-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
safety v comfort #290
safety v comfort #290
Conversation
revise safety v comfort, fixes #263
This still reads a little weird to me - notably, the previous bullets are all situations (as the list is introduced), but the last bullet is structured as an independent statement. In keeping with @jspellman's original report - might it make sense to combine this into the previous bullet, since it's not really a major standalone point? (It's still reading somewhat like "cis white men need protection from these reverse-isms.") E.g. the last bullet could read:
|
@cwilso that would work for me. We have been trying to get this right for years. |
Likewise, I don't think this bullet resolves the issue:
It isn't clear at all how not tolerating reverse-isms relates to prioritizing safety over comfort. Regarding this proposed wording:
I like the direction of the "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions" part, though I think it still needs slightly more explanation. In #233 the following wording was suggested, though apparently it went unnoticed:
But the part about not tolerating reverse-isms still does not make sense to me. For example, presumably "reverse racism" would mean prejudice against whites. So "we will not tolerate reverse racism" would mean "we will not tolerate prejudice against whites". It isn't at all clear how that is intended to relate to the concept of prioritizing safety over comfort. As previously suggested in #233 another potential wording might be:
|
See also discussion of this issue in our last teleconference .
This bullet is supposed to be an example of a safety-versus-comfort issue. But as a new reader, it is not at all clear what safety issue is involved in criticism of oppressive behavior, nor is it clear what comfort issue is involved. @tzviya previously provided some context for this section in general, which I thought was very helpful, but it has not (yet) been incorporated into the document. I propose changing the above bullet to something like this, to make clear what safety and comfort issues are involved:
Here is one possible re-wording I propose:
|
chang bullet to "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. Similarly, we will not accept claims of "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia". |
revise safety v comfort, fixes #263
Preview | Diff