Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 21.09.18 16:42, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Although we don't actually have any specifics as to why or how the
>> terminology posed a problem.  We have no understanding of the harm in
>> this case.  In python one person chose to believe that another person
>> really had a problem, and that was that, end of discussion.
>
> Eliot, I've actually explained the context of what transpired to you
> on the hrpc mailing list, and I don't see what I said reflected in
> your response here.   It wasn't "one person."  

I didn't mean to imply that it was just python, but I wrote in the
context of python.  I see that I could have been clearer about that. For
that I crave your pardon.  There was one clear example outside of the
context of python where employees used the terminology to bother another
employee (I don't know if it rose to the level of harassment, but it
surely was at least inappropriate behavior).  But see below.


> Do I need to point out to you that quite frequently in situations with
> bad power dynamics, getting accurate reports from injured parties is
> very difficult, and there's a strong tendency for their reports to be
> disbelieved by the majority in power, but when the dam finally breaks,
> it becomes clear that there was a real problem, and that the majority,
> in ignoring that problem, created real and substantial harm.

No I read the newspapers, but I'm not going to recapitulate the entire
hrpc discussion. 

I will say this: I don't suggest for a moment that the matter shouldn't
be studied.  It absolutely should be studied by psychologists,
sociologists, linguists and others.  Let them tell us what the right
thing to do is here, and if the words really are causing harm, sure
let's make changes.  I'd even be happy if they engaged us in whatever
experiment they thought appropriate, assuming it isn't too disruptive. 
But until that happens, I stand in opposition to such changes because
there are negative consequences, and there may not be any upside.

Eliot