We need to have a serious talk about the difference between being ‘offended’ and being ‘harmed’. a conversation about forests and trees: 1/x

The reason I use the analogy of forests and trees is that singular actions, without an overall context, strategy, or commitment can very easily feel performative and patronizing, and often dismisses the very real struggles and frustrations of those who are harmed. 2/x

To be clear: this is not a lecture on race and anti-racism. There are far, far, FAR better sources of fact on that, and I suggest, if that’s what you were here for, you find them instead. 3/x

So let’s talk about a tree: if you were to ask me if I am *offended* by the terms master/slave I would honestly say no. I’m not offended, I’ve dealt with so much worse. BUT if you ask me if I’m *harmed* by the terms, my answer is clearly YES. 4/x

I’m harmed by the rampant disregard of voices that should be heard and respected in our ‘egalitarian’ little community. I’m not offended by the terms, I’m offended that I even have to fight about them. 5/x

That disregard is repeated, daily, in so many big and small ways, for so many people of diverse backgrounds that it is exhausting. It feels like it consumes every moment of our careers, preventing us from moving forward-THAT is harm. 6/x

The refusal to even consider the change is a stark reminder of the power that one group has over all others, and it is decidedly slanted against color and gender. That is harmful, whether or not I am personally ‘offended’. 7/x

Let’s look at another tree. I know the history of ‘white hats’ and ‘black hats’. It was a simple distinction that worked on black and white movies and television that was otherwise awash in shades of gray. We get it. Black hats are cool, like ninjas. I’m not offended. BUT: 8/x

Black people have struggled for lifetimes with negative imagery associated with blackness. The studies are clear that children see goodness and beauty in whiteness, ugliness and bad in black. MY children have to deal with this just like our parents did before us. That is harm. 9/

It may be fine for white folks to cloak themselves in the imagery of black: black hats are enigma, sinister, counterculture, cool. But Black folks don’t need your help being associated with criminality. It’s not cool. For us. We don’t own that image. 10/x

My hoodies never leave the house. There IS harm. Never dismiss that. 11/x

Now take a step back from those trees and look at the forest: in the grand scheme of InfoSec does the name of the conference matter that much? If it were the only tree, yes, for the reasons above and so many more. 12/x

But in the forest, there needs to be a broader context. Bigger problems at Black Hat? Cost is prohibitive for a lot of minorities. There is no consideration for working families (at that price). The speaker lineup and the sponsors are vanilla shades of peach, etc. 13/x

Address THAT.

Changing the name without addressing these larger forest issues IS performative, even as we acknowledge that some people are in fact harmed by the name. It feels like issue avoidance. 14/x

I’m glad people are actively or thinking of giving up their coveted roles in Black Hat. That’s great. But. But. Who is being served by this action? What’s the objective? Who benefits? How? That’s the conversation we have to have. 15/x

Until we do, we’ll forever be talking about who is offended, rather than who is harmed. /end