[ParetoOptimal]

Quotes from the article linked:

> the community is heavily leaning into what might be termed the myth of marginalization

> this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism

How can one take this document seriously after reading these sentences?

[busterarm]

It's a bit skewed as far as the author's perspective, but so is everything. It's like reading the news. You have to filter past the bias and look at the facts.

The picture that it paints about the actions of the people involved is accurate.

[ParetoOptimal]

> The picture that it paints about the actions of the people involved is accurate.

No.

It just criticizes one group for pushing for a specific ideology and then starts pushing for it's own subjective ideology while championing itself as the "rational" and "neutral" position.

[soraminazuki]

Yes, the right wing tone makes it cringy, but it does have a point. A vocal portion of the community is using far right scare to get off with abusive behavior. It's just another variation of the "think of the children" rhetoric. It's very effective at deflecting criticism because it associates critics with the most unsympathetic of people. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

[Pannoniae]

The document uses support for its claims. Yup, the language is obviously quite emotional and biased, but the facts are correct nonetheless. Do you have any particular/specific issues with the issues raised in this RFC?^^

[ParetoOptimal]

How is this claim supported:

> Simultaneously, this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism combined with an abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance (originally formulated by Karl Popper with a very different intent) to portray their opponents as bad-faith actors, or even as outright evil. They themselves, of course, do everything they can to appear justified in exercising power with absolutely no accountability, and with a clear sense of their own privileged entitlement to do so