[kazinator]

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based.

If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language.

At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

[iron0013]

Well okay, if you insist: Eric S. Raymond is a toxic loonytoon. And there’s plenty of evidence to support that assertion.

[kazinator]

By the "takes one to know one" principle, we should pay attention to Raymond when the calls out another toxic loonytoon.

[iron0013]

Except it obviously doesn’t take one to know one. Are we having an actual conversation or just lobbing empty rhetoric

[a1369209993]

I disagree vehemently with this moronic opinion, but am strongly opposed to any attempts to ban you for holding or expressing it.

[gonehome]

I don't agree - I think you come across a lot more persuasive when you attack the ideas rather than the person and you do it with less colorful language.

Otherwise I think you only 'persuade' people that already agree with you and others that might have otherwise changed their minds are alienated.

That said, I generally like the idea of not banning people and I have a high tolerance for this kind of communication not really bothering me that much - but I still think it's generally bad form and probably does scare away others.

[kazinator]

> ideas rather than the person

The CoC people will not like that any better.

Suppose you write a mailing list post which absolutely names no names, but only presents expressions of specific ideas, and then calls those ideas "toxic" and "loony", with justifications and all. That will still be equally offensive. It will be still be interpreted as an attack on the identifiable person or group behind those ideas, even though they have not been named.

[gonehome]

> and you do it with less colorful language

Focusing on ideas is better, but breaking down why you think something is wrong without being an ass is really the goal.

[antepodius]

Is it?

I've loosely followed this stuff for a few years, and I just don't see it. I just see people trying to punish the people they hate.

[duskwuff]

Calling a person a "toxic loonytoon" for the offense of trying to establish standards of acceptable behavior is ridiculous by any sort of "objective standard". If anything, it demonstrates the importance of having those standards, by serving as an example of the sort of behavior that such a standard should condemn.

[kazinator]

What, like no toxic loonytoon in human history has ever tried to impose standards of acceptable behavior?