- From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:04:04 +0100
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com>
- Cc: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, Inclusion and Diversity Community Group <public-idcg@w3.org>
On 25/08/2020 12:43, Tobie Langel wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:40 AM Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com > <mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com>> wrote: > > I have a concern with Marisa's proposed change. If we specifically say > we do not support violence against marginalised people it implies that > we do support it against non-marginalised people > > > Not really. It means that we recognize that marginalized communities are > the target of much more violence, proportionally, than > non-marginalized ones. > > Saying Black Lives Matter isn't saying that other lives don't matter. > It's saying that we need to do something about the fact that society, as > a whole, acts as if Black lives mattered less than other ones. > > So, much like saying "all lives matter" in this context is essentially > negating systemic racism, saying that we condemn violence against > everyone either is a complete platitude, specifically implying that > marginalized communities aren't subject to more violence than > non-marginalized ones, or even worse, is a dog whistle[1] suggesting the > protests are causing violence. I think this mischaracterises my concern. My concern is producing a statement that, by implication, condones violence done to a person from a marginalised community by another person from the same community. It also assumes that a person only belongs to a single marginalised community. I'm not objecting to the proposed edit, I'm just trying to explain why it makes me uncomfortable as a person who belongs to two communities recognised as being marginalised and/or under-represented (not, for the avoidance of doubt, as a member of the privileged community to which I also belong). > Given the context of the formal objection was specifically to ask us to > condemn violence related to the protests, I'm very concerned about > releasing a statement that could be equivocal. The person who raised the objection gave us two possible options that they felt would enable them to drop their objection, and the text ralph shared was one of those options. The choice centred on the adjective used, and the decision was made to use "unequivocally". > > Have we considered getting this statement reviewed by someone external > who understands the dynamics at play here? > We haven't, no. If we can find someone who understands the limitations we're working with, and who might be able to take a look in the next few days, it would provide some valuable insight though. Léonie. > --tobie > --- > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_(politics) > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_(politics)> -- Director @TetraLogical https://tetralogical.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2020 18:04:57 UTC