For book explorations on this theme see :
and
Though the latter doesn't focus on it as much as the former.
edit: damn, that's a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.
worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.
Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.
I mean, yes... that is what i did... i explained as i did it.
Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.
Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?
TL;DR;
It's weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.
Using "purity test" like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.
You say "purity tests" like it's some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.
Headcanon replace it with "personal ethics and morals" and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.
An example of what i mean.
This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.
They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.
vs
This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.
They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.
See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?
I'm not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don't worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.
Is that relevant somehow?
Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?
Rebranding personal ethics and morals as "a purity test" is disingenuous at best.
If you're going to take umbridge with someone's approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.
They aren't mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.
The point was that guarding ideas didn't start with formalised copyright.
Sure, but that's not the only way people have guarded ideas.
Secret societies, artisan guilds that only taught it's members and on occasion killed people who find out their secrets, professions taught only to the direct student.
Just because the formal idea of something was recorded doesn't mean it wasnt around before.
As people we are constantly hoarding knowledge and ideas to benefit is individually or as a tribe.
What do you mean by "most of our history" , like in a timeframe sense ?