>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Brian> Keith,
Brian> On 03-Apr-21 11:02, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> Indeed. Judging "intent" is very difficult except in the most
>>> egregious cases. It's much easier to judge offensiveness: if a
>>> reasonable number of people are offended, it's offensive,
>>> whatever the intent.
>>
>> I would not agree with that definition, or wouldn't find that
>> concept of "offensiveness" useful in determining whether it's
>> appropriate, because quite often I find that people have strong
>> adverse reactions to things that need to be discussed, but they
>> can't get past their reactions to see them.
Brian> Yes, and when that happens in a technical debate it is very
Brian> damaging. I could give examples, but that would undoubtedly
Brian> start a whole side debate about each example. The current
Brian> context is not a technical debate, though. So I don't have a
Brian> better definition than to say that something of a
Brian> sociological nature that offends the majority of the audience
Brian> is offensive.
Might I suggest an alternative way to look at this?
I've found that talking about things in terms of offense gets free
speech advocates (including to some extent myself) upset, and takes us
one step further away from being able to think about the impact of our
words.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you, just providing an alternate
framework that I have found useful over the years as I have moved from
technical spheres to emotional ones.
I've found it more helpful to talk about when people in our community
are upset or hurt when they think about our words.
For me, I feel respected when people care about their impact on me.
I realize that is not universal, but I am also not alone in finding care
to be part of showing respect for me.
So, if I am hurt when you say something, I feel respected if you take
the time to think about that.
Could you make the same point without causing those feelings?
Even if you cannot--even if the very nature of what you are trying to
say is going to cause pain, do you take the time to stop and acknowledge
that?
do you take the time to care about and show compassion for the people
you're talking to?
For me, it's easier to see why failing to do that is exclusionary than
it is when we take things one step removed and start talking about
offense.
Now let us come to "A Modest Proposal."
This is not the first time that satirical essay has come up in the IETF
context.
Ted Hardie used it a couple of times I can remember, and I don't think
he was the first in my history in the IETF.
And yet several of those times, specific people in our community spoke
up and said that because of their background, they felt excluded, hurt,
or offended by that particular reference.
So, we as a community have history. We know that essay strikes at
people because of their racial or other aspects of their background.
USING THAT REFERENCE WITHOUT TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT IS DISRESPECTFUL
and EXCLUSIONARY TOWARD CURRENT CONTRIBUTORS.
If you're going to make a "modest proposal," you'd better be explaining
why you chose to do something that is hurtful.
What other options did you consider? Why could you not make your point
that way?
And if you still choose that option, are you expressing regret when
people are hurt or uncomfortable because of the reference you choose?
In the specific case of "A Modest Proposal," I don't personally think
there's ever a need to use that reference in the IETF.
But even if you disagree with me, you could do a lot more to show
respect for your fellow contributors than people have done in this
instance.
And no, I'm not saying you need to hold back from expressing
controversial opinions even if you know or suspect people will feel hurt
when they hear the opinion.
Even then, you can show compassion, and regret the pain you cause while
still concluding it is necessary.
--Sam
