On 17/12/14 17:38, Mike Hoye wrote: > On 2014-12-17 6:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: >> Sheeri said something very interesting the other day. She suggested that >> people wanting not to be exposed to views they disagree with were >> demanding a form of privilege. > > There's no "demand" here, and to put it in those terms is unproductive. > This is a request, made with the aim of facilitating discussions and > fostering relationships without detracting from Mozilla's mission.
To be clear: I was quoting her, and I wasn't saying that your proposal is "demanding". > Your argument would likely be true if we lived in a world without > deep-seated, longstanding structural inequalities, but that's not where > we are. Power and privilege inequities aligned along political, racial > and religious lines are real, and felt intensely by people who care > intensely about those inequities. Many of whom are, unsurprisingly, > Mozillians, who feel hurt - and I don't mean "offended", I mean > "demeaned" - when discussions cross those lines. I think perhaps a discussion of the issues with this worldview would take us somewhat off-topic (!), so I'll refrain. > Right, and my position is that we are collectively _much worse off_ as a > community for these invitations, and the conversations they'd spur, > being rare. An environment where there aren't any rules but for a bunch > of unspoken reasons nobody chooses to raise their voice is not in any > practical sense better than one where the rules say you can't. So let's > try some guidelines for how to make raising our voices something > constructive, that works and if we're a bit lucky, scales. Well... OK. :-) I'm with you on the principle. But still hazy about the practice. Help me with an example: what kind of warning/disclaimer/sentence would have been the sort of thing these guidelines would encourage at the top of that particular blog post? Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
