On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 14:33, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I would ask that this goes both ways... I think in order to get buy-in > from everyone, instead of those who may not agree with some premise, > we don't need to get buy-in from everyone. thank God. because it would never happen. all we need is a critical mass in order to be able to get work done. and in that respect, the positive responses on this thread have given me some hope > our reaction should not be "you are wrong; you just can't see it. So STFU." > Instead, help educate them that there actually is a problem. > the problem with this, Jim -- and the reason you (and you in particular) got a "no." from me earlier -- is that it never ends. the requests to educate and to convince and to prove. at some point, you reach the point of diminishing returns again, wary of repeating myself here, but Ross mentioned patience. I have been patiently trying to get people at this organization to give a shit about basic stuff like "hey maybe we shouldn't be pushing away women" for, what, the best part of a decade now the same old arguments pop up over and over again. (ironically, the people who raise those points believe they are novel). at some point, you have to be able to say "you are wrong" and just continue trying to do productive work if you don't do that, your community can essentially be held hostage by anyone with the determination to halt progress. something I am sure you have seen in other areas of the work we do here this is one of the reasons I have a good feeling about a dedicated D&I initiative. because if people don't believe in the work we want to do, they can just unsubscribe from the list. it's as simple as that and if they do believe in it, in principle, but lack background knowledge, it is their responsibility to go away and educate themselves. it is unfair to put that responsibility on people who are already marginalized > The only way we can enact change is to convince those "on the fence" > that there are problems and that these specific actions will fix them. > false. we do not need to convince those people. they can just get out of the way and let us do the work. requiring the explicit approval of everyone before work is done is pretty much the antithesis of how we approach any other problem in this organization > We are many things, good and bad. We should not be hypocrites. After > all, isn't that the core problem we are discussing: claiming to be > all about community and then disenfranchising huge swatches of people? > you are doing the same thing Wade was doing. appropriating the language that marginalized people use you hold the power here, Jim. and your position is *not* the unpopular one. it is the default one. it is the same position I have been rebuffed with time and time again. thread after thread. year after year you are not being "disenfranchised" or "marginalized" because a couple of women have said that they don't want to discuss this with you any more. to equate that with the treatment that women get at this organization is absurd (and offensive -- but that's another matter) PS: Ignoring the other numerous issues w/ the Roman Catholic church, > one thing that really bothered me immensely was the removal > of the Devil's Advocate role in the canonization of sainthood. > Uncomfortable and inconvenient questions sometimes need to be > asked, if only to ensure full and total transparency. I think > that applies in lots and lots of situations. > the Devil does not need an advocate. like I already said. your position is the default one. your concerns are not novel. they are mundane they are so commonplace and so repetitive for people like me that maybe it doesn't surprise some readers there are literally wikis set up where people document and categorize them
