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

[David <simplicialboy@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6801 bytes --]

I don't know what you mean that 'an attitude of social inclusion is of the 
utmost importance'.  In terms of priorities, it's certainly down in the 
double digits for me (and likely for the rest of you too, if you're being 
honest with yourself), not to say I don't find it important at all, just 
that I think 'utmost' is overegging the custard.  Also, I don't think that 
anything that Mike said could possibly be construed as him having an 
attitude of exclusion.  He shows up in a thread, gives his two cents, and 
then is put upon by people making demands that he speak in a certain way.  
I have to ask: On what authority do these people rely to make such 
demands?  If it's not on the grounds of authority, the burden is on them to 
persuade.

What happened to Mike is a clear-cut case of academic bullying.  People who 
can't clearly stick up for him and want to hem and haw and sit on the fence 
are absolute cowards, and the people condemning him outright are not living 
in the real world.  

Best,

David

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 8:36:55 PM UTC+1 anuyts wrote:

> 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 HomotopyTypeThe...@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/8d56b68f-2473-4f50-9d00-28cc58fbd8e7n%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9823 bytes --]