Update Discourse Without Drama section based on kline's input

1 files changed, 36 insertions, 28 deletions

diff --git a/_posts/2018-08-15-the-perl-conference-in-glasgow.adoc b/_posts/2018-08-15-the-perl-conference-in-glasgow.adoc
index bdc256e..6118d50 100644
--- a/_posts/2018-08-15-the-perl-conference-in-glasgow.adoc
+++ b/_posts/2018-08-15-the-perl-conference-in-glasgow.adoc
@@ -29,14 +29,19 @@ Organiser’s Forum 2018].
 == Discourse Without Drama
 
 This was the first talk, and the only talk available at this timeslot. I am
-personally very much against the diversity ideology footnote:[I am not against
-the concept of diversity, I wholly support the idea of equal opportunities.
-What I do not accept is the idea of equal outcome, or forced diversity based on
-physical traits. This is what I refer to with "the diversity ideology", as this
-is what it has become in recent times.], and must admit I am skeptical of such
-presentations from the get-go. Nonetheless, I did stay until the end and tried
-to give it a fair shot.  However, I cannot sit idle while she tries to force
-her ideology on this community I care very deeply about.
+personally very much against the diversity ideology, and must admit I am
+skeptical of such presentations from the get-go. Nonetheless, I did stay until
+the end and tried to give it a fair shot.  However, I cannot sit idle while she
+tries to force her ideology on this community I care very deeply about.
+
+[NOTE]
+====
+I am not against the concept of diversity, I wholly support the idea of equal
+opportunities. What I do not accept is the idea of equal outcome, or forced
+diversity based on physical traits. This is what I refer to with "the diversity
+ideology". I also don't think anyone has a right not to be offended, as this is
+impossible to achieve in the real world.
+====
 
 One of the things that stood out to me is that the speaker tells us not to use
 logical fallacies to condemn her ideology. This on itself I can easily agree
@@ -45,28 +50,31 @@ fallacies to promote her ideology. Most notably, she pointed out the
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum[_argumentum ad populum_].
 This basically means that just because a lot of people do or say something,
 doesn't make it right. And this applies to the idea that we need to push the
-diversity ideology in the Perl community as well.
+diversity ideology in the Perl community as well. Try to bring facts and
+statistics to show that this ideology will actually improve the community in
+the long term. I've personally not seen any community improve with increasingly
+harsh punishments for increasingly minor offenses.
 
 Another thing which slightly bothered me is the useless spin into radical
-feminist ideology, which has no place on the Perl conference. We're not at a
-political rally here, we're at a Perl conference. Surely, things can (and will)
-get political from time to time, but the way the presenter forces us into
-talking about her ideology seems unfit for this event.
-
-Next, the speaker raises the point that people should *not* grow a thicker
-skin. Instead, people should get softer hearts. While I can get behind the
-latter part, I disagree with the former. Different people have different ideas
-of what counts as offensive, which is part of why it's impossible to guarantee
-a "safe space" where nobody will ever be offended. If everybody can just be
-offended at anything and have the other party suffer repurcussions for it, it's
-just a clear invitation to abuse by the perpetually offended.
-
-The speaker was also very defensive about being called a "social justice
-warrior", and informed the crowd that if she were to be called one, she'd
-gladly take up a sword. This gives off a feeling that the presenter isn't
-interested in civil discourse to come to an agreement together with everyone.
-Instead, she'd rather strike down any and all who don't completely accept her
-ideology.
+feminist ideology, which to me seems very off-topic for a Perl conference.
+We're not at a political rally, and these kinds of remarks have been very
+divisive in all sorts of other environments already. I'd rather not bring this
+kind of behaviour to a community which I have loved for being so incredibly
+friendly without needing special rules and regulations for it.
+
+Next, a point is raised that people should *not* grow a thicker skin. Instead,
+people should get softer hearts. While I can get behind the latter part, I
+have to disagree with the former. Reality shows that communications don't
+always go perfectly. This is even more true in a community that exists mostly
+in the digital space. Context is often lost here, and that can lead to
+situations where someone may feel attacked even if this was not the intention
+at all. I can safely say I've been in many situations where my comments were
+perceived as an attack when they were not ment to be.
+
+People need to be able to handle some criticism, and sometimes you'll just have
+to assume good faith from the other party. Telling people they should never
+have to consider context and have a right not to be offended fosters an
+environment in which people will be afraid to give genuine, valid feedback.
 
 She seemed very much in favour of an overly broad code of conduct as well, of
 which I am also a strong opponent. There are various articles online, such as