New page.

psf/index.md

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ title: PSF topics
 
 2024 bans
 ----------
+- [**Tim's**](silly.html) non-rebuttal of the list of his "crimes" in his 2024 ban
 - [**Chris McDonough's**](https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/ban-transparency-from-tim-peters) account of Tim's account of 2024 pre-ban PSF interactions
 - [**Tim's**](ban.html) account of PSF interactions before his 2024 ban
 - [**Chris McDonough's**](https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim) account of Tim's 2024 ban announement

psf/silly.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+About the list of charges in [the ban announcement](https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250), I don't find them credible enough to bother taking time to refute. What's the point?
+
+This page will not have a temperate tone. I believe posting that list was all of unjust, immoral, and unethical. I will not pretend otherwise. It's bullying, and it's wrong.
+
+> what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without consideration
+
+Any system of "justice" that won't even bother to present evidence is not a system of justice at all. Stalin-era show trials were more transparent and fair-minded.
+
+If you must, (Chris MoDonough's)(https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim) blog does about as good as can be done at guessing what they might be getting at.
+
+I'll just look at one here, because - to my eyes - it comes close to libel under US civil law, or defamation under some EU countries' criminal law. But I have no intent of dragging lawyers into this.
+
+Thr alleged offense:
+
+> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
+
+That's garbage. It doesn't even pass a "sane person" test, misreading the plain meaning of plain English.
+
+I have never, in my life, addressed the concept of "reverse sexism". I did happen to use the phrase once, but only by way of that the phrase was copied verbatim as part of quoting a post I was replying to. I said nothing about it. In fact I reject the _doctrine_ of "reverse sexism", but never said a word of my own about the doctrine.
+
+I did briefly address the _doctrine_ of "reverse racism", [here](https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/10). Read it for yourself. I explicitly largely _rejected_ the doctrine. That cannot be sanely read as "defending" it.
+
+It's true that I also objected to the PSF dogmatically insisting that's the only possible "good faith" view. The CoC in fact requires respecting other views, and I do. I'm not the hypocrite here.
+
+Don't even start to give me a comic-book level misreading of Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance". It's irrelevant here - study the adult version for yourself. Even Google's "generative AI" has a more nuanced view:
+
+> Popper believed that a society should fight intolerance with reasonable arguments, but that it also has the right to be intolerant if the intolerant are not ready to debate. 
+
+Where intolerance cannot be tolerated is in people _with power_. Every accusation hides a confession.