|
On 21.09.18 16:42, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 21, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
