On 10/7/22 7:03 AM, Richard Barnes
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 9:48 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Friday, October 7, 2022 10:50 +0100 Jay Daley
<exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Dan however did not introduce it for any serious debate or
> other genuine contribution, he did so solely for the purpose
> of belittling and ridiculing it.
Jay,
While agreeing that his statement was extremely distasteful and
unhelpful and without necessarily disagreeing with either your
overall conclusions or reasoning, how can you be sure you
understood Dan's motivations?
This philosophical digression isn't helpful, John. What matters isn't what is in Dan's innermost heart, but the effect his comments have on his colleagues and the community.
A study from McKinsey. Oh.
"Good intentions are important, but the impacts of people’s actions
are the true measure of goodness."
The real danger of that it places the recipient of the message into an
unimpeachable position of authority. While it's certainly possible that
someone would be dishonest as to their intention in making a statement
it is also possible that someone would be dishonest in how they
perceived a remark-- stating that offense was taken when it really
wasn't. But it's not possible to question how the recipient took it,
otherwise you are not "validating someone's experience" or their "truth".
And this can lead to targeted abuse of people where these kinds of
"micro-aggressions" are fabricated in order to silence or punish
someone.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Intentions matter.
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
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
