On 07-Oct-22 06:23, Keith Moore wrote:
On 10/6/22 12:17, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
Really?
For example, here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/jLTLVzGY-OhGZNn8LB36_DVdN6M/
He is ridiculing and humiliating groups by stating that "Where identity
groups can compound their power with the intersection of their venn
diagram of group identity. A trans black activist would have more
"authenticity", more ability to shout down Dave Chappelle than a white
trans activist and both of them would have more power than some cis
white male trying to shout down Dave Chappelle."..."The goal is to be in
as many identity groups as possible. They highlight their group identity
intersection because it _increases_ their place on the hierarchy!">> I don't interpret Dan's writing that way. I think he's citing an
credible problem with some models of privilege and/or intersectionality,
particularly when there's an expectation of some sort of compensation
for perceived lack of privilege. I don't think he's ridiculing or
humiliating groups, I think he's lampooning the models and arguing that
they're intractable.
It's very possible that was the intention, but that is a literary or
journalistic technique. Using that sort of technique when writing for
a large, diverse, international community of engineers with a very large
fraction who learned English as a second language for technical documents
is essentially guaranteed to fail, to be widely misunderstood, and to
cause distress as a result.
The functional test is not whether the writer's *intention* was satire,
but whether the audience recognizes it as satire. As far as I can tell,
many of them didn't.
(When I snarkily referred to Dan using they/them in an earlier message,
he didn't react to it as satire. My mistake, sorry.)
Regards
Brian
But I think I see why people misunderstand messages like this. Anytime
you discuss a hot button issue and don't perfectly recite the "correct"
response (or sometimes, even if you do), there's a good chance that some
people will have strong emotional reactions that prevent them from
really understanding the message you're trying to convey. I think it's
extremely unfortunate because these topics are vitally important and
deserve to be explored, but it's also foolish to fail to observe that
pattern of behavior. If a speaker knows that people are likely to have
knee-jerk reactions to something they say, they can either try to avoid
triggering those reactions or they can plow straight ahead and risk
causing them anyway. It's their choice, and maybe not an easy one, but
I think I know which one is at least slightly more likely to be useful.
Of course, humor, including even ridicule, _can be_ a way of diffusing
such adverse reactions. But it requires a lot of skill to be
effective, and not everyone can pull it off. It's very risky.
Embracing diversity and inclusion of group members is obviously about
participation and respect and not about increasing their power over
others and people do not/cannot change their identities or orientations
in order to to that.
Of course, but I don't think anything that you quoted contradicts that.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
