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

[Josh Chen <jaycech3n@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11212 bytes --]


> I don't understand why you're bringing up articles about hate crimes.
> The reason why you're angry...

I'm afraid I have to break my previous promise in order to correct the 
record: in case there is any doubt, I am not angry with Mike, indeed I look 
forward to his upcoming talk.

I also do not appreciate the arrogance of an online anonymous who might not 
even be a part of this community, and who is clearly not thinking 
level-headedly enough to read and comprehend my previous sentences---much 
less the content of this thread---to presume to call others here absolute 
cowards, or to tell me what I am feeling.

In case it's not clear and since this is on the public record, let me 
reiterate for the final time my point, almost verbatim from my last 
message: "drawing the analogy between trans/non-binary people and 
"abnormalities" is exactly the kind of thing that reinforces the prejudice 
that gets them harassed, assaulted, and killed." I am simply pointing out 
that there are real people *in our community* who have an objectively worse 
time in society because of the way they were born, and we should be mindful 
that we do not perpetuate the stigma of "abnormality" that results in this.

With your great free speech comes great responsibility, which is 
unfortunately not a lesson learned by many "free speech absolutists".
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:25:21 PM UTC+1 David wrote:

> After seeing what you did here did to Mike, no chance.  When you guys 
> decide to stop retaliating against people for having a difference of 
> opinion, I will be happy to unmask myself.  
>
> I don't understand why you're bringing up articles about hate crimes.  
> We're talking about an objection to using a plural (or arguably singular 
> indefinite) pronoun for a definite subject.  It sounds weird.  It's 
> confusing to read.  Mike's talk was cancelled over this.  He didn't commit, 
> encourage, support, or have anything positive to say about hate crimes.  
> Moreover, I know that he doesn't do any of the above, and you do too.  The 
> reason why you're angry is because Mike decided not to immediately bow to 
> your demands about how to speak.  It reminds me very much of the current 
> situation in Russia, where you can be sanctioned for using particular 
> language (special mathematical operation?).  
>
> You should really check your authoritarian impulses and calm down.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:23:56 PM UTC+1 Josh Chen wrote:
>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> It would be quite nice for those of us who are using our real, full 
>> names, and largely being civil in sharing our opinions, to know which of 
>> the multiple Davids in this area we are addressing when we have to respond 
>> to factual inaccuracies and charges of cowardice, please? I cannot deduce 
>> this from your anonymous email address.
>>
>> > People are in this very thread condemning him for his 'views'...you 
>> guys have cast the most outrageous aspersions against him, as if he were 
>> some kind of bigot.
>>
>> You might be mixing up the comments here and those on the GitHub PR. I 
>> don't see anyone here (myself included) condemning Mike or calling him a 
>> bigot, even though his choice of words in the PR was very regrettable in 
>> drawing the analogy between trans/non-binary people and "abnormalities", 
>> which is exactly the kind of thing that reinforces the prejudice that gets 
>> queer people harassed, assaulted, and killed (
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/lgbt-crime-rights-idUSL8N2804FQ, 
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-zealand-lgbt-health-idUSKBN1W9057, 
>>
>> https://vawnet.org/sc/serving-trans-and-non-binary-survivors-domestic-and-sexual-violence/violence-against-trans-and; 
>> I could go on).
>>
>> This will also be my last response on this thread, as I don't believe 
>> online debate with an anonymous, antagonistic interlocutor is productive.
>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:36:13 AM UTC+1 David wrote:
>>
>>> 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/f3b09b31-d4b3-4a4f-8728-dec347c2e574n%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 15741 bytes --]