Hi all!
Since the can of worms has been opened, thanks Enrico and all hail
Pandora, I hope I do not offend by reading this thread and the
aforementioned Code. I will add my two copper pieces and hope I am
being constructive.
I generally agree with the spirit and particulars of this discussion.
I do not know if the changes to the Code have been made, but I noticed
the part titled "What does that mean for me?". So now I list my
grievances {-:
- I always find it somewhat funny that "intolerance will not be
tolerated". Now, don't get me wrong, I understand the intention, and
sympathise with it, but it still gives me a bit of cognitive
dissonance, and feel it can be improved on. I make no concrete
suggestions, as this is a complex topic, and my ideas on it are
half-formed at best. Still, if the intention is to foster tolerance,
might it not be more congruent to show some? That does not mean
ignoring a problem, a situation that is bound to turn into one, or one
that may leave some participants feeling secretly offended. Maybe
being proactive about it without being thin-skinned is a way resolve
these situations without increasing alienation. Thoughts on this?
- Coming back to the can of worms. I am personally off-put by the
conflation of sex and violence in point 2 of the list. I am not saying
that sex or sexual imagery belongs in the conference or that it
doesn't. That is a whole 'nother can of worms. I am merely saying I do
not like sex equated or shoved in the same box as violence. Moreover,
I think it betrays the mindset of those who put it there.
I feel so strongly about this that I would much prefer the obvious
inefficiency of having two points which vary in that one word!
- I feel the question of sexual imagery is related to the point about
sexist jokes. I am definitely against sexist jokes, ie, jokes which
demean any kind of sexuality or gender identity. What I mean is, it
seems to me that some people consider the mere appearance of sex in
some contexts as sexism. Here I disagree and see this as a clear-cut
example of sex-negativity. Interestingly, it is those cultures which
are sex-negative or mixed (sex-negative for children, but sex-positive
for adults) that have an issue with mixing sex and childhood, not that
I consider those 12 and older to be children, necessarily.
- Finally, why is it that sex and violence are deemed inappropriate
especially in visual form? Is talking about them, when not in a
discriminatory or abusive fashion, perfectly alright? (I must again
insist that I do not like to conflate the two, but that is already
done in the Code, and their treatment seems to be symmetric.)
Cheers!, and sorry for being a bit late on this.
On 31 March 2015 at 13:10, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I missed a "by" in my draft. Can someone add it please?
>
> Richard
>
> Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
>
--
_______________________________________
Que las deidades del loto
iluminen tu alma multicolor!
Jergas
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
