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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 2/15/21 3:15 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>> On 16/02/2021, at 11:49 AM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/21 1:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 16-Feb-21 08:37, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>>    Jay,
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/21 12:24 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>>> Speaking as a non-white person with extensive personal experience of
>>>>> racism there are a couple of strawmen I would like to address:
>>>>>
>>>>> Having wealthy, credentialed, white people take the issue of diversity
>>>>> and inclusivity seriously enough to try to explicitly and publicly
>>>>> change their behaviours is to me neither patronising nor
>>>>> disempowering, but rather it is both heartening and solidarity
>>>>> building.  The alternative of wealthy, credentialed, white people not
>>>>> wishing to do that makes me wary that either they are racist, or
>>>>> sympathise with racists, or seek to diminish or ignore the historic
>>>>> impact of racism.
>>>>    You are ascribing motives and abhorrent beliefs to other people.
>>> No he's not. He's saying he's *wary*, i.e. cautious and suspicious.
>>
>>   He's cautious of some problem or potential danger. And what is that
>> problem or potential danger he is wary of? It's people who "are 
>> racist, or
>> sympathise with racists, or seek to diminish or ignore the historic 
>> impact
>> of racism."
>>
>>   Now, Keith Moore got called out for ascribing motives to "some people"
>> who are more concerned with appearance than reality. That vague statement
>> which was hardly even a criticism received a clap back. What Jay did was
>> even more egregious because he named exactly who he says the problems 
>> are.
>> Namely, wealthy, credentialed, white people who do not mouth the 
>> particular
>> platitudes he wants to hear from them. The alternative to not saying what
>> he wants them to say is that he views them as a potential problem. What a
>> sad, black-and-white world-- you're either with Jay or against Jay.
>>
>>   As a credentialed, white, and (relatively, of course) wealthy 
>> person who
>> does not say the kinds of things that Jay is wishing to hear I feel 
>> like I
>> can take issue with his statement. He's saying he views me as a potential
>> problem. He's wary of me because the alternative, in his mind, to not
>> repeating the approved platitudes is to be a racist or a racist 
>> sympathizer
>> or a diminisher of "the historic impact of racism." Well nuts to that!
>
> I understand that you might think I am demanding public fealty to a 
> view you don’t hold and that was not my intent, so let me restate the 
> second part of my response to the original strawmen in narrower terms:
>
> - The alternative of wealthy, credentialed, white people [a phrase 
> taken directly from one of the strawmen] obstructing or preventing 
> others from taking the issue of diversity and inclusivity seriously 
> enough to try to explicitly and publicly change their behaviours, 
> makes me wary that either they are racist, or sympathise with racists, 
> or seek to diminish or ignore the historic impact of racism.
>
> That should be much clearer.

   Actually it's less clear because before it was two separate sentences.
Trying to cram it into one and saying "of" instead of "to" makes it less
clear. But it's equally noxious.

   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