This *formalizes* the role of a CoC as a power-grab. Contra CoC, meritocratic (and fluid) power-structures determine who has the power to exclude. *Democracy* gives the power to a (yet another unacknowledged) power structure of socially powerful tyrants and bullies. https://twitter.com/hikikomorphism/status/1054458396164964352 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @averykimball
not sure where you're getting democracy from - this is more of a bill-of-rights situation, that is, something meant to _constrain_ any democratic process
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism
"As a solution, Freeman suggests formalizing the existing hierarchies in the group and subjecting them to democratic control." Who has the power to dictate the terms *and the interpretation* of the CoC?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
I linked it for the criticism of structurelessness as a solution, not the suggested solutions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism
In the context of that criticism of structurelessness (which presumes that structurelessness is *more* unfairly tyrannical than structurefulness), the question still stands: Who has the power to dictate and interpret the CoC? If it's not *democratic* nor *meritocratic*...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
I'm not sure what your objection is - just because someone can apply motivated reasoning to the interpretation of some ruleset doesn't necessarily mean they're _less constrained_ than in the case where there's no ruleset at all and they're just dispensing judgement on a whim
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism
This highlights how a CoC (or any structure) *still* serves unacknowledged power-structures- the structures that serve the interpreters. "The Tyranny Of The Unstructured" is a smoke-screen for socially powerful tyrants that install authoritarian structures *they control*.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nothing's perfect, so? We've established that no organization structure is completely immune to malicious powerful members, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that, but that doesn't mean not even trying to constrain malicious powerful members is the way to go
-
-
Replying to @hikikomorphism
This is reasonable. Perhaps pinning down what can reasonably be considered "malicious" is the rational thing for us (in the broad, community sense) to do. My criteria is acutely circumscribed- norms closer to /b/'s and further from corporate HR department's aligns with my vals.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.