Re: [HoTT] M. Shulman, Towards Third-Generation HOTT, April 14, 21, and 28 - HoTTEST Distinguished Lecture Series

[Andreas Nuyts <andreasnuyts@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5876 bytes --]

Dear all,

Without implying my agreement with Davids entire mail, I do think the 
following argument:

    constantly changing, mind


is rather important. I hope we all agree that an attitude of social 
inclusion is of the utmost importance. However, it is undeniable that 
insights as to what it entails to be socially inclusive are rapidly 
evolving (and understandably so: the cultures that we all grew up in are 
the same ones that produce the phenomena of social exclusion that we 
should seek to avoid). Even ignoring for a moment the possibility that 
this evolution may give rise to legitimate differences of opinion (a 
possibility which should not be ignored!), it is completely unreasonable 
to expect every single person to be on the vanguard of this evolution in 
every single aspect of it at every single point in time.
Calling someone who exhibits exclusionary behaviour a bigot, suggests an 
inherent and permanent corruption of their personality. Most often, I 
think, we should instead explain exclusionary behaviour either from 
unawareness of some or all aspects of the problem, or from a lack of 
courage needed to rise up against the mechanisms of exclusion.

If a person in a position of power or privilege should exhibit 
exclusionary behaviour, then this is a problem that requires attention. 
Discarding the person altogether is a simple but also wasteful, 
preposterous and unjust solution. Moreover, I would rather see people 
with exclusionary ideas (such as probably all of us in at least some 
way) speak up and lay out their arguments so that these can be refuted 
in a serene discussion, than I would see them stay silent and act 
according to their ideas for perhaps an entire lifetime. In my view, 
installing a culture of fear and self-censorship is counterproductive.

That being said, I do think we all have the responsibility to adopt a 
proactive attitude in informing ourselves about phenomena of social 
in/exclusion (and other societal problems that we may have an impact 
on). In particular, we should be willing to learn when called out (and 
willing to explain when calling out) on our behaviour.

Best regards,
Andreas Nuyts

On 23.04.22 15:03, David wrote:
> I literally cannot find anything wrong or upsetting or offensive in 
> Mike's comments on the github.  He got dislike-bombed for talking 
> about a matter of style, and he got an avalanche of criticism for 
> disagreeing with the latest newly-minted dogma of inclusivity.  People 
> are in this very thread condemning him for his 'views'.  His views of 
> what? Writing style? Grammar?  By disagreeing with the (constantly 
> changing, mind) new dogma, he had to endure a struggle session, and 
> still, afterwards, he's being treated as a pariah and having his talks 
> cancelled?
>
> Mike is one of the most important people in the field (top 3 for 
> sure).  He's demonstrated his bona fides (mathematical and otherwise) 
> time and time again.  He's a good guy, and you guys have cast the most 
> outrageous aspersions against him, as if he were some kind of bigot.
>
> Come on.  Get real.
>
> David
>
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 1:01:12 PM UTC+1 escardo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>     Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation. But I find Josh's
>     argument below much more persuasive than mine above, and I agree
>     with every single word. Martin
>
>     On Friday, 15 April 2022 at 10:29:41 UTC+1 Josh Chen wrote:
>
>         I find the situation unfortunate and was also very much
>         looking forward to learning more from Mike,
>
>         But as someone who followed the events that Andrej has
>         described from the start, with sadness I support the decision
>         by the HoTTEST organizers to not hold the lectures immediately
>         thereafter under the auspices of a Distinguished series.
>
>         If nothing else, I feel it would have been premature that
>         soon, and would have worked against the goal of welcoming
>         people of all gender presentations and identities. I am not
>         myself trans and can thus easily afford to "tolerate" the
>         public declaration of positions that lead to worse societal
>         outcomes for them. But this is not the case for the
>         significant number of trans people in, and adjacent to, the
>         HoTT community, some of whom have to actively hide this part
>         of themselves on pain of e.g. family violence. We should think
>         about such things when considering using hot-button phrases
>         like "political correctness" and "cancel culture".
>
>         I certainly look forward to hearing about Mike's (and
>         Thorsten's and Ambrus's) ideas in another format or on another
>         occasion.
>
>         With respect and kind regards,
>         Josh
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/bfd91d1f-da88-4cbb-97ed-df868f6e7190n%40googlegroups.com 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/bfd91d1f-da88-4cbb-97ed-df868f6e7190n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeTheory+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/HomotopyTypeTheory/065d081e-b470-7f00-8090-a8cd15ed4592%40gmail.com.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8356 bytes --]