Sorry that you had to go through the grinder, Chris! The reply paragraph starting with "You attempt to assert authority..." is a standard boiler-plate paragraph that one can plug in in any situation to cut off any discussion. Often it's better to just ignore some people. Yes, if you have a lot of facts and documentation on hand, that can intimidate some people who simply have not done THEIR homework, and can be perceived, in some twisted way, to be a power conflict. So, unless it comes to be a legal issue, just ignore the ankle-biters. (white, trans, Global North)
Brave of you to be so transparent, and to lay it all out. Kathleen in this comment thread and your fourth anonymous assessor nailed it. Sadly, "do the work", and "It's not for me to hold your hand and guide you ..." have become hackneyed phrases used to shut down genuine discussion, abused by people with weak intellectual foundations.
Reminds me of many, many Twitter conversations that always devolve with people saying "do the work". I always took it seriously when I got that feedback. Because who knows? There are indeed moments when we miss something due to our biases, etc. Kudos to you for taking it seriously and checking yourself. That to me is the work... Not that my opinion goes far as a white woman from the Global North.
Facts, reason and analysis and substantive exchanges based on such are hard to maintain these days. When one leans only on good intentions, ignoring experience and unsupported narratives, it isn't long before the only thing left is personal attacks. Thanks for continuing to do that in your work that stands out in the area of climate policy analysis. Your inclusion of the opportunity for subjects you write about to respond to your analyses is how investigative analysis and policy dialogue should be done.
Based on a cursory reading, it looks like Rose S works for a company that sells services to facilitate these types of things. Reminds me of the old Upton Sinclair line: "It is hard to make a man understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it." The same, of course, is true for women.
I appreciate the effort you are making to consider and respond constructively to this concern that Rose raised.
I wonder if in her original comment to you was making the point that biodiversity credits are creating important good for historically marginalized communities at the sites they take place? Maybe that was the point she had raised that she didn’t hear you acknowledge, which then led to her perceiving that you were discounting her point, and she went from that phenomenon to the explanation that there was a gender- or racially-biased slight, which then led to the rest of the exchange.
I do think that enabling her to comment or posting her reply to the LinkedIn version of this post would be constructive.
Thanks for this comment Sara. Maybe you're right about the point that Rose S. intended to make. But that isn't what she actually wrote in any of our discussions on LinkedIn. My concern is that corporations will use biodiversity credits as a mechanism to continue destruction elsewhere - including in Indigenous Peoples' territories and affecting other historically marginalised communities.
As you may have seen, I left the following comment on Rose's LinkedIn post:
"Would it help if I posted this as a comment following the post on REDD-Monitor?
Alternatively, you could just open a Substack account in order to comment - it's free to do so."
She replied, "as of right now, I am able to comment reliably on my own posts. I will try to comment tomorrow on your Linked In post. I was able to do one or two today. The service is intermittent."
And, a little later, "I was able to post on your thread before I was cut off again. I will try again later."
Sorry that you had to go through the grinder, Chris! The reply paragraph starting with "You attempt to assert authority..." is a standard boiler-plate paragraph that one can plug in in any situation to cut off any discussion. Often it's better to just ignore some people. Yes, if you have a lot of facts and documentation on hand, that can intimidate some people who simply have not done THEIR homework, and can be perceived, in some twisted way, to be a power conflict. So, unless it comes to be a legal issue, just ignore the ankle-biters. (white, trans, Global North)
Brave of you to be so transparent, and to lay it all out. Kathleen in this comment thread and your fourth anonymous assessor nailed it. Sadly, "do the work", and "It's not for me to hold your hand and guide you ..." have become hackneyed phrases used to shut down genuine discussion, abused by people with weak intellectual foundations.
Reminds me of many, many Twitter conversations that always devolve with people saying "do the work". I always took it seriously when I got that feedback. Because who knows? There are indeed moments when we miss something due to our biases, etc. Kudos to you for taking it seriously and checking yourself. That to me is the work... Not that my opinion goes far as a white woman from the Global North.
Thanks Emily!
Ffs🙄
Facts, reason and analysis and substantive exchanges based on such are hard to maintain these days. When one leans only on good intentions, ignoring experience and unsupported narratives, it isn't long before the only thing left is personal attacks. Thanks for continuing to do that in your work that stands out in the area of climate policy analysis. Your inclusion of the opportunity for subjects you write about to respond to your analyses is how investigative analysis and policy dialogue should be done.
Based on a cursory reading, it looks like Rose S works for a company that sells services to facilitate these types of things. Reminds me of the old Upton Sinclair line: "It is hard to make a man understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it." The same, of course, is true for women.
I appreciate the effort you are making to consider and respond constructively to this concern that Rose raised.
I wonder if in her original comment to you was making the point that biodiversity credits are creating important good for historically marginalized communities at the sites they take place? Maybe that was the point she had raised that she didn’t hear you acknowledge, which then led to her perceiving that you were discounting her point, and she went from that phenomenon to the explanation that there was a gender- or racially-biased slight, which then led to the rest of the exchange.
I do think that enabling her to comment or posting her reply to the LinkedIn version of this post would be constructive.
Thanks for this comment Sara. Maybe you're right about the point that Rose S. intended to make. But that isn't what she actually wrote in any of our discussions on LinkedIn. My concern is that corporations will use biodiversity credits as a mechanism to continue destruction elsewhere - including in Indigenous Peoples' territories and affecting other historically marginalised communities.
As you may have seen, I left the following comment on Rose's LinkedIn post:
"Would it help if I posted this as a comment following the post on REDD-Monitor?
Alternatively, you could just open a Substack account in order to comment - it's free to do so."
She replied, "as of right now, I am able to comment reliably on my own posts. I will try to comment tomorrow on your Linked In post. I was able to do one or two today. The service is intermittent."
And, a little later, "I was able to post on your thread before I was cut off again. I will try again later."