# Shedding light on a three-month suspension

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337>\
**Category:** PSF\
**Created:** [October 1, 2024, 8:44pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337 "2024-10-01T20:44:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 260

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tim.one](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/tim.one/32/282_2.png) [@tim.one](https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2025, 7:50pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337/260 "2025-10-02T19:50:29Z")

</div>

I’ve been privately informed that the hidden post isn’t of high quality. Agreed! Of the (at least) tens of thousands of posts I’ve made over the decades, it’s near the bottom of the barrel, too telegraphic and uncharacteristically sloppy.

But I’m not recommending it for its _own_ sake, and it’s not being nominated for some “Post of the Year” competition. It’s completely forgettable (and better off forgotten).

None of that matters here. The question is whether it’s sufficient grounds for a “defended the doctrine of reverse sexism” chargeable offense. To my eyes it obviously is not. It never used the phrase, apart from a verbatim quote of it inherited from a previous poster’s message..

So expand it to whether it’s sufficient grounds for a “defended the doctrine of reverse racism” chargeable offense. That’s a topic I _did_ explicitly address (once), and my _guess_ that they were complaining about _that_ post now appears to have been completely wrong. Complaining about _that_ post didn’t even make hallucinatory sense to me. It seems clear now that they _actually_ were implicitly referring to this same hidden post for both.

In which I did indirectly mention that doctrine, but strongly implied I agreed with the PSF’s view, and opposed Karl’s view. It’s just an implication, because to pick up on that you have to already know about how more than one “reverse X-ism” doctrines are dismissed within the academic framework of “power dynamics” analysis.

I talk about various aspects of “social dynamics” so often it should be no surprise that I’m on board with that approach. Indeed, in the context of my posts, people should have been very surprised if I _had_ rejected that general approach in these specific cases. Cherry-picking a relatively rare relatively vaguer post isn’t a good look either. Such a reading goes against my entire posting history on matters related to social dynamics analyses of many flavors. Not to mention that it’s not a good-faith reading on its own.

But many people in real life aren’t on board with such academic analyses. So we disagree. BFD. I wouldn’t suspend them for that even if so. [Queue one of the 3-panel web cartoons distorting Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” to the point of appearing to endorse “cancel culture” actions Popper cautioned would “certainly be unwise”]

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337)._