« first day (9 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) » 

12:16 AM
I just want to add an article that influenced my ideas about Kendi and DiAngelo that I think is worth reading (to everyone who thinks that what Dylan has said comes from a good place): taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility
2 hours later…
1:48 AM
@Dylan Wilson I am absolutely flabbergasted by your comment. It's almost as if we've been reading an entirely different conversation. Would you be willing to say a bit more?

I am responding because I see an opportunity for engagement, which I think is important because there is a huge gap between what you wrote and the other voices in this discussion. But before I go on, I encourage you to read my earlier comment (Thursday 13 Aug, about halfway down the thread until here), because it is relevant to what I'm writing (and it's easy to misinterpret intentions).
2 hours later…
3:26 AM
I currently lack the energy to engage, especially since being shot from both sides is not my cup of tea, but I just wanted to offer Clark my heartfelt thanks for persisting in a calm-headed and respectful way.
Also a shout-out to @TylerLawson who may, from my weary skim over the Gindi-blasted landscape, have made the points I would have liked to make, had I felt able to do so without yelling at Harry
'I am now just puzzled why you are trying to push everyone's buttons - especially colleagues and peers who you will encounter during your mathematical life."
Hi Elden, I don't think we've interacted before, but I just wanted to respond to your comment by saying that it gives me significant deja vu from the early years of MO :)
I also share some of @Remy's response, not least because while I don't doubt @DylanWilson's good intentions the language he uses is exactly the kind of thing that gets on my wick.
"Good and bad is tricky. I ain't too certain about where people stand. P'raps what matters is which way you face."
6 hours later…
9:59 AM
@DylanWilson "Like seriously, some people were putting forth arguments for a *biological* basis for racism and sexism. What the actual f-?"

There is a biological basis for racism and sexism.
10:16 AM
There's differences between groups of people. Humans extrapolate based on their knowledge. This can cause prejudice. It's OK to encourage each other being open-minded, and to let go of one's early judgement if someone falls outside the pattern. But I often see people take this even further, to the point where prejudices are being shamed, or even further, where the differences between the peoples, between men and women, are flat-out being denied. Such measures run on fear, and is bound to fail.
10:30 AM
Also, in-group bias is encoded in our very nature, and no amount of forced tolerance will eliminate this phenomenon.
11:14 AM
... is this for real?
11:49 AM
@AngelTC I mean, Patriot is the guy who had a confederate flag avatar, so he's either trolling or legitimately a racist. It's interesting to me that his view is pretty much the same as the one stated in the third paragraph of Dylan's comment, and that's why I find both points of view repellent…
@HarryGindi I am neither a troll nor a racist. Could you elaborate how my comments are in line with those of Dylan?
@Patriot this comment is problematic. It allows highly offensive ways to be understood. I grant it also allows somewhat less offensive ways to be understood. But overall it rests problematic. I urge you to avoid incendiary formulations. Chat moderation is overall rather more tight than the one on MO (except MO changed drastically over the years, which I doubt from what I see from a distance).
@quid I don't understand what's offensive about it.
12:05 PM
@Patriot Some people hold the believe that one group of people is superior to another group of people for biological reasons. This point of view is highly offensive and problematic. Your comment can be read as asserting this.
It is possible that you actually did not mean this, but something else, vaguely along the lines of 'everybody prefers their own group' without implying a hierarchy among the groups. I would not like this comment either, but it is relatively less problematic.
@quid Noticing differences between groups is no far step away from setting up a hierarchy, especially given our in-group biases. That's why I think these kinds of hierarchies are bound to be common. I made no claim as to where I stand in this myself.
Patriot, precisely the idea that all people prefer their own racial groups, and that difference need necessarily breed suspicion.
@quid That said I do not understand why you would not like me to point out about in-group bias. It's an established phenomenon. @HarryGindi same comment applies.
This isn't really any different from what the slick PR-savvy racists say on television.
A widely quoted Bedouin apothegm is "I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger" sometimes quoted as "I and my brother are against my cousin, I and my cousin are against the stranger."

This is tribalism, and what you're suggesting is that we ought to be tribal on the basis of race (or maybe that we are and can't change that).
12:23 PM
@Patriot even assuming for the sake of argument that you have a valid point, I do not see how it is helpful to mention or to discuss it here. If you look through the transcript I voiced the point of view that it is not helpful to have certain discussions here already several times. This is doubly true if the points of view put forward are offensive or controversial.
@HarryGindi I do not know what slick PR-savvy racists say on TV. Yes, I'm suggesting "tribalism" is innate. I don't understand the problem. It's a well-established phenomenon.
@quid I still don't see what's controversial, nor why my comments, among all the hundreds of chat messages that have been posted so far, are deemed unhelpful.
@Patriot please read again what I wrote; I specifically stressed that it is not the first time that I said this.
The assertion that you do not see what is controversial is difficult to take at face value. You might think it should not be controversial, but you ought to know that it is controversial.
The research showing that prejudice is innate is just as much junk as the stuff the other side has been peddling.
@quid I really don't see what's controversial about my comment. Ironically, the comment I initially replied to explicitly referred to "white people's fragility" and called the people here "a bunch of white people", which is overtly more offensive.
@HarryGindi Social identity theory is a big field and it takes some strong evidence to dismiss it all as junk.
12:40 PM
@Patriot For what is worth, I find this statement extremely offensive because it implies that human beings cannot overcome negative parts of their nature. You might find it self-evident, but I don't think I would be able to get up in the morning if I thought it true
And after saying that, I'll bow out of the conversation again. Have "fun"
@Patriot as alluded to I personally do not find that comment helpful either, and that view in a way was also expressed explicitly, e.g., by @YemonChoi. That said, the way you breach the subject is for a variety of reasons more problematic. Again, I do not believe that you do not understand why it is controversial. If you think it should not be controversial then this something else entirely, and you should assert that.
@HarryGindi I dont know if I agree 100% with what Dylan said, but I genuinely dont think his last paragraph is 'pretty much the same' than whatever Patriot is saying, I think there's an obvious clear difference even if its not spelled out. Im done trying to understand your position tho, I think plenty of people in the chat have tried to point out the issues with your ideas and how you communicate them but it seems (for me) to be hopeless to have a fruitful discussion with you.
@DenisNardin Hmm, I didn't think of it in this way. For what it's worth, I think it can be minimised but not eradicated, and that the aggressive ways in which many people try to achieve this anyhow (e.g. by shaming those who allude to differences, or by denying there are differences) is more destructive than beneficial.
where I do agree with Harry is that this person is either trolling or a racist and I dont understand why the moderation is so lax about this, it is really disappointing to see either a lack of interest and activity or people trying to 'play it safe'
I think people should be allowed to damn themselves with their own words, no moderation needed.
12:53 PM
@quid You've never told me what's problematic or offensive. You say you don't believe that I don't know this myself. I don't know what else to add. (@DenisNardin's comment helped though.) @AngelTC I am neither trolling nor racist.
@AngelTC it is not that lax. I am very close to closing this line of discussion down. It's not a room of my site so I hesitate a bit. But there is a reason why I idle around so much here.
@AngelTC I am paying attention to this room exactly because I foresee the risk of needing urgent moderation intervention (although quid is also here) and being a moderator on a different SE site I can act in case something urgent happens. I have not seen anything moving me to drastic action yet, although do feel free to flag everything you deem inappropriate
@Patriot I do not think that this paraphrase of the situation is accurate.
@Patriot I am trying to take you at face value, but your messages presuppose a forma mentis so different from my own that either you are doing it on purpose (i.e. trolling) or I doubt we'll find common ground
Well then Id like to update what I said about the MO moderation specifically, I feel they should be more on top of this.

But in any case I do think allowing this veiled, on-the-edge-of-acceptable attitudes and people hijacking the conversation into something else is not productive at all, we gain nothing, we lose opportunities, and only perpetuates the unwelcoming vibe of the community...
1:01 PM
I don't think this community is unwelcoming.
Toleration of difference, including difference of opinion, is a crucial part of a community being welcoming.
Im glad youve had a good time Harry, but this is not exclusively about you.
@AngelTC You say you don't want an unwelcoming vibe in this community, but that comment is quite unwelcoming.
@Patriot that's a pointless provocation, and it's enough with that.
I haven't had a good time. I've been the target of unwarranted invective. I disagree vehemently, apparently, with many people in this chat. I don't think we ought to be censoring debate.
@Patriot Although I cannot imagine how you cannot find this comment problematic. Of course there aren't biological basis for sexism and racism. I would consider that self-evident (which doesn't mean that there aren't differences between people -- just that they aren't basis for sexism and racism!)
2 hours later…
2:52 PM
I appreciate the calm, clear-headed approach of Clark and Tyler in many comments above. I've been and will continue to be too swamped by the start of classes here, to participate regularly in the discussion. But Clark and Tyler said what I would have wanted to say (and said it better).
I also thank Tim and Elden for sharing their stories, and reminding us of the importance of keeping the mathematical community welcoming. Both are extraordinarily talented, and I'm grateful that they were ushered into homotopy theory rather than excluded. Others interested in personal stories of mathematicians, including overcoming challenges and the importance of mentorship, might enjoy the following book: blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2019/06/26/…
3 hours later…
5:41 PM
I want to say again that, looking past its imperfect presentation, I think what Harry believes is not as far out of line as some of the comments against him suggest. This may be because as his adviser, I've gotten used to his fast-paced and very assertive mode of communication. But I'm confident that what we find unacceptable in, say, hiring practices and treatment of students, Harry would also find unacceptable.

Let me try to summarize the aspects of Harry's belief that are different from my own, and he can tell me if I'm wrong. I think Harry would say that equality in our profession shou
Again, I disagree with these sentences, but I don't believe that these aren't positions against which debate and discussion are impossible. This is the point that I was making much earlier in the discussion: that I don't consider it sufficient to declare that I am against this perspective. I have to say something about what I want beyond this, and why.
5:56 PM
@ClarkBarwick I think you've written a good steelman; I'd slightly change one thing, though. Rather than "the risk of unfairness or damage to ideals of freedom of discussion or dissent is a bigger problem than the inequality in careers", I think it might be fairer to say "the risk of unfairness or damage [...] is likely to outweigh the benefits from most efforts to right inequality beyond this laissez-fair attitude".
6:14 PM
@ClarkBarwick I think what you say is consistent from my observations of, and very very limited interactions with, Harry; your efforts are highly commendable. Although the work you are doing to filter the message through the medium reminds me of seeing an old pre-blog bit of writing by Gowers to make sense of one of Zeilberger's hand-grenades; it is good to know that there is something reasonable underneath, but one can't help feeling that it shouldn't require a diplomatic translator
Also @HarryGindi: I really honestly am too snowed under by what my employers would lean on me to say is a wonderful world of UK academia, but FWIW my exasperation with your tone/rhetoric does not necessarily mean I believe the worst of your underlying personal intentions/beliefs. I do hope you appreciate your good fortune in having a supervisor willing to bat for you
Yeah, Clark is a real gentleman =]
@HarryGindi Sorry, that should have said "too snowed under ... to engage properly in this chat room". I now need to get back to marking 3rd year UG work where students don't seem to understand how the distributive law for addition and multiplication works, or perhaps they just think the capital Greek S is a magical world where you can just mysteriously change formulas from line to line
Please excuse my excess negation in the first sentence of that post. "I don't believe that these _are_ positions ..." I should have said.

user44191, I like your formulation better. Let's go with that.

One of the things that I struggle with, personally, is a tendency to pass to an essentially nihilistic disposition --- a sense that the weight of centuries of almost unthinkable cruelty and hate, which we see still everywhere today, simply envelop everything we do or say. A sense that someone like me is doomed to support a racist and sexist culture, and that all I can do is try to support it
@YemonChoi Reindexing ΠΣ to ΣΠ is kind of tricky. I don't think I really understood it until I learned that formula in terms of sets of functions
@ClarkBarwick I'm optimistic. If you look over the past, even 50 years, our countries have become places where overt racism and racial discrimination are not tolerable, where sexual harassment is no longer tolerated when it is revealed, at least to the same extent.
So I think people and society can change over time, but if you try to force them too hard, it's like a tree branch. Either it'll smack you in the face or you'll break it.
and I don't think it's tolerable to try to break people into acting the way you want.
6:56 PM
I find it sad it seems this conversation couldnt be rescued from being centered around one or two individuals and their views instead of talking about the more pressing stuff that was David's idea.
I thank the people that made an effort.
@AngelTC I think we should be honest with ourselves and understand that there is a need to have a discussion. The claim of urgency simply isn't legitimate. There is plenty of time for deliberation.
No matter what action is taken, it's not happening tomorrow.
@AngelTC I think part of the problem is that the subject in the discussion is not exactly clear. Initially, the actual topic of the discussion to be had would be the merits of the proposal to have such a talk at the ICM and maybe what could be proposed more specifically.
But that is, it seems to me, not really what is discussed for the most part (this includes some of my contributions).
It then turned more towards the merits of having activities intended to support diversity.
However, that is not really the same thing. It is however arguably the more interesting discussion to be had.
7:15 PM
@quid That quickly went away too and now its a discussion of trying to decypher the views of a couple of people. There is not even a position to defend or to argue against, I think this is sad when the original topic was discrimination and underrepresentation in our communities, which I believe is orders of magnitude more pressing relative to what the room seems to want to discuss.
@AngelTC I agree that the subject you mention is more pressing but was it the original subject? The original subject was whether to have a talk about this at the ICM. To me that is not the same thing, it is not even overly related.
Of course we could collectively decide to focus on this and to leave the aspect "talk at the ICM" aside.
I dont agree it is not overly related, I dont think David's idea was meant to be a y/n poll, obviously there was a need to discuss ifs and hows, and thats how it started but it seems that the room quickly got bored of that and transitioned, through a few topics in between, to its current state.
@AngelTC I think it is a poor idea to have such a talk at the ICM, but I do think it is a good idea to have activities that help diversity. To me the link is thus rather weak.
Sorry, which link?
The link between the subjects "Should we have an ICM talk focusing on making math more diverse, inclusive, and equitable?" and "Should we focus on making math more diverse, inclusive, and equitable?"
7:28 PM
Ah gotcha.
To me one is possibly an implication of the other, having an ICM talk would mean the community ( to some degree, as illustrated here ) acknowledges its problems and is willing to open a space to those that have been neglected, even if it is strongly in the context and spirit of the ICM usual talks.
My concern is really what could one tell a global audience on that subject?
Especially the types of talks that were proposed more specifically need to be tailored to more local audiences.
I dont think it needs to be global, it just doesnt need to be strongly localized in the obvious places. I agree it would be hard to talk about representation on a global scale, but having a series of lectures by different people will help paint a better picture.
@AngelTC yes, if there is a series of lectures of speakers from different countries that could work better.
I find the idea of attending a lecture where Id be exclusively given statistics to be just depressing and uninteresting, but a talk perhaps more in the spirit of David's linked book sounds ( in my head) more productive and palatable. By this I mean a math talk that is not just your usual technical talk but a talk in which the authors get the chance to talk about their background, their path and that can highlight the systemic problems and possible solutions. I understand this is vague.
Honestly, they have talks like this every year at the JMM
7:42 PM
@HarryGindi what is the conclusion to draw from this regarding the subject at hand? (This is an honest question.)
Well, the JMM is a bit of a joke
mainly because of grandstanding like this
This stuff already has a mega-huge platform in the US. As I said way earlier, I think people in the US have made up their minds about the issue.
If the goal is to change people's minds, it won't be done through sermonizing. If anything, more sermons will only breed more resentment.
@HarryGindi arguably already plenty of general-audience talks regarding, say, proof-assistants were given too.
Yes, but the audience of the ICM isn't a general audience.
@HarryGindi I meant "general audience" to mean a general audience of mathematicians.
I don't think it's right to have the american neurosis-du-jour be a topic.
If there needs to be a talk about this, why don't we also have a talk about China doing whatever horrible things it does? Isn't there also a moral imperative?
Or maybe we should have a talk about the oppression of LGBT people in Russia
I'm sure that will go over well.. in Russia.
7:53 PM
I find the way this is framed unhelpful.
I don't think we ought to politicize our departments or our discipline
@HarryGindi I seriously think that your characterization of the "other sides" is unhelpful, in much the same way that you found Dylan Wilson's characterization unhelpful. I would prefer it if you would not write in such an inflammatory way. Please.
@HarryGindi I think everybody understood this by now. :-)
I'm just making the point that if we had a talk for every moral imperative and crisis in the world, there would be no time for mathematics. We should call it the ICPA, international congress of political activists.
And to answer your question: I would support talks about what China and Russia are doing, to the extent that there is a reasonable connections to practicing mathematicians - same as here.
7:57 PM
I know you would.
That was exactly my point. All of these things are, at least arguably, worthy goals, and none of them have to do with mathematics
Please note the disclaimer I made.
I'm sure we can find mathematicians who are affected by every single one of these things.
Not simultaneously, of course, but one for each issue, certainly.
On a side note: I'm currently having trouble finding it, but does anyone have a link to the note in memory of Gelfand, which mentions him having a technically illegal seminar?
I think it would be relevant
As said, I do agree that on a global scale it is not very clear what exactly to address. Certainly, one could also find little or less known positive activities to present.
There are more serious crises in the world and long-term problems than there is time for talks. Maybe we should also have a talk on global warming.
8:03 PM
Found it
That misses the point a bit. It is not whatever affects mathematicians.
That said, I am pretty sure there are talks to be found around "mathematics and climate change"
I'm making the point that there are very many worthy causes in the world today. That's not the point of the ICM
And as I disclaimed, I did not say I would support talks on arbitrary topics
I don't see the difference
Harry I dont know if you misread or purposedly skipped the part in my comment where I wrote math talks, as in, I expect the talk to be about mathematics in a technical sense but making an effort to highlight the issues we're discussing.
8:07 PM
A talk about diversity in academia has about as much to do with mathematics in the technical sense as a talk about the treatment of the Uighurs in China.
I would, for example, support a talk by Gelfand or a participant on how to run a seminar in the face of Soviet guards, as described in the link.
link didn't work for me
Now it worked.
@HarryGindi I dont know your life, but for some people the mathematics they do and how it is developed and thought of, corresponds to politics inside and outside of academia. If it hasnt been the case for you then thats good, but your experience doesnt need to be universal.
It's not a matter of experience. The ICM shouldn't be a political forum, in the same way that the olympics shouldn't be a political forum.
Similarly, a talk on the teaching of mathematics in China - including in Xinjiang, and how the conditions there affect teaching - would be a relevant talk.
8:14 PM
You said "A talk about diversity in academia has about as much to do with mathematics in the technical sense as a talk about the treatment of the Uighurs in China." Im responding that this is not the case.
I don't know what this means.
I said that for some people the mathematics they do, in the tecnical sense, how they develop them, in the technical sense, and how they think about them, in the technical sense, corresponds to the politics in their environment, including academia.
This is a response to your claim that diversity cant be related to mathematics in the technical sense.
Then those people are not well.
It sounds like a personal problem.
I dont know if you are serious, but I think Im done discussing this with you.
Viewing everything in life and in mathematics through a lens of politics is not healthy.
I'm 100% serious. Politics is brain-poison.
8:22 PM
@AngelTC I think an example might be a bit helpful, before you depart. That said, I do think the two examples I provided should be enough to demonstrate the point.
@HarryGindi I think I wish to repeat what I said earlier: you are being unnecessarily inflammatory. I say this as someone who shares concerns with you.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I am completely incredulous at this claim.
I am slackjawed, mouth agape completely shocked.
Incredulity would be fine; if you'd asked for an example, I don't think anyone would have had a problem. If you had asked, and found the example unconvincing, I wouldn't have had a problem. But you jumped to "not well" and "personal problem".
This is the same claim that the Nazis made when they propagandized against jewish mathematics.
I'm not going to give any credit to a claim of the form 'well you know, maybe the nazis were right about that'. It's so far past something that I could ever give credence to.
This chat has become very difficult to follow. I understand that Harry believes that there is no value in investing time and effort in coming up with proposals in line with David's original answer. That's fine. What I don't understand is why aren't the rest of the members allowed to continue the conversation.
Feel free.
I just want people to take a look at the character of the plenary lectures: icm2018.impa.br/portal/plenary-lectures.html
I would also like to note that the ICM did host a panel discussion in 2018 about "The gender gap in mathematical and natural sciences from a historical perspective"
And another panel about strengthening mathematics in the developing world
8:36 PM
It just seems from the outside like this conversation has been hijacked. I've seen from you 1) the use of provocative comments that are later deleted 2) frequent change of topic showing no interest in actually listening to those that listen to you 3) slippery slope arguments like "if we have one talk abut diversity the whole conference will turn into politics" etc.
slippery slope arguments are valid arguments.
My two cents are just that, if you find no value in this, doesn't necessarily mean you should try to boycott the whole thing.
once you give up the principle, anything can follow.
Gjergji, you can't seriously be unaware of the numerous politicized takeovers of various academic professional organizations
For the record I would have the same objection if you did this on a mathematical question. So I am passing no judgement on your position, just on the tactics.
I would never in a million years argue like this about a mathematical question.
I'm only being so spirited because I think this is a looming threat.
8:42 PM
@HarryGindi also one about Machine-Assisted Proofs
Sure, what about it?
The suggestion that David White made was for a plenary lecture
If you go back into the original comment thread, I said that I was fine with a panel discussion.
Let's have a panel discussion with Igor Rivin and Piper Harron.
Two people who I'm sure disagree vehemently.
I thought that your complaint was that it would be redundant.
No, my complaint was that it has no place as a plenary lecture, since the beginning
we sort of got off-topic
@user44191 Your examples are good, the Gelfand seminar should bring to mind plenty of historical situations in which people where forced one way or another to work and present mathematics in certain ways ( women through history, jewish people under nazism, anti-semitism, etc ). I wouldnt want to discuss the situations of contemporary people, even if anonymous, given how they have been tagged as troubled or unwell, and me akin to a nazi..
jewish people under nazism were not forced to present mathematics in certain ways. first they were removed from their positions and then killed if they stuck around in europe for long enough.
or found themselves unfortunately situated in an occupied country
let's not use euphemisms.
8:54 PM
@moderators ?
moderators what?
I'm making the point that what Angel has just said is ridiculous and offensive.
@HarryGindi the same objection could likely be mounted against the other answer by David White "the future of mathematics publishing"
Sure, I'm against that too.
I have no intention of engaging with you anymore Harry, if you want to have parallel discussion with people about the things I say thats on you and whoever you talk to, just so you know.
Alright, but somehow it generated much less push-back, which suggests there is more to it than just it does not fit the format.
8:57 PM
Of course there is. We spent a week discussing the other problems with it.
People wanted to go back on-topic.
@HarryGindi When Angel wrote
”I said that for some people the mathematics they do, in the tecnical sense, how they develop them, in the technical sense, and how they think about them, in the technical sense, corresponds to the politics in their environment, including academia”
How do you interpet this claim?
@ScottBalchin what is your concern? You cannot notify anyone like this.
That the actual technical aspects of mathematics, coming up with ideas and proofs, are inherently political and depend upon politics.
I did ask for clarification. That was the clarification.
If that is the position, I think it is a weak one and I do not agree with it. If the position is that politics can have an impact on what concepts are developed, I do think we have such examples.
Politics in which sense?
Broad-sense politics as in people develop ideas in areas that are popular or hot?
or politics in the sense of political doctrines and parties, politics in the broader society, etc.
I mean, in the first sense, it is obviously true.
In the second sense, not at all.
9:06 PM
I guess what I mean by "politics" is maybe not the correct term. But for example, if I recall correctly, the reason Leray developed sheaf theory when he did seems to have been influenced by political matters in one sense.
This is the best version of Angel's position I can make. That people's life situations can impact what mathematics is developed, and that people's life situations are intertwined with political matters.
I could also imagine how in the USSR people could have been pressured to work on applied mathematics, and in this sense, I think politics can influence mathematics. But I do not think that you disagree with this.
That's correct and not really controversial.
It's also not relevant to the conversation we were having, which was that the practice of mathematics at a technical level is political
I was arguing against the politicization of the discipline, after all, not that we should be mysteriously immune from history.
Althought that would be nice :)
It is just not obvious to me that Angel was making the absurd claim that the tehnical details of writing proofs are dependent on politics. I have not followed the thread very closely, though.
Later on, when say the Gelfand seminar was brought up, Angel seems to think that was a good example, and I think this speaks somewhat to the possibility that what he meant was the position that you do not find controversial.
I am poking my head in just to record a vote that I think this chat should be more heavily moderated.
For the record, if anyone else has trouble with the link, it can be found by searching "Creative Discomfort" with the name of the author, Slava Gerovitch
9:22 PM
I'm wasting too much time on this stuff
@quid is there any way to block me from posting in here anymore?
_without banning me from all of stackexchange _ =\
I think I've made all of the points I'd like to make.
@HarryGindi I could kick-mute you. I don't think this would last long though.
Can you do like kick-mute 999999999999999999 or something?
@HarryGindi I'm not sure; I can try.
or is there a way for me to hide this room
that would be ideal
I'll see what happens when I click kick-mute; I never did that.
9:28 PM
I think you'd be banned just briefly.
whatever it's fine
10:02 PM
@HarryGindi I asked. It's not possible. But you could use an adblocker or something like that to block it on your side. I don't know how exactly it would work but the URL of the chat is persistent so maybe that's how.
10:36 PM
thx for trying.

« first day (9 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) »