Yes, that is pretty appalling. Thanks for inventing that position for me.
The context was that we already have extensive policies in place to try to stop harassment and abuse.
This is my premise:
(Note that any sort of harassment or abuse is covered by code of conduct violations.)
And I suggested an alternative and provided a not-very-strong counterargument against the alternative.
I could have made an even less palatable suggestion:
Maybe you should give up and move on to something safer. At the end of the day, you have to take care of yourself.
Isn’t that terrible? Suggesting that someone has to just flat-out leave instead of feel safe?
Except guess who said that?
So all I was doing was suggesting a less dire action that would permit you to stay in touch with the community if it ends up being the case that despite the continual improvement with codes of conduct for Scala Center activities, you also continue to feel less and less safe.
A very understandable response is, “but I want not just safety, but also freedom”. Fair point, if that’s your point. Quite reasonable as a reply.
This, erm, was not terribly reasonable or charitable.
But some allowances need to be made when an issue is deeply personal. And anyway, I nonetheless continue to want you to be safe, and to be safe not just after taking extreme measures, but to be safe in every environment where it is reasonable for a person to be safe. (I do not recommend Tigray right now.)
And this should be true for you as well as for basically everyone else.
I think you misunderstand me here. I am saying that I think you will be less safe with increased tribalism. (It could well be that you will feel safer, and maybe that’s what you’re most after?) Unless you’re going to be anonymous and stay online, there are no hard boundaries between communities. It’s not a country (I already acknowledged this as an exception) and so all those people in that other community are still there, except more hateful and less understanding of problems in the “savory” community.
That is, I do not believe that fragmenting a community fosters safety. It only works, I think, if the ejected fraction is so tiny or so further fragmented that it doesn’t have any coherence on its own.*
Perhaps you believe otherwise. If so, maybe you have good arguments to this effect, or good evidence. I haven’t found any compelling research in this area, but my anecdotal experience is that divisions breed more divisiveness than you gain in in-group harmony unless the out-group does not have critical mass to self-organize, or you can completely avoid the out-group, neither of which seem likely to me to be true here unless we take pains to be more inclusive than you seem to be suggesting.
*Addendum added in edit: I don’t think it works specifically in the case of actual danger borne of hatred. If the other community is merely annoying (or, more dangerously, seductively exploitative), the separation can exactly do the trick–they do their annoying/exploitative things over there, and we do our pleasant things over here, and it’s all good. But when feelings run strongly enough for hate-driven harm to be a legitimate concern, I think the scenario flips, and hatred grows, and everything is worse.