Jon Pretty

I wasn't talking about giving anyone the benefit of the doubt (I know that's lost already) and the gray areas are very much on both sides. I'm saying the opposite: be precise in your criticism so you are not misinterpreted by the people you need to convince.

This is not fair. Alex is has been very precise in his criticism in the past. It's disheartening to see every discussion with you boiling down to you telling the other person to be better. This is particularly bad when you read your own approach to criticize him.

I agree that Alex is usually very precise, but I'm getting exasperated trying to find ways to deescalate this ongoing disagreement, when literally none of the parties involved are enjoying it, whilst at the same time increasingly unable to tolerate each other.

I get that, I really do. It's a commendable effort but you need to come to term with the possibility of failure. You can't let it affect you and make you answer impulsively. The way I see it, you are just reinforcing other people ideas in this way.

I would certainly encourage everyone to avoid answering impulsively. After being dragged into a conversation I didn't want to be in just over a week ago, I can recommend against impulsive answers.

But what would failure look like? A segregated community where people don't, can't or won't agree, where there's no pushback against mutual antagonism, and one where nobody actually cares about it any more because they've given up?

I still care about it because it's not the welcoming community I want to be a part of. There were huge efforts made to make functional programming more welcoming to newcomers, particularly minorities, and that's a value I want to uphold and encourage.

Right now, there seems to be a general lack of awareness about how offputting a community dominated by angry, middle-aged, white men looks. Sure, I'm all of those things too. But I'd like people to say least have some hope that it doesn't have to be this way.