[Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual
>> impairment (...)
>
>
> Nevertheless, I said low vision.
>

Potatoes, potahtoes.  Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good
analogy.  Here's what you said:

Anyways, that's a strange way to frame "mapping something I don't care
about". How is it obsessive? I've already listed several important use
cases, so I will be blunt: do you think people with low vision are
irrelevant and don't matter? Is this an ableist community? Do pedestrians
getting struck by cars not matter? Is it okay that they die?

So, according to your correction, I don't just hate the legally blind, I
hate people with "low vision," a
far lower bar than the one I assumed you intended.  My hatred for humanity
has been greatly
extended, it seems.

> You implied it.
>
> I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.
>

And  I apologize for saying your behaviour seemed obsessive.  However, back
then I did not
know why you were so eager to push us down a particular path when so many
felt (and still feel)
it unnecessary.  That doesn't mean I agree with your reasons for disrupting
a couple of
million tags, now I know what is driving this push, because I don't.  But
at least I know it's not
obsession driving it.

> It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the
> context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your
> "rhetorical question."  Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back
> to you again, if necessary.
>
> Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please.
>

Ooops.  I did it here.  Because I'm responding here.  And I don't know
which other thread you mean,
since so many threads have been spawned about this.

>
> > I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad
> at it.  I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at
> getting your points across.  I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid
> to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your
> proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your
> proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.
>
> I don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good
> example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a
> community.
>

It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you.  It wasn't here
before.  It seems that anything
that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic.  Anyone who points out that
we didn't have any
noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic.  In short, you appear to
be using "toxicity" to silence
anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually
is toxic.  I was willing
to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a
deliberate strategy
to silence criticism.  That position is becoming less tenable for me as the
thread continues.

3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending"
> aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty
> clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or
> two, but I don't believe I used that language.
>

I can't find it now.  Which could mean memory problems on my part.  Or
worse.  In which case,
my apologies.

4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be
> an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but
> I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?
>

You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out
where your posts appear to
be personal attacks.  I don't think it's doing much for the list in general
and I suspect many are
bored with it.  But at least one person here is having difficulty
communicating in a way that doesn't
arouse ire in at least one other person.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190525/a2dd5ef6/attachment.html>