Something else the letters stand for
Everyone who reads The Legal Genealogist on a regular basis knows what DNA stands for.
It’s deoxyribonucleic acid. One of two types of molecules that encode genetic information.1
But from now on, around here and everywhere else on the internet where this blog has a presence, those letters are going to stand for something else.
Do.
Not.
Argue.
Oh, I know that the word “argue” has some great synonyms.
To assert, to maintain, to explain, to justify, to demonstrate.2
But it has other synonyms as well.
To dispute, to contend, to fight, to bicker, to quarrel.3
When it’s the former, it can be the basis for bringing people together. Words are meant to convince, to persuade.
When it’s the latter, it generally does nothing but tear people apart. Words are meant to attack, to hurt.
And our genealogical community has been hurting, way too much, with way too many people going way too far over the top with that second set of synonyms over the issue of law enforcement access to genealogical databases.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with staking out a strong position that (a) law enforcement should have unlimited access to genealogical databases or (b) law enforcement should have only limited access to genealogical databases or (c) law enforcement should have no access to genealogical databases.
There is everything wrong with slamming those who want law enforcement access to genealogical information as only being in it for the money or for the headlines. There is everything wrong with saying those who want controlled or no access have something to hide or don’t care about crime victims.
Disagreeing — even strongly — on the merits of an issue should never ever devolve into personal attacks on the people who have taken those stands.
We can, we will, we must resolve the serious questions that we all face in integrating DNA into our genealogical research in a manner that’s not just legal, but that’s also moral and ethical.
But we have to stop tearing each other apart on a personal level as we do so. “Your position isn’t the same as mine” ought not to be the precursor to “You’re a bad person for having that position.”
In short, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
There are no good guys or bad guys in this situation. There are just folks who see things differently. But we began our consideration of this issue as members of a community. Often as friends. Whenever and however it’s resolved, we need to end up as members of a community and as friends.
Let’s stick to the merits of the issue. And stop with the personal attacks.
Do.
Not.
Argue.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “That other DNA,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 26 May 2019).
SOURCES
- See William C. Shiel, Jr., “Medical Definition of DNA,” MedicineNet.com (https://www.medicinenet.com/ : accessed 25 May 2019). ↩
- Thesaurus.com (https://www.thesaurus.com/ : accessed 25 May 2019), “argue.” ↩
- Ibid. ↩
I’ve never posted a comment on any blog before. You’re words are beautiful and apply to so much more than DNA. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind words. Let’s all have a good — friendly! — day.
Thanks, Judy. Hope we can save our ability to learn from other researchers without anger and incivility.
I completely agree, Judy, but I am distressed by the lack of balance. What seems to be overlooked is that the whole issue applies to law enforcement in all testing companies. I am quite certain that all the databases have been used by LE, whether surreptitiously or not and without regard for ethical issues. This ongoing discussion damages two companies – FTDNA and Gedmatch — while making the others seem free of the same exposure. That is not fair. Anyone can submit a sample to any company. It may not be ethical, but I’ve seen no laws to prevent it.
I think those two have been singled out because they have chosen to make decisions for their customers/users without telling them in advance or giving them a choice on what uses of data they consent to. But the issue is absolutely broader, and is another example of technology running so much faster than the law. In an ordinary case, police use of data would be reviewed — and checked, if it needs to be checked — in the court process. Here however there’s a Catch-22: the defendant is the only one with a right to be heard in a criminal case, and he/she doesn’t have the right to raise the privacy rights of any third party. So I’m not even sure this can be heard without a devastating civil lawsuit or regulatory action (think EU GDPR).
Unfortunately, social media has made it too easy to attack others from the comparative safety of the keyboard. I call it “keyboard courage.” If an individual is indulging in personal attacks on social media, saying things they would never say to another individual in person, then perhaps they need think before they write.
Thinking first! What a novel idea… 🙂
Thank you Judy. As usual, your words are coming from a place of logic and fairness. I think that I left the current debate before it started getting personal. As I stated elsewhere, I welcome the opportunity to hear/read both sides. I know that there is much about the field of genetic genealogy that I don’t know, so I want to find out as much as possible about the opinions of both sides. But no, it does not have get personal.
It is such a pleasure to hear a voice of reason. Thank you for your reasonable post.
Amen
Thanks Judy. We as Family Historians of all levels of education need to band together and not tear each other apart. People are not accountable when they are hiding behind the keyboard. Thanks for the message.
I so agree: “In short, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
There are no good guys or bad guys in this situation. There are just folks who see things differently. “
Thank you. Maybe Debate Club should be a required high school activity. Learn how to present your points without ad hominem attacks.
If a person doesn’t want to participate, remove your account from every place you have it. Privacy is an out of date belief. There is no such thing any more. Give me the good old days where all the gossip was in the Society Pages, not in my computer history. Anyone who has any online presence at all is Out There. Own a house? A car? Telephone complete with robo calls? Driver’s license? Face book? Pay taxes? Did you sign up for the draft? Social Security number? Credit card? Married? Divorced? Have children? School of any kind; you or them? I could make a list as long as my arm of places you can be found. The whole issue is about telling you after the fact. The knee jerk of outrage is over blown. So they lied. Anyone who has been alive long enough to be called an adult should know it happens all the time in the real world. Don’t participate if you are that mad. Go way and sulk in silence. The rest of us are aware of the issue. I wonder how many people who have taken a test even know what all the bru-ha-ha is about. Or care. Who reads the fine print before they check the box? What is the point of repeating this “problem” every day by every blogger? Keeps it alive for more “discussion”. I’m tired of reading about it. From now on, Delete is my friend.
I suspect you have just proved my point better than anything I could have said.
Judy, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wish you would offer this same advice concerning politics.
Hard enough to do this in genealogy. In politics, impossible. Didn’t used to be that way, but it sure is now.
For most people arguing is equivalent to debating. I know you were trying to be clever in using the acronym “DNA”, but I think it would have been a lot clearer to simply state that you won’t accept comments with ad hominem arguments.
Well said, Judy. I have backed out of a few FB groups because of the level of vitriol. I respect those who are happy to have LE usage of data, and respect those who make a different choice. There is no right or wrong. Both are fine – as long as the people who make the choices are informed and consent to it.
So now I’m going back to why I did DNA testing in the first place and working with a new DNA cousin in New Zealand trying to figure out our shared County Sligo ancestors from the early 1800’s.
As usual Judy, you are right on and you have a wonderful way of stating your position.
I have left a few sites because the comments have strayed from the point and gone downhill to nasty, even obscene.
Thank you for saying what really needed to be said.
Thought of you the other day, when on tv, Dr. Phil did an entire pgm on how wonderful that LE are able to find leads to old cases using DNA. He even ended with giving verbal permission to post his DNA so it may be available. There wasn’t a single word about the issues with this. Oh for balanced tv programming!
I agree with the majority, if. not all of your post. There is good and bad on each side of the issue, but we have to look beyond what is just in front of us and consider any and all the ripple effect might have on what ever side one is on, Discretion is always better than going into something blindly or willy nilly. I place it in the camp of treating DNA uploaded to sites the same as if I was writing an article or delivering a visual diagram of DNA matches, the identifies of the matches are withheld from the public, unless they give permission for their identity to be revealed. The psychological and sociology damage of having ones DNA used in situations that one is not expecting could do more harm than good. This effects not just yourself but many others in the family and communities, especially when it is announced that genealogical DNA was used. Not everyone wants the whole world to know that they are related to a serial killer, a child molester, a murder, or a rapist, especially in the times we live in, where social media can have you crucified in a matter of seconds.
I do not have a strong opinion on this topic either way, but the sentiment of this blog is very well written. As others have said, it applies to many parts of genealogy and DNA research. Thank you.