This is a very unfair way of treating the situation. What I had in mind was basically what you say after: Peters understands why the situation went this way (because newcomers were not used to his writing style) and acknowledge responsibility in not realising that earlier. His post is literally called "mea culpa". It is very very unfair to pretend that Peters does not recognise some part of responsibility in a post which contains so much language sending explicitly that message.
> But here's the thing: I first interacted ...
Well, what you say is not surprising and does not prove anything. In 99% of situations were people take offence or disagree, there are also people who are fine with it. And it would have been totally unrealistic to pretend that a style that people understood in a given period was misunderstood by 100% of the people just few years later. You were just part of the people who interpreted it as Peters intended. But I'm pretty sure that you interpreted things differently in other circumstances.
> If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time
Well, in Peters post, he says "So too many now read one of my typically part-joking posts, and think I’m making fun of the topic being discussed, or belittling them. Wholly unintended, but understandable, and I first realized that yesterday. Now it makes some sense to me how someone could take offense at my message about sexual harassment."
I think that the situation is simple and that Peters understands it while you don't. The message was incorrectly interpreted. Peters says here that in this case, the reaction was understandable and make some sense. Peters ended up understanding the whole mess that was basically just miscommunication.
On the opposite, in your message, you are basically saying that you cannot understand that someone would take offence. That's your opinion, and, after all, why not. But other people have other opinion. I hope you don't take offence of that :)
> (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion)
Hm, do you think that it is not highlighting that what "looks just fine" according to you may not be an universal truth?
> Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.
As I've said, his interlocutors look very bad. You may think Peters looks "just fine", but that does not mean Peters looks just fine. You are just one person. And, I know, "everyone who disagree on this is a social justice warrior and is wrong", but you cannot force other persons who wrote articles on Peters' passing to be bad or misguided because they don't agree with you on this detail.
Not in any meaningful sense. The post you cite basically talks about Tim's historical posting style, and then suggests that newcomers to the community might not have been exposed to it, and therefore interpreted https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed... as somehow objectionable.
But here's the thing: I first interacted with the guy in 2014 (as far as I can tell) and wasn't part of the Python Usenet/mailing list culture. I didn't really have that exposure either. And yet it was still extremely obvious to me that the post was calling out injustice and not saying anything that any reasonable person could object to. The central argument is that it's unpleasant to be repeatedly subject to training that assumes you need training to behave yourself and not engage in criminal activity, while the wealthy and powerful get away with those crimes. And people who claim to be on the side of "social justice" take offense to that.
If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time, nor in any of the ensuing discussion anywhere on the Internet (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion). I have only heard people expect me to take it for granted that this, and similar posts, somehow reflect unreasonable behaviour. And because I legitimately can't think of any charitable way to interpret the argument, I don't speculate.
Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.