It’s the Dalnet vs. Efnet IRC split happening all over again right here on the #fediverse because too many #fediadmin / #mastoadmin flat out refuse to practice Assume Positive Intent.
@gme Unfortunately, that's not exactly a sustainable approach. Many bigots deliberately attack and overwhelm vulnerable folk by "just asking questions". Appearing to have good intent, putting a lot of work on the vulnerable person to explain themselves, only to move the goal posts and find more "questions".
It's an explicit technique used by bigots to take advantage of just this approach...
@adaAssume Positive Intent doesn’t mean that you should ignore harmful behaviors or actions. If someone consistently acts in a way that is harmful or disrespectful, it’s important to address that behavior directly, even if you’re assuming positive intent. Assuming positive intent is about giving people the benefit of the doubt, not about allowing harmful behavior to continue unchecked.
If someone is being disrespectful, that behavior has to be addressed first, before anything else.
@gme What I'm getting at though is that there are bigots out there that specifically work around that. They aren't openly disrespectful (to start with). They are simply "asking questions" and pushing a huge workload on to vulnerable folk to validate their rights to exist on their own terms. And then when the queer person has done that, they either shift goal posts or finally unleash the bigotry that they've been keeping in check.
Speaking as a trans person, I literally cannot count the amount of times I have done this exact dance with someone. Someone who appears to be open to genuine conversation, who gets a huge amount of emotional work from me, only to eventually make it clear that they were always bad faith.
I've assumed good intent most of my life, and though it pays off sometimes, all to often, it comes at a high cost. I've learned the hard way that "assume good intent" works when you're trying to defuse an argument about a topic that doesn't directly impact the lives of anyone involved in the discussion, but when it involves the basic rights of vulnerable folk, assuming that everyone is acting in good faith can get people hurt. Our caution is earned the hard way :\
@Ada@ada Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand and deeply sympathize with your experiences. I can see how my “Assume Positive Intent” message may come off as dismissive of the very real and painful experiences you and others in the trans community have faced.
What I meant was to encourage open-mindedness and understanding, not to trivialize or overlook the actions of those who act in bad faith. I understand how that can be misinterpreted and potentially lead to harm. I agree that it’s vital to be cautious and discerning, particularly in discussions about the basic rights of vulnerable people. Your caution, as you’ve said, is earned the hard way, and I respect that.
I’m sorry if my post seemed insensitive. I appreciate your feedback and I’ll strive to consider the complexities of these issues more fully in the future.
Add comment