From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: Being excellent to one another Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:07:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20170321120718.GA13334@jocasta.intra> References: <20170318110952.xhhobwl5ep4mlbpj@abyayala> <878to27laf.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87inn499gk.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20170319195707.175eb056@khaalida> <20170320063619.GA20517@jocasta.intra> <87efxs7zo2.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20170320151743.GA26573@jocasta.intra> <87ziggj6di.fsf@gnu.org> <20170320171220.GA27660@jocasta.intra> <87pohbdm9m.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45947) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqIZU-00070f-Ne for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:07:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cqIZT-00067v-Bk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:07:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pohbdm9m.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Sassmannshausen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:14:45AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: =20 I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that neither side intends malice: - John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking - myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals = by virtue of simple miscommunication. =20 John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) = in good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated. =20 An apology and clarification would resolve that matter. =20 By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you would be willing to respect other people's identities. =20 Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as insulting? =20 It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device ??? just acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been sufficient. The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly ridiculed those whom you were acceding to. Alright. I see you have a point, albeit stretched. By way of explanation: You are right that I deliberately contrived an extreme and rediculous hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point; or as you put it - a hyberbole. I DID think about this when I wrote it and I made it absurdly rediculous precisely *because* I thought doing so would avoid anyone thinking that I w= as trying to mock transvestites: Had I said "... a person that looks clearly like a bloke ..." then that would have been potentially hurtful to=20 someone reading my mail and trying unsuccessfully to look effeminate. But = by=20 making the scenario extreme and rediculous I considered that this danger wo= uld=20 be eliminated - a person trying to look effeminate, would obviously not have "a big black wiry beard" - she would be taking hormones - or at the very least - have shaved. However I realise now that the 6'4" attribute was not so carefully thought out. That person would have no control over her heigh= t. =20 For this reason it is conceivable that a reader might have thought I was=20 mocking that hypothetical person. I should have chosen an attribute which = the person could change. I apologise for not thinking carefully enough about that email before sending it. Regarding your other comments, for the avoidance of doubt: * I have no interest in the sex/race/body-size etc of any Guix contributor. * I do not begrudge anyone their right to self-identify with whatever genre= =20 pleases the individual concerned. * I know how it hurts when others deny me the right to voice an opinion so= =20 I will not deny them that same right. Thank you all for listening. J' --=20 Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3=20 fingerprint =3D 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAljRF3YACgkQimdxnC3oJ7NSzACfZIxrjuzCm6mzKxEcB5BP31zE Dc4An28rJRIgSaDIEL7ZhLIf2m0Y/ovU =G+O5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--