[LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

From: Sven Dowideit <SvenDowideit>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:27:15 +1000

I'd like to start by saying - the text of the policy might have had a
bug, but imo re-stating the anti-harrassment policy in several forms
feels like a useful tool - given the repeated incidents that we have all
read about.

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 09:54 +1100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 07:56 +1000, Sven Dowideit wrote:
> All this is true. But has absolutely nothing to do with the language or
> imagery used in Mark's keynote, and the resulting discussion.
>
> That the policy was interpreted as relevant to Mark's keynote is, in the
> opinion of many, a bug in the policy. One which makes it clear that we
> need *guidelines* accompanied by common sense, such as LCA always used
> to have, and not a policy which attempts to be so comprehensive that it
> can be followed 'by the letter'.

Ish - you might have noticed from the responses that this discussion
itself has alienated some people - thus suggesting that its not as
simplistic as you're advocating.

the key point is, 'in the opinion of many' is _not_ tolerance of the
needs of 'the few' - and instead appears to make the situation worse.

we, the many are being asked by the few to support them, and personally,
I say yes.

>
> Your message, with its emphasised "I _thought_...", could be interpreted
> as implying that those who are objecting to the 'bug' in the policy are
> inherently *against* the goals that you state. You could not be further
> from the truth, and I find it to be a highly disingenuous implication.

no, sorry, I'm not commenting on the 'bug in the text of the policy'.

I am however commenting both on the opinion that we don't need a
redundant policy, and on the general tone of this discussion (and the
witchcraft claims in specific).

>
> It's almost as if we're being accused of witchcraft, and any words we
> say in our own defence are being twisted and taken as further proof of
> our guilt.
>
> Welcome to New Salem.

surely this kind of derisive intolerance of other's points of view is an
example of what we're trying to reduce - yes we're human, but you keep
using dismissive language to denigrate other peoples feelings.

clearly not that tolerant of your pov.
Sven
Received on Tue Feb 01 2011 - 09:27:15 GMT