Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
Posted Feb 3, 2011 9:40 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2
In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
"Let me try once more to explain. I feel a little misunderstood, even though I feel like I've been clear here."
You've been clearer, and you've made it clear that you've missed the point made here
In your story, you are conflating the fact that Anne originally took offence, with the subsequent behaviour of Anne or others, complaining about that fact and and demanding that something be done about it.
I don't think any reasonable person is annoyed or offended by the former; only the latter when it is taken to excess (where 'excess' is obviously subjective).
By all means we should reassure Anne that she is welcome and safe the third of your suggestions seems best to me.
But what do we do about the people outside with pitchforks, who seem to be talking about the presenter's behaviour as if it were an actual physical assault? And who then turn on people who calmly express their concerns about that reaction, saying that those people are also causing people like Anne to feel "threatened, hurt and upset", and applying cheap ad hominem labels.
Please, do not conflate annoyance with the pitchfork mob, with annoyance at Anne for her original fragility.
Going off at a slightly different tangent, I'd observe that I don't want to live in a world where I am never challenged and made to feel uncomfortable either intellectually, religiously, emotionally or in other ways. That way lies boredom, complacency, fragility and intolerance.
We have words for people who have never really been challenged in any of those ways, and learned to take those challenges in their stride.
They include "child", "patient", and "fundamentalist".
to post comments)