My view on @James Steijger đ¸ âs GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about âthank youâŚsorryâŚwe need to be extra mindfulâŚâ.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, âon behalf of GWWCâ and says âour missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not lessâ
Iâm definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other peopleâs feelingsabout a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. Thatâs not my objective.
Your comment was not taken âin the spirit that it was intendedâ for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of Jamesâ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps thatâs because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication styleâliteral and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEAâs fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I donât know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is âKeep Calm and EA onâ
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate âbecause they shouldâ about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re âeither they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,â good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isnât skilled at âthe spin.â The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.
Hi @Spencer R. Ericson ,
My view on @James Steijger đ¸ âs GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about âthank youâŚsorryâŚwe need to be extra mindfulâŚâ.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, âon behalf of GWWCâ and says âour missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not lessâ
Iâm definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other peopleâs feelings about a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. Thatâs not my objective.
Your comment was not taken âin the spirit that it was intendedâ for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of Jamesâ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps thatâs because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication styleâliteral and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEAâs fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I donât know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is âKeep Calm and EA onâ
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate âbecause they shouldâ about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
-The Dub-meister
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re âeither they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,â good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isnât skilled at âthe spin.â The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.