Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 2/15/21 3:25 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>        The thing I take issue with was directed at "people", a collection of
>      persons.
>
> So you took it as individuals, and I took people, especially given the second paragraph, as members of an organization and he was talking about organizational statements.

   Well I actually said that those people can (partially) make up an
organization so I don't think our statements are too far off. I just
don't think that is terribly relevant.

>>        Why are you wading in to this Rich?
> Because I am trying to understand why some people are so opposed to this.

   Opposed to what?

   To be perfectly honest, if Keith hadn't been admonished I wouldn't have
said a thing. But if we're gonna have some rules here then I think it's
important that everyone play by them. So if it's not OK to say that some
people are more concerned with appearance than reality (and I guess it's
not OK even if it's true) then it's not OK to say that people who don't
mouth the platitudes that Jay wants to hear are racists, and it's not OK
for Martin to say that a few people are obstructionists.

   Of course I would be happy to allow all those statements to be freely
expressed on the list but then I like free speech, even that which upsets
others. Seems that is not a universal feeling here though.

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius