From 9ad93e9139a7cfae4377a413d93587300b4ff516 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:29:11 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] New page. --- psf/index.md | 1 + psf/silly.md | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+) create mode 100644 psf/silly.md diff --git a/psf/index.md b/psf/index.md index 9fa8b23..0298bcf 100644 --- a/psf/index.md +++ b/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 diff --git a/psf/silly.md b/psf/silly.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5e84612 --- /dev/null +++ b/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.