
--------------------------------
NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS: Any information contained in or attached to this message 
is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the 
intended recipient of this transmittal, you are hereby notified that you 
received this transmittal in error, and we request that you please delete and 
destroy all copies and attachments in your possession, notify the sender that 
you have received this communication in error, and note that any review or 
dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, this communication 
is expressly prohibited.

Regular internet e-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or 
accurate, and it should not be relied upon as such. If you prefer to communicate 
with Teradactyl LLC. using secure (i.e., encrypted and/or digitally signed) 
e-mail transmission, please notify the sender. Otherwise, you will be deemed to 
have consented to communicate with Teradactyl via regular internet e-mail 
transmission. Please note that Teradactyl reserves the right to intercept, 
monitor, and retain all e-mail messages (including secure e-mail messages) sent 
to or from its systems as permitted by applicable law.