memory_prism retweeted
The thing about the anti-seppuku clause side is that it reveals a deeper set of conflicting preferences.
There are two sets of principles at issue:
1) cypherpunk principles
2) "anti-suicide pact principles"
To steelman, imagine there were a "Planck Seppuku License" instead and by signing you promised not change the Planck constant but if you did, you'd commit honor suicide. Barring scifi obfuscations, refusal to sign is not on the grounds of its terms, but could only be due to (2).
The point of the license is to force the supremacy of (1) above all others (including (2)). So that by refusing to attest to (1) because of (2) implies a value hierarchy. And, if (1) is not at the top of your value hierarchy, you do not meet the value qualifications for participation in this organization.
The infinite garden of Ethereum development can have any number of political organizations (ie, value hierarchy praxis). People are obstinately denying this from two sides: "Sol Envyists" insist it conduct BD; and "Inclusive Centralists" insist that if a center is neutral, it's no center at all.
The Mandate is the EF's demonstration through force that it is not at the center of the graph. Both camps are in uproar over this but Dulce here is in the latter. How do we know this? Because the reason for their outrage is that they insist the EF's politics have higher stakes because it's the center. It's a circular argument that could be stepped out of easily if they weren't committed to a desire for the EF at the center of the graph. The fact that this owes to their friend group's enjoyed status and income privileges can be set aside for now. Let's grant them temporarily their claim to ethical motivations.
As self-identified high-minded liberals, they insist that the only credible politics of the center must be "liberal toleration." Again, the EF's actions are a refutation by demonstration as they put on a mask intolerable to the tolerant (Milady). In all cases, liberal tolerance, like all closed-tribes, extends only as far as alignment with their values. "Everyone is welcome in our system so long as they support our system." Cypherpunks believe in a stronger sense of freedom without qualification.
The Mandate will be reflected on and analyzed for the rest of Ethereum's history as the political masterstroke that singlehandedly saved the chain from all its greatest threats by elegantly solving the question of praxis through alignment of theory. So long as you hold principles (1) above all else, we can trust we work toward a common goal. If you hold a value set above (1), your values will preclude your participation. You are not trustworthy. And yet--our commitment to (1) invites your forthcoming fork against our values. Your "inclusive centralist" ideology will have its organization formed from EF exiles. And we support your parallel efforts. But not from within our vessel. This is decentralization.
This was the counter-counterrevolution that saved the Ethereum Revolution, saved through rejection of compromise. We will not compromise our values. That is what the Sol Envyists demand to heed the whims of the present moment. They will not survive the coming period of thought/market/technological/* chaos. Clearness in your highest level principles is the only path forward that does not end in ruin. This is why both camps were so easily ejected in the same swift motion. I would encourage the Inclusive Centralists to reflect on this--why is it that the move which got your enemies, The BD-Chainers, out is the same one that removed you? You'll find it's no coincidence. You'll find the EF refused to compromise and in doing so the the EF saved Ethereum.
🌸 𝔇𝔲𝔩𝔠𝔢 🌸@DulcesNieves
@CharlotteFang77 @nokcha75 Ergo anyone who disagrees w/ the suicide clause and doesn't want to sign the EF mandate if it's included in it, bc they think it's at a minimum immature counterproductive bad optics & at worst a negative sum suicidal memetic virus contradicting the spirit of the mandate r targets
English
