What Joan said. On 05 Jun 2014, at 12:23 , Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming >> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by >> laws will solve that you're wrong. > > CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is > acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which, > when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye > exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the > exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless. > >> However only politeness and respect of >> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though >> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of >> the other made as a rule, a conduct. > > There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel > strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the > *only* word used. > >> Empathy is too emotionally charged and > > But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to > do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical > approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness > and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just > politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy. > >> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the >> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about >> having people at the same level. > > I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a > reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human > interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making > public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding > of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to > have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour. > >> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world" >> from Huxkley.I > > I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy > all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug > people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance > of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is > critical to supportive discussion. > > This paper also summarise it: >> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all > > From that same article: > > "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those > who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s > right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of > fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action." > > "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships. > Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature > utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his > children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human; > it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy > betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide." > > Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide > their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy > lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample > valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical. > Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in > code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are > not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to > interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings. > If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of > that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise, > careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical. > >> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having >> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them. > > I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel > strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC, > please propose some text. > > -- > Joan Touzet | [email protected] | wohali everywhere else
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
