Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 02 March 2021 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF0A3A1126 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJWaT9zng7qe for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f180.google.com (mail-yb1-f180.google.com [209.85.219.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E67C3A112D for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9so22331558ybq.1 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 13:53:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TE6uMvcDyUc5gnM1Q3pPR9eJaXXLgeED5CNqJu6Z200=; b=RurEeTnyWCO0p2Xvi2N628HFJjt0gcsZ7eWL6VWWewBweKenmJV1qmCno8Oearhnb0 QLToV05X0WgYAycFQEo9HX3SKj1aGZl7M57j6dpjzj5vwMNcCwZbWFdSb1XWJNP2c4d/ yXvp+uwk64zxgl5dPD9KEVZ1qUFGm8WLEzcUAvAJfxvYG3/idm1P6dSaG+ftZbHKtws0 BOd2V9Ea45db3vE14Q2dB4xAHzYVGSEGvR6hqr10+MbF235j/sqnVNQePPAo5fYph7+9 4BumL+c3J1BvMlFhQEVjdYwP4Ki5pvOgjnEnGOcnAByiOQ5EAt3uzwzId9Mmr3j8jD3Y IZzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530y36SFLlmk2i7qQzTmrlsmFmLFvr/3OesumGZYna7Llkp0Meah zowN11Sgn/8YZ8MzXjizjDGCSibQzsXGrPaM/8iigwc6p6aM8g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyM0Qvy0/qmPWoVtNLfW26gk74YiF7zTaJSV6zA4EZ3mJk8HIv3XU0bEP2D358kKFr2mOpAlIoDIcD3oqkdFA4=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa6d:: with SMTP id s100mr36773408ybi.523.1614722026497; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 13:53:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <AM0PR08MB37168C83CF19A3CDFEF15FD8FA809@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <1fdfebbf-58ab-0f18-da53-ec06d9953c5f@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6-AGMzgeyzxRHyGCtgSMWxQt+hh-mDn49XAYT7NbC0dg@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR08MB37163BD6FC65DBF03D1ABC05FA9F9@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <1384196287.69381.1614159584429@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <da40aafd-105e-e9f8-977e-11c880ff9cd1@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB0573CCBC5E8408F184DE110FC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <DM6PR02MB692403DEE25C3ACD21854A7BC39E9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAMm+LwhPKXfXPDWnYROjpndLwi-7KNTNkUxpeDAwv-cLVNKm9g@mail.gmail.com> <aae1f908-531b-d166-f79a-7e9f37fb2232@gont.com.ar> <5fec09e1-38d8-9e46-4d27-f10f28ac4db2@lounge.org> <c5293efb-d7b8-9541-15bc-1df30dd2b262@network-heretics.com> <716b6e9a-bdd2-d864-8931-cdd67cb3d182@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <716b6e9a-bdd2-d864-8931-cdd67cb3d182@huitema.net>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:53:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhqA7sqfF27fxOj7khyQcF8WSzKQ5obvWqnoANxyefUMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cce8c405bc94c40d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/V9gQGgSgscQ59ibqOj42PKdBGd8>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 21:53:49 -0000

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:37 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

> On 3/2/2021 11:31 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On 3/2/21 6:33 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>   This is why it is important to set the record straight on this bit of
> folklore. There is really no racist baggage associated with the OK gesture
> but now people feel empowered to selectively condemn people who use it. It
> has become a weapon to attack opponents.
>
>
> I think the lesson for IETF and TERM there is "be very cautious about
> creating new weapons that can be used to attack opponents".   Because
> people can and will use such weapons for purely political ends, e.g. to
> demonize the people who are promoting ideas that the attackers believe will
> harm their interests.   It's often easier to attack people personally than
> to attack their technical contributions, and we want to be very careful
> about legitimizing such attacks.
>
> It could be say that demonizing the OK gesture is an attack on veterans.
> In the French air force, that gesture was part of the standard ground
> check. So much noise that you can't speak, so the mechanics used it to
> signal all clear. I suppose the same was true in other NATO countries. As a
> consequence, it was widely used in regular communication between service
> members to signal that things were fine. I sometime find myself doing it
> out of habit, and I suppose others do too.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>

The issue is not the fact that it is a legitimate gesture with a widespread
legitimate use. What creates an issue is that a particular group of people
decided to subvert that meaning.

And no, I do not accept Dan's interpretation of events here. If you have a
group of swaggering bullies discussing ways to 'own the libs' who come up
with the idea of 'pretending' that a certain sign has a racist
interpretation, the outcome is that other groups of people with swastikas
are going to end up using that sign with precisely that racist meaning.

There is a phrase 'whistling Dixie'. Dan Emmett's lyrics aren't explicitly
racist but the context in which they were presented is the runaway slave
pining for his former bondage. It is an anti-abolitionist song. And
'whistling Dixie' means making a coded racist reference whose meaning can
be denied by the swaggering bully who knows full well that it is not being
missed.

Implausible deniability is a real thing.