In reply to Brev:
> I work in academia. I am a woman, a non-native English speaker, and the first in my immediate family to go to university.
> However, 80+ posts in, this thread appears to have descended into a (not particularly high quality) debate between a handful of people that's often only loosely related to the opening post. Same as on so many threads. It's not a very welcoming space, and usually means I close a thread without contributing anything, because what's the point once it's become little more than a slanging match?
> I know the purpose of a forum is to debate, and I have no desire to silence anyone, but perhaps through talking a bit less and (as the Nature op-ed says) listening a bit more, you might find that a greater variety of voices will find the space to make themselves heard.
Thank you. I've quoted you in full because your post speaks to intended purpose of this (Nature editorial) and other forum posts over the last few days. Rightly or wrongly, I thought it needed a confrontational approach to get us to this point where we could, as you say, start listening and make space for a wider range of voices.
I was prompted by a sense of shame at the response to Nathalie Berry's News piece on anti-racism from some forum members. This is the UK climbing community's showcase to the world.
Someone said above that this is just white people arguing about race and therefore has no legitimacy. But in this forum, that's necessary, because there are too few black people here to expect them to have that discussion with all of us. If you don't believe me about that, then read this book: Why I Am No Longer Talking to White People About Race" by black British journalist Reni Eddo-Lodge.
More optimistically, in the last couple of days, I've noticed there have been some good threads - e.g the rocktalk one on renaming climbs with offensive names; another one on Off Belay about racism - where people are exploring the ideas, listening to each other and learning from each other. And there seem to be more women posting on those threads. So maybe the tide has turned a little.
I apologize if I have offended people by coming in hard against an individual here on UKC, whose arguments and style I felt were symptomatic of the issues Moondancer describes in her post. We've heard multiple testimonies above and on other threads of people feeling silenced or intimidated.
To be clear, I have no intent to silence 'freedom of speech' - only to challenge that individual - and perhaps others looking on - to consider what it feels like to be involved in that kind of discussion. That insult-trading strategy is over. I don't know if was the right thing to do or whether it achieved anything, but I take responsibility for it. I've been accused of hypocrisy - of exhibiting the kind of bullying argumentative behavior I've been condemning. Yes, but I directed it at the most self-confident white male on this forum. It made no impact on him, he's fine.
I would like for a 20 year old new climber (of any ethnicity or gender) studying social work at university to be able to contribute here to topics like gender and race without being dismissed as 'woke', or laughed at for not being a physicist or an engineer. I think such a person would add perspectives we are missing and certainly have more critical insight into social policy than someone who has never studied it or taught it. Is that really too much to ask for us to show a little restraint so that we get to hear that voice too?
Perhaps we can talk elsewhere about the 'backfire effect'. It might help us understand why these can be difficult conversations.
In the meantime, yes, Moondancer, this editorial was about racism in science, chosen because there are a lot of scientists here and I wondered what the UKC science community thought of 'Nature's' declaration, but as is the way of such things, we've all got diverted on the way
Post edited at 11:41