Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and r

+1

Thanks for this message, I think is the best way to express the situation amd 
why someone could read part of the discussion as lack of empathy, etc.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Ted Lemon 
<mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com>
Fecha: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016, 16:34
Para: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus(_at_)mozilla(_dot_)com>
CC: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, IETF Discussion Mailing 
List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and 
request for input

> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patrick McManus 
> <pmcmanus(_at_)mozilla(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Margaret Cullen 
> <margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up
>
>
>
>
> Me too. A little empathy could go a long way here (as in so many things). 
> That's a property of good leadership.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think it's really important to understand that a desire to get clarity does 
> not indicate a lack of empathy.   It's also important to understand that 
> empathy isn't something that some people deserve and others don't.   The fact 
> that person A has a worse problem than the problem person B has does not mean 
> that person B's problem doesn't matter.   And indeed even the act of trying to 
> make such a comparison is incredibly fraught.   As I said earlier, it's very 
> difficult to discuss this because it's difficult to avoid making it sound like 
> we have no empathy for person A when we talk about person B's problem.   But 
> it is not fair to ignore person B's problem just because person A's problem is 
> worse, particularly because what "worse" means is very subjective.
>
> For someone who has been discriminated against and marginalized their whole 
> life, a discussion of the practical effects of a particular example of that 
> marginalization, and how that particular example compares to the 
> less-pervasive marginalization that someone else is experiencing which happens 
> in a particular instance to be just as serious, may indeed feel non-empathic.
>
> However, I think that on a practical level the only problems that we, the 
> IETF, can address in this context are specific practical problems.   We, the 
> IETF, cannot directly address the pervasive discrimination and 
> marginalization, much as we wish to do so.   Nor need we--these problems are 
> being addressed on a social level, and many of us participate in trying to 
> address them on that level.   It is no accident that things have changed for 
> the better, nor is it the case that we are done.   The IETF is no more capable 
> of getting Singapore to change its laws with respect to same-sex relations 
> than we are capable of getting the U.S. to be less unpleasant to visitors from 
> disfavored countries, or for example to protect travelers unknowingly carrying 
> prescription asthma medication, Adderall or Ritalin into Japan.
>
> That is why I at least have chosen to focus on the practical.   It is not a 
> lack of empathy.