Comments below. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM, John Sundman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > >> I'd encourage you to keep that in mind. Also, keep silklist discussions > on > >> silklist, please. > >> > >> Udhay > >> > > > > I have seen all too often that one can never assume goodwill. I will do > so > > -- since you request me to do it. > > > When I was relatively new to this list, I responded somewhat stridently to > a post that seemed to me insensitive if not downright hostile, ad hominem, > belligerent. > > Udhay and/or others reminded me of the “assume goodwill” rule of this list. > > As it turns out, I had mostly misunderstood the fellow who made the post > that I had found so objectionable. I don’t say that we’ve since become > good friends or anything like that, but in that instance I was about 84.343 > % in the wrong and he was about 67.987% in the right. > > Yes, the math can get a little tricky, but the main lesson that I took > away from it was that I was mostly in the wrong and that if I wanted to > stay on this list I should learn to abide by “assume goodwill”. > > Which, I’m still here, what what? > > jrs > > > If I may ask: was the other person non-white? I have been doing some research on how different races are perceived on the Internet. What I have found has been profoundly shocking to me. What I have generally found is that when there is a battle between a white person and a non-white person on the Internet, the non-white person is perceived to be "in the wrong" -- and this is irrespective of what the facts are. I wouldn't be surprised if the other person, thus far unnamed, was found "in the wrong" - IF that other person was non-white. White people, somehow, seem to have this advantage. And this is due to implicit biases, which happens to be a reasonably well studied area of psychology. - 007
