Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 8/7/20 7:54 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>>   If we allow the listener to decide whether the speaker's words are 
>> shitty
>> (and that their ambient shittiness needs to be reduced-- I know what you
>> mean here in your impreciseness and I would appreciate it if you were to
>> say it explicitly) we will further empower victimhood.
>
> Your proposed action could literally be the example in the dictionary
> for the word "bullying":
>
>     seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as 
> vulnerable).

   No, actually it could not. And it "literally" could not too.

   I'm not proposing any action. I'm imagining that if we allow the action
that you seem to want, that we will have an undesirable and unintended end.
It is YOU that is proposing action.

   I don't seek to harm anyone by noting that incentivizing accusations of
bad think will result in more accusations of bad think. It's a simple
observation. Ditto intimidate. There is nothing intimidating in my
observation. You may not agree with it but then you aren't saying how it's
wrong, just that it's wrong for me to express it. And that's a very
different thing!

   Dan.