I am curious about what we are protecting them from, maybe I missed a verbal assault thread?
But I hope we do not think it is considered protecting minorities by not being able to push back on a person who happens to be a minority when it comes to matters of policy that affect the distro, code, and community that we may not agree with.
I don’t want anyone being personally attacked for who they are as a person, but matters of opinion should be able to be debated and pushed back on regardless of who a person is, minority or not.
@winter that language “Protecting Minorities” almost assumes they are under attack here, which again maybe I missed a thread, but I don’t feel that is true in this community.
We might say “Encourage and Welcome Minority Participation” I feel like that is the intent of every well-meaning community.
But I hope we do not think it is considered protecting minorities by not being able to push back on a person who happens to be a minority when it comes to matters of policy that affect the distro, code, and community that we may not agree with.
Protecting minorities generally means They cannot be attacked because of are minority, such as being harassed, abused in a specific way, or perceived simply because of their are minority. Certainly not having more power than anyone else in any unrelated way.
@dedguy21, both of your replies are marked as This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
@nixnewb’s post, which is about the same topic as @dedguy21’s replies, is also hidden.
For some reason, it’s not acceptable to question about this particular matter according to the community, even though there is no offense in both of @dedguy21 and @nixnewb replies.
Though this discussion is off-topic here, I believe part of the community is still sensible to the numerous times “sealioning” happened over the past few days. What you see is part of the forum’s features where the community can self-moderate.
Perhaps a good example of some of the concern I was talking about in a previous reply. The next two weeks are a good time for the foundation to consider how we can help this process be successful.
That’s not what I said is off-topic. That was a reply to @tenix’s message, though I forgot to thread it correctly. What is off-topic is discussing the meta-topic of how flags act on Discourse.
Be mindful about the combative tone of your replies. It’s bordering abusive. You might want to talk to the person you are defending before using hard words against other people. I wouldn’t think @edolstra would have worked for hours and applied his signature on something that “slander[ed]” him.
To be clear, I gave no judgement (and have not flagged anything in this thread). I just pointed out that flags can have meanings other than objectionability.
That said, I do feel like the announcement gave us pretty clear instructions about the kind of discussion it wants:
I have a sufficiently rich imagination to see how someone could read that request and feel like most of this discussion contradicts that request.
Sealioning is a objective term describing a behaviour.
Note that I don’t know why things are getting flagged. I was only offering a suggestion as to why maybe the community flagged the posts.
Though now it seems like you’ve started asking persistent questions from me, and that those questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
