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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Wow!

   Hi Francesca,

On 2/16/21 8:49 AM, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I trust you can make your point and state your opinion without being purposely inflammatory. As always, although it is ok to disagree, it is not ok and does not lead to a productive discussion to put down other people's opinions in this way.
>
> [1] I do not find Jay's mail to be ascribing motives to specific people, he is comparing two different situations.

   No, he's comparing two different groups of people. In fact, he 
specifically
says "people". I'm not sure how you can say he's comparing situations when
he specifically says "people"!

   Let me quote him for you: "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....
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."

   Notice how he's not talking about situations. He's talking about 
people. And
he's talking specifically about a certain class of people. And if that 
certain
class of people doesn't take his issue "seriously enough" then he fears that
they are racists or people who sympathize with racists or people who wish to
"diminish or ignore the historic impact of racism".

   Situations? I'm sorry but no. Read his email again.

> Also please do not refer to Jay's opinions as "platitudes" - I believe you can pass the message you want to pass without the denigratory characterization.

   I did not say that Jay's opinions were platitudes. What I said was that
the statements of the "wealthy, credentialed, white people" were platitudes.
I said that they needed to say the platitudes that Jay wanted to hear 
(otherwise
he would assume his alternative that they're racists). Big difference.

> [2] I do not think Martin's characterization of "obstructionist" is anything else than a statement that people don't want this wg to be created. I do not find the term offensive, but that might be because of the fact that I am not a native speaker.

   I don't find Martin's statement offensive either. I responded to Martin
simply because what he said was pretty much exactly what Keith said.

   What's interesting is that you are responding to my statement to Martin
and Jay but you are silent on Mark's response to Keith. What's your take
on Mark's rebuke of Keith for saying "some people are more concerned with
appearance than reality"? That's as inoffensive as Martin saying that some
people are obstructionists here. Yet you don't feel compelled to tell Mark
your feelings about his email!

   If you want to be the cop here then I think you need to walk your beat
in a much less biased way.

> If you find any email in the mailing list personally offensive, please reach out to the chairs and do not escalate. Because of the high volume and timezone difference there might be a delay dealing with it, but we are here for that.

   I'm not personally offended but I do think that your email is 
offensive in
its selective target.

   Dan.

> Thanks,
> Francesca
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/zNoAGb6-GAFRS-8YLCV_PsFc_2I/
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/bRuBH1Xe_UaMg385w4-pY7cbUz0/
>
> On 16/02/2021, 00:58, "Gendispatch on behalf of Dan Harkins" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>      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
>
>      --
>      Gendispatch mailing list
>      [e-mail]
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>

-- 
"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