Hi Joel,
On 9/9/19 3:43 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Dan, you asked for specific examples of speech whose acceptability has
changed.
A clear and simple example is personal attacks. It is no longer
acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to
an argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so
we should ignore your input." Other even more extreme and personal
comments were once accepted in this community. they are not accepted
any longer.
I witnessed someone at the mic tell a presenter that his was the
worst idea
in the history of the IETF. That's not really acceptable but it was also
way back
in the 20th century. I haven't heard that kind of talk in 2 decades.
Admittedly
I tend to hang out with a small group of people and probably missed some
egregious
behavior but I don't think personal attacks have ever been OK.
This debate seems to be about how do we handle cases which are not
simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such. (Part
of the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult
and when.) Given what has been acceptable in at least some working
groups in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the
situation. Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid
going overboard and losing the free technical discussion that is the
core of our work.
Right, and there's the rub: "but can be taken as such." We are sadly
becoming a kind of victim
culture where claiming victimhood empowers the claimant. Combine that
with the fact that there are
many people entering the workaday world with a degree who have gotten
participation trophies their
entire life, had helicopter parents ensuring that nothing troubling ever
entered their bubble, and
who went to universities with safe spaces (coloring books optional) that
insulated them from things
that might sound "harsh" or "mean", and now we have a potential to do
great harm.
Yes, we need to avoid going overboard. Agree 100%. How do we handle
cases that aren't simple and
obvious personal insults? We let them slide and wait. I'd say ignore the
comment as much as
possible. If the speaker meant it as an attack a subsequent statement
will be more simple and obvious,
and there will be a subsequent statement if the attack is ignored.
regards,
Dan.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/9/2019 6:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Hi Rich,
On 9/9/19 1:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now
commonly seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more
inclusivity. You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I
misunderstand you?
You misunderstand me. I do not object to trying to be more
inclusive,
but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined
constraints
on IETF contributions.
I am sorry if I was not clear. I am saying "we are choosing to do A
in order to get B" You are saying "I want B without A"
So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?
You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me
specific examples of things
that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as
less so?
I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not
sure what A is.
If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for
newcomers then great.
If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming
it "toxic" or "harsh" or
"hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.
regards,
Dan.
